Monday, 2025-09-15

*** gthiemon1e is now known as gthiemonge11:11
gouthamrfungi: how can the TC send some information to the foundation staff? is there a ML? 18:02
gouthamri want to send some stuff that isn't necessarily confidential, but, i don't know if you all are on openstack-discuss, and if you'd need a tag if i used that.. 18:03
clarkbgouthamr: it probably depends on what the subject is. There is a mail alias for summit stuff iirc for example. But also the mailing list has an archive people can review18:10
clarkband then respond to from the web ui if necessary18:10
gouthamrclarkb: was going to follow up on the election stuff once we wrap up in a couple of days18:11
clarkbgouthamr: to ask about the membership renewals?18:12
gouthamryeah, basically start a brainstorm i think based on the final data we'll get from election officials18:13
fungigouthamr: enough of the relevant staff members already subscribe to openstack-discuss, and i'll circulate the archive url for your post to them in case any don't notice it18:14
gouthamrack, that would be neat, ty fungi clarkb 18:14
fungirelated to that, i'm working on the 2025.2/flamingo cycle contributor analysis right now, and can work on comparing percentage membership at the end of last cycle to this cycle as a data point18:17
gouthamrnice18:17
fungithe numbers won't be the same as for the electorate since that's based on two-cycle/one-year date ranges, but since i don't have the raw output that the election officials used last election that's the best i can do18:19
gouthamrwe didn't connect on the data! i have a copy, and so does ianychoi 18:20
fungiokay, cool, i can also just show you how to trivially extract the counts18:22
clarkbfwiw I did think about this a bit too and I think part of the problem is we're approaching the problem backwards. When we have a week to go we're in panic mode trying to get people to sign. Instead there should probably more of a continuous process to explain the benefits of membership to contributors and what the requirements for voting are. I think spotz[m] mentioned that18:22
clarkbsomething like this was done in the past but I don't think we're doing it anymore18:22
gouthamrfungi: ack, let me know18:22
fungiwell, also the memberships expire if people don't vote in foundation board (now governing board) elections, so should reflect mostly-active folks regardless18:23
gouthamrclarkb: yes, that's the idea discussing this now so we can prep for the next round of elections18:23
clarkbya the message probably needs to be something along the lines of "If you contribute to OpenStack and want to have a say in its future direction make sure you are a foundation member, vote in the board elections, and vote in technical elections. Check here to see if you are already a member. DOn't forget to allow civs emails too"18:24
gouthamro.O membership expiry is another wrench in this that i wasn't thinking of.. 18:25
gouthamrclarkb: +118:25
JayFI also suggest in that message indicating that a neutral vote (intentional abstain) is better than completely not voting18:26
JayFbecause at least we get an idea of engagement18:26
clarkband then get that message out regularly18:26
clarkband also accepting that a large number of contributors probably don't care is just reality18:28
fungigouthamr: `grep -c '^[^ ]' _all_owners.yaml` will get you the total count of contributors in the qualifying date range, `grep -c '^  member:' _all_owners.yaml` is the count of contributors who had a matching individual membership, and `grep -c '^  nonmember:' _all_owners.yaml` is the count who had a foundation profile with no membership (so-called "community members" though I'm18:28
fungistill trying hard to get them to change that term)18:28
fungibasic subtraction of the second and third numbers from the first is the contributors with no foundation profile (individual member or otherwise)18:29
funginote that at least two "contributors" without memberships are the proposal bot and release bot, btw18:29
gouthamrfrom the election in March 2025:18:31
gouthamr1) total count of contributors: 64518:31
gouthamr2) foundation "individual" member contributors: 25518:31
gouthamr3) foundation "community" member contributors: 21718:31
gouthamr4) Non member contributors: 17318:31
gouthamrty fungi ^ 18:31
gouthamrJayF: yeah i agree18:32
fungigouthamr: so you'll want to compare those between the first and second elections. in particular the ratio of #2 to #1 is mainly what we're curious about, i think, how that changed from last election to this one18:33
gouthamryes18:33
fungiso in the march election, 40% of contributors were individual members. and i'm wondering if that percentage decreased for this election18:34
fungiif so, it could be related to the reestablishment process18:35
