Thanks for sharing the figure. The data seems correlated with the
number of new Debian accounts. See the figure below:
Python Code for this figure:
```
# modified from ChatGPT.
# XXX: members.csv is copy-pasted from https://nm.debian.org/members/
import pandas as pd
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
df = pd.read_csv('members.csv', sep='\t')
df = df[df['Since'] != '(unknown)'] # filter out invalid data
df['Since'] = pd.to_datetime(df['Since'])
df['Year'] = df['Since'].dt.year
account_counts = df['Year'].value_counts().sort_index()
smoothed_counts = account_counts.rolling(window=3).mean()
plt.figure(figsize=(10, 6))
plt.bar(account_counts.index, account_counts.values, color='skyblue')
plt.plot(smoothed_counts.index, smoothed_counts.values, color='orange',
label=f'Smoothed (Window=3)')
plt.xlabel('Year')
plt.ylabel('Number of Accounts Created')
plt.title('Number of Accounts Created Each Year')
plt.legend()
plt.savefig('nm-year.png')
```
* M. Zhou <lumin@debian.org> [2023-12-27 19:00]:
Thanks for the code and the figure. Indeed, the trend is confirmed by
fitting a linear model count ~ year to the new members list. The
coefficient is -1.39 member/year, which is significantly different
from zero (F[1,22] = 11.8, p < 0.01). Even when we take out the data
from year 2001, that could be interpreted as an outlier, the trend is
still siginificant, with a drop of 0.98 member/year (F[1,21] = 8.48, p
< 0.01).
P.S.1: The correct way to do the analysis above is by using a
generalized linear model, with the count data from a Poisson
distribution (or, perhaps, by considering overdispersed data). I will eventually add this to my code in Git.
P.S.2: In your Python code, it is possible to get the data frame
directly from the web page, without copying&pasting. Just replace the
line:
   df = pd.read_csv('members.csv', sep='\t')
by:
   df = pd.read_html("https://nm.debian.org/members/")[0]
I am wondering whether ChatGPT could have figured this out…
[...] my personal experience is that making contributions is like
dropping a message in a bottle into the sea. It feels like a complete crap-shot whether I'll even receive a comment on any code contribution (including debian-devel RFS, salsa MR, or BTS patch).
If there were a single thing that could be done, in my mind it would be
to have someone make sure that contributions do not go entirely ignored.
As someone who would like to participate more in the development of Debian, my personalThere are multiple reasons for that, some common to all of these, some
experience is that making contributions is like dropping a message in a bottle into
the sea. It feels like a complete crap-shot whether I'll even receive a comment on
any code contribution (including debian-devel RFS, salsa MR, or BTS patch).
If there were a single thing that could be done, in my mind it would be to have someoneThere is no polite way to tell that, but also it's not a big problem for
make sure that contributions do not go entirely ignored. Even just telling someone "hey,
none of the stuff you're submitting is really good enough for Debian" would be helpful
because they could either work on improving, or stop trying to contribute.
Maybe, but also salsa MRs being ignored by default was an intentional[...] my personal experience is that making contributions is like
dropping a message in a bottle into the sea. It feels like a complete crap-shot whether I'll even receive a comment on any code contribution (including debian-devel RFS, salsa MR, or BTS patch).
This is also my experience.
A related question I've been pondering: did salsa make this worse for new contributors because some maintainers (seem to) ignore issues/MRs there?
I figure for the many people coming from GH style platforms nowerdays being ignored on salsa would be a major discouragment to contributing.Well, salsa didn't make this worse, it just added something that can be ignored.
You'll still need people to provide feedback.If there were a single thing that could be done, in my mind it would be
to have someone make sure that contributions do not go entirely ignored.
I've been thinking along those lines too. Perhaps we just need an
aggregator that flags mails/comments/other contributions by new people that are being ignored.
"Daniel" == Daniel Gröber <dxld@darkboxed.org> writes:
This is a very simple-minded analysis about the Debian community (lack
of) renewal and project obsolescence:
https://salsa.debian.org/rafael/debian-contrib-years
containing interesting comments made by Sébastien Villemot.
Thanks for the code and the figure. Indeed, the trend is confirmed by fitting a linear model count ~ year to the new members list. The coefficient is -1.39 member/year, which is significantly different from zero (F[1,22] = 11.8, p < 0.01). Even when we take out the data from
year 2001, that could be interpreted as an outlier, the trend is still siginificant, with a drop of 0.98 member/year (F[1,21] = 8.48, p <
0.01).
I thought about to use some models for population statistics, so we can get the data about DD birth rate and DD retire/leave rate, as well as a prediction. But since the descendants of DDs are not naturally new DDs, the typical population models are not likely going to work well. The birth of DD is more likely mutation, sort of.
Anyway, we do not need sophisticated math models to draw the conclusion that Debian is an aging community. And yet, we don't seem to have a good way to reshape the curve using Debian's funds. -- this is one of the key problems behind the data.
https://salsa.debian.org/rafael/debian-contrib-years
First of all, I wish you all a happy 2024.
I have updated my repository at salsa.d.o (URL above), integrating some elements discussed in the present thread, in particular the analysis
proposed by Mo Zhou and the comments made by Steffen Möller.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 489 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 52:31:33 |
Calls: | 9,671 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 13,719 |
Messages: | 6,170,575 |