See https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/New_Developers/Featured_Projects - is this wanted and supported by the Pywikibot maintainers when it comes to quick reviewing of patches?
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/pywikibot/2016-August/009493.html might only be an individual opinion and things might have changed, but it worries me when it comes to patch review of new contributions.
Just a quick note to share: Pywikibot showed up in our list of projects with most new volunteers in the quarterly report https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/New_Developers/Quarterly/2018-01#New_developers_metrics_and_trends.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/pywikibot/2016-August/009493.html is Amir attacking me without naming me, because his patches were not being accepted. It is full of lies. I have stepped away from Pywikibot as a result of that email, except for mentoring GSoC and GCI students.
Obviously, larger patches takes time, but simple patches are really fast.
We will try to list all info needed from that page on some Pywikibot subpage on mediawiki.org, would it be okay?
This is more like past issue now, both participants are not actively working on Pywikibot since then and (although we miss every retired developer) the developer base moved to other people who are continuously working on "making Pywikibot great again".
Based on experience I'd recommend to use the issue tracker itself to create such a list. Having separate lists often means that one list gets outdated.
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/query/zpglFo7OnNYS/#R lists some open good first bug tasks for Pywikibot (not sure if the list of query tags is complete though).