Yeah. It would be interesting to have multiple measures of "productivity" for technical contributors, including code review.

Quim: is this something that's within Technical Collaboration's scope? If not, perhaps it's something that I could work on developing later this year.

Pine

On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Florian Schmidt < [email protected]> wrote:

Hi rupert,

I'm pretty sure http://korma.wmflabs.org/browser/scm.html and other pages of korma will give you some information. But keep in mind, that productivity doesn't only mean the number of commits, or the line of codes :)

Best, Florian

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Wikitech-l [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag von rupert THURNER Gesendet: Samstag, 2. April 2016 21:06 An: Wikimedia developers [email protected] Betreff: [Wikitech-l] productivity of mediawiki developers

hi,

is there a statistics about mediawiki developer productivity? i just fell over a couple of pages and i am quite impressed i must say:

• gabriel, https://github.com/gwicke, 2'300 commits last year
• jeroen, https://github.com/JeroenDeDauw, 3'700 commits a year
• ori, https://github.com/atdt, 1'700
• james, https://github.com/jdforrester, 1'200
• yuri, https://github.com/nyurik, 900
• matt: https://github.com/mattflaschen, 400 commits

rupert

---

Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

---

Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

2016-04-04 17:02 GMT+03:00 Quim Gil [email protected]:

The first question to answer is what information are you looking for when you want to measure developers' "productivity". What would be the motivation of that estimation? What is the motivation behind this thread?

One reason comes to me mind. My gut feeling is that we are not very good at consistently giving recognition for technical work. One possible reason is that we do not have clear and understandable metrics or promote those metrics enough. Nor am I aware of any process for awards and celebration (The Academy Awards would be an example in another context, also Wikipedian of the year).

As an example, I recall vaguely that during the Bugzilla times we used to have regular emails on wikitech-l with list of people who closed most bugs.

Having some metrics for different activities could stir up some healthy competition (also unhealthy if we are not careful) and of course there is a lot of important work that is not visible from the numbers only.

I am not expert on this subject, but I think developers (especially volunteers, but also others) are more likely to stick around if they feel that their work is recognized and appreciated. For the latter we already know that we should improve our code review process.

-Niklas

I, for example, value better good -1 code reviews

Same here. There are statistics for -1 too, two clicks away from the link I provided in the previous message. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Gerrit/Reports/Code_review_activity

Nemo

I personally reserve -2 for "this is a fundamentally bad idea" or "this requires community consensus before being implemented". Anything that is fixable in the code should get a -1 or 0.

Btw, I personally prefer to get -1 reviews over 0 reviews, simply because it's easier to spot them as "todo" on the gerrit dashboard. If gerrit would highlight "stuff with new comments" more prominently, I'd probably use 0 more often.

Am 05.04.2016 um 16:18 schrieb Jon Robson:

I think a review is valuable no matter what the score... with the possible exception of -2 which I fear is probably a bit too aggressive and unnecessary in our ecosystem for which reason the reading web team agreed to avoid the use of -2 except to stop merges in progress that were not ready. I review with score 0 quite a lot for instance.

On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) [email protected] wrote:

...

...

I, for example, value better good -1 code reviews

Same here. There are statistics for -1 too, two clicks away from the link I provided in the previous message. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Gerrit/Reports/Code_review_activity

Nemo

---

Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

---

Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Niklas puts it well. Analogously, in sports like baseball there are lots of statistics about players, coaches, teams, divisions, and leagues. Awards are given based strictly on quantities, as well as more subjectively on qualities for recognitions such as Rookie of the Year and Most Valuable Player.

Wikimedia technical development is a team sport, and that unlike on the content side of Wikipedia where there can be rival views, I think that on technical matters almost everyone collaborates toward compatible goals.

I've been thinking about how to ensure that *quality* is valued alongside *quantity*. We struggle do this balance well in the US health care system when we evaluate hospitals and doctors, and WMF stuggles to do this well when the Community Resources and Evaluation teams evaluate grant proposals and the performance of Wikimedia affiliates. I'm very interested in ideas about how to estimate the quality of contributions (including code review!) as well as the quantity of contributions.

Pine On Apr 4, 2016 08:22, "Niklas Laxström" [email protected] wrote:

2016-04-04 17:02 GMT+03:00 Quim Gil [email protected]:

...

The first question to answer is what information are you looking for when you want to measure developers' "productivity". What would be the motivation of that estimation? What is the motivation behind this thread?

One reason comes to me mind. My gut feeling is that we are not very good at consistently giving recognition for technical work. One possible reason is that we do not have clear and understandable metrics or promote those metrics enough. Nor am I aware of any process for awards and celebration (The Academy Awards would be an example in another context, also Wikipedian of the year).

As an example, I recall vaguely that during the Bugzilla times we used to have regular emails on wikitech-l with list of people who closed most bugs.

Having some metrics for different activities could stir up some healthy competition (also unhealthy if we are not careful) and of course there is a lot of important work that is not visible from the numbers only.

I am not expert on this subject, but I think developers (especially volunteers, but also others) are more likely to stick around if they feel that their work is recognized and appreciated. For the latter we already know that we should improve our code review process.

-Niklas

---

Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l