Last modified: 2014-06-06 21:33:37 UTC
Created attachment 15584 [details] Screenshot of the graph in question I just noticed that under "Are Wikimedia's staff and non-staff contributions processed equally?" the answer is "Review time for open submissions (median)". That's not an answer to the question, because you measure neglected things which are *not* processed. Moreover, the neglected contributions by staff are often part of their volunteer/pet projects coding rather than of their goals (can you imagine a patch for a bug with a deadline rotting for 150 days?); so the hats of their authors means little. The solution is simple: reverse your query, calculate the median time that it took for *merged* patches to be merged.
(In reply to Nemo from comment #0) > The solution is simple: reverse your query, calculate the median time that > it took for *merged* patches to be merged. This is what Metrics Grimoire offered at the beginning, and I guess providing that data is fairly simple. Álvaro, what do you say? However, we want to put our attention first on the work that still needs to be done. You can be pretty fast closing the bugs that matter to you (say median 1,7 days) while absolutely ignoring all the rest. Does this make you a good maintainer? I don't think so. Good maintainers are the ones capable of keeping the house clean. In today's ECT querterly review, Erik pointed out that the current stats include WIP patches. I knew this, but I underestimated the amount of such patches. I will file a bug to discard them.
(In reply to Quim Gil from comment #1) > However, we want to put our attention first on the work that still needs to > be done. You can be pretty fast closing the bugs that matter to you (say > median 1,7 days) while absolutely ignoring all the rest. Does this make you > a good maintainer? I don't think so. Good maintainers are the ones capable > of keeping the house clean. I'm only talking of the graph by affiliation, the graphs by extension I don't know; for the general situation we have three graphs above on open patches. We could have a fourth: what I often look at (because it's easy and IMHO reasonably meaningful) is the *number* of open patches by affiliation. Typically I see something like 70 % merged patches by WMF and 70 % open patches by volunteers.
