Should this task be part of ECT-April-2015 ?

fyi, I was right about this task being a high priority goal for this quarter. ;)

In T94165#1209948, @Qgil wrote:

The main piece of feedback we got from from Lila (not an exact quote):

You need to present top-level KPIs for ECT, for instance the number of developers engaged and contributing code, the number of patches submitted and accepted... this kind of data.

My reply was that yes, we know, this time we have only presented basic numbers about Phabricator usage, but one of the goals for the next quarter is T94578: Most basic Tech Community metrics are published and up to date and it is committed by the end of June, so we plan to present these metrics in the next quarterly review.

In T94165#1212592, @Ironholds wrote:

Fair. I have no idea what the resourcing for this will be, with Erik's departure, I'm afraid :(

Well, it should not be rocket science to agree on a v0.1 of these basic metrics and ask Bitergia to make an estimate. This is what I have requested to @Aklapper, and your help @Ironholds would be welcome. In fact, I think we could get this 0.1v giving us a week to add metrics to the description of this task, and then have a hangout with whoever has been active in this task.

What do you think? Should we start counting now and schedule a hangout for next Thursday 23?

I'd be happy to help, but the 23rd is straight after I (probably? It's...not entirely clear) shift to working for a new team with different priorities and needs and focus, so I have literally no idea what I'll be working on.

@Ironhold, then you could dump your thoughts here before moving to the new team, and we will continue from there. :)

Edited the task description.
Need help to make that list way shorter. I've marked items that don't convince me with a "(?)" prefix.
Please be bold and remove items.

What about mediawiki.org editors?

• New editors (editors reaching their 10th edit on a given month).
• Active editors (editors with 5 edits or more on a given month).
• Very active editors (editors with 100 edits or more on a given month).

These definitions are standard across Wikimedia, and I guess there is a tool somewhere gathering this data.

Probably - @Halfak ?

What about

• Users who contributed a first patch per month.

I think it is an important one, showing how are we doing in terms of outreach.

Then, I think it is important to distinguish in this metric and also in a couple more (see below) between users and changesets related to WMF and WMDE (paid by Wikimedia) and all the rest (volunteers and paid by third parties), because this shows how is the open source project doing beyond Wikimedia's capacity to hire developers.

• Active changeset authors per month
• Changesets submitted per month

I'm actually thinking that these numbers should be used to evaluate how good the Engineering Community team is doing. More new developers, and more contributors & patches without a WMF/WMDE affiliation means a more successful Engineering Community team. If we get less and less of those, then we are doing something wrong. If possible, I would like to show these numbers to our executive team and our community by the end of this quarter.

I was looking at the good summary of metrics at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikimedia_Foundation_Quarterly_Report,_FY_2014-15_Q3_(January-March).pdf&page=3. There is no mention about developers and our technical community in general.

We cannot blame them, because this task is still open. ;) However, which most basic Tech Community Metrics should be listed in that slide every quarter?

And related: which Tech Community Metrics should be featured in every monthly Metrics meeting?

Let's decide, and then I'll talk to Terry, who is driving both the quarter reviews and the metrics meetings.

After a casual conversation with Andre in Lyon, these could the KPIs to be promoted to Lila, Terry, and WMF management in general:

• Active Gerrit users per month
• Changesets submitted per month, ideally identifying those submitted by non-WMF, non-WMDE.
• T97715: Median time to review for Gerrit Changesets, per month, ideally also indentifying those submitted by non-WMF, non-WMDE.

We have to present the slides of the next quarterly review by June 30. This is about 8 working days from now. Just to give some perspective. :)

Related, although at this point this cannot be considered a blocker of this goal: T103292: Check whether it is true that we have lost 40% of (Git) code contributors in the past 12 months

I'm realizing that we haven't identified as a key metric the number of successful code contributors per month (users that got their code merged in Wikimedia hosted repositories). We will have active changeset authors per month (T97717), but maybe it is useful to see compare how many of them actually have an impact on our repositories on a monthly basis? Something to be considered. We have the data anyway (although we need to check how reliable it is), so not that urgent/important.

Hm, now http://korma.wmflabs.org/browser/gerrit_review_queue.html doesn't quite load in my laptop (just some frames and one graph). Can you try, please?

In T94578#1406813, @Qgil wrote:

Hm, now http://korma.wmflabs.org/browser/gerrit_review_queue.html doesn't quite load in my laptop (just some frames and one graph).

Moved to T104176: 404 for VizGrimoireJS/data/metrics.json on korma; makes certain pages unusable