clarkbyou probably also want to compare turnout too. Its possible turnout stays steady while membership decreases.18:35
clarkbbasically the same group of people voting in both elections ebcause they are engaged18:35
gouthamrturnout actually has marginally increased18:35
fungiyes, how many votes are cast is useful, also how many qualified voters didn't opt into e-mail from civs has some impact on that18:36
* gouthamr says that with the provisional data ianychoi shared last week18:36
fungilooking at epoxy vs flamingo contributors, the percentage of members fell from 42% to 32%, though the total number of contributors increased from 450 to 48118:38
fungiit's my first time seeing these numbers, that's a pretty substantial contributor count increase, especially since it's been steadily decreasing cycle over cycle in recent history18:40
gouthamrthat's encouraging18:40
fungidoing a 1:1 mapping of contributors is possible, though a bit of work, but i'm wondering if the bulk of those new contributors aren't foundation members18:41
fungiwell, may not be "new" in an overall sense, but new compared to the prior cycle anyway18:41
fungi(they could also be returning contributors who took a cycle off)18:42
spotz[m]clarkb: I'll make sure to mention it during Zero to Code workshop18:57
fungithere were 196 distinct contributors in epoxy who did not contribute in flamingo, and 227 contributors in flamingo who did not contribute in epoxy. as overall percentages that's 44% of epoxy contributors not contributing in the following cycle and 47% of flamingo contributors that didn't contribute in the prior cycle18:59
fungithough since roughly 40% of the contributors per cycle only had 1 merged change in that period, it's likely we're mostly looking at those who contribute about one change a year there19:03
gouthamrokay, you may have these numbers, but, for this election:19:05
gouthamr1) total count of contributors: 657      (+12)19:05
gouthamr2) foundation "individual" member contributors: 173     (-82)19:05
gouthamr3) foundation "community" member contributors: 321  (+104)19:05
gouthamr4) Non member contributors: 163     (-10) 19:05
gouthamrPercentage of Individual member contributors in March: 39.5%19:05
gouthamrPercentage of Individual member contributors in September: 26.3%19:05
fungithat sounds roughly comparable with what i'm seeing for per-cycle stats19:07
fungi81% of "new" flamingo contributors (those who didn't contribute to the prior cycle) do not have foundation individual memberships19:14
fungiso that's 19% who do, compared with 43% of returning contributors19:16
fungireturning contributors are more than twice as likely to be foundation members19:17
gouthamrwow, so it reinforces our initial thought that new contributors may not know what they need to do19:21
fungiwell, as i said earlier, there's a good chance that a lot of these are longer-term contributors who contribute less than once a cycle, so maybe not really completely new19:22
gouthamri'd expect a small percentage of folks not wanting to worry about sustaining the community etc, but, i for one didn't campaign to new contributors during onboarding to register as individual members19:22
gouthamrfungi: ack19:23
fungiand it also makes sense that people with lower contribution frequency are likely to be less invested in governance details like voting in elections for the foundation or project19:23
gouthamrsuper hard to isolate that lot.. 19:25
fungifrom a demographic collection perspective, foundation profiles of any kind rose from 75% to 78% of contributors, percentage with a declared country held steady at 64%, those listing affiliations increased from 54% to 57% of contributors19:32
fungithe increase in overall profiles may correlate to the increase in affiliations disclosed, improved coverage for org participation stats as a driving factor in getting contributors to create profiles19:34
clarkbis community membership necessary to submit to the summit cfp?19:39
clarkbI wonder if that helsp skew things in the second half of the year19:39
fungiyes19:40
fungiit very well could be a contributing factor19:41
spotz[m]I was going to say you didn't need to but then I remembered you have to log in20:02
opendevreviewMerged openstack/openstack-manuals master: Glossary - add information about 2026.1 Gazpacho release  https://review.opendev.org/c/openstack/openstack-manuals/+/96092220:04
fungispotz[m]: also the speaker profile for the cfp uses it20:06
spotz[m]Yeah so because of those things folks had to join, but if they weren't in place they wouldn't have had to to speak20:06
-opendevstatus- NOTICE: The Gerrit service on review.opendev.org will be offline briefly for a quick patch update, but will return within a few minutes21:09

Generated by irclog2html.py 4.0.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at https://mg.pov.lt/irclog2html/!