Talk:New Developers/Quarterly/2018-01

Handled in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T182037

@AKlapper (WMF) Now is the time, I need emails of newcomers whose contributions landed in Gerrit between September-November, excluding Wikimedia staff members :)

Handled in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T182037 where tasks should go.

There are two that I see:

* Make CirrusSearch / Pywikibot a featured project for new developers

* Do we want to investigate measuring retention of new developers effectively.. include those whose code contribution do not land in Gerrit?

@SSethi (WMF): Can you please share your reasons which make you think of CirrusSearch as a featured project? As I don't see any obvious reasons.

I am reluctant when it comes to Pywikibot as a featured project. Just because some folks contributed their first patch to project X does not automatically imply that code review works particularly well in project X.

"include those whose code contribution do not land in Gerrit?": If you refer to GitHub, I've created phab:T186736 which is blocked on phab:T109939. If you refer to something else, please elaborate.

@AKlapper (WMF) I meant considering CirrusSearch and Pywikibot for our featured projects list as anyway; we want to expand it. Seeing them highlighted in the metrics section, I wonder if there is an interest among new developers to contribute to these projects, then should we consider checking with maintainers if they would be willing to mentor?

For Pywikibot, see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T179775

Well, I do not see CirrusSearch highlighted somewhere...?

@AKlapper (WMF)In "Project with most new volunteers" metric, I see it.

Well, I see many many projects there with one or two contributions. So my question was why you'd pick that one.

@AKlapper (WMF) @Rfarrand (WMF) @Qgil-WMF Between now and end of December is the time we all think about the activities we contributed to individually or in collaboration with others, and add them to the "Timeline" and what we learned from them to the "Key Findings" section of the report. Does this sound like a good idea?

For the second report, we have fewer findings than the previous one, one of the reasons I think is a similar set of observations and activities.

Once we have the stats from Bitergia I would be interested in learning activity of new developers from Wikimedia events and outreach programs, what projects received most contributions, the difference if any in the number of contributors we have drawn between the two quarters, etc. 

@AKlapper (WMF) @Rfarrand (WMF) any key findings from Google Code-in, anything else that we could include in the report? 

I usually struggle to identify "key findings" (if I interpret that term correctly). I collect feedback on organizing GCi in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T181738 and I continuously improve Google Code-in/Admins.

@AKlapper (WMF) @Rfarrand (WMF) @Qgil-WMF

I've shortened the survey, and now it has 11 questions only, earlier there were 21 >

https://login.qualtrics.com/jfe/preview/SV_2cvxpCRm9ejktxz?Q_CHL=preview. Based on the survey analysis for the previous report, I've removed questions which I thought will not be useful keeping track of.

For example age group, participants' professional activities, years of experience contributing software, types of contributions, first project, *one* thing they struggle with, current understanding of Wikimedia code contribution process, learning resources they refer to, etc.

Does the new survey look good? What else can we remove?

Looks definitely better to me. Some headlines are questions ("To which gender identity do you most identify?") while some are not ("Country where you live ")?