event

LinuxCon EU 2016

LinuxCon EU 2016  took place from Oct 4-6 in Berlin, Germany. LinuxCon is one of the biggest FOSS conference where developers, sys admins, architects and all levels of technical talent gather together under one roof for three days. Since I am currently living in Berlin, there was no way I could miss this conference – even though the tickets for attending the full conference were around 1000 euros and way out of my league as a student researcher. Thankfully, I was awarded the Minority scholarship by Linux Foundation to attend the conference (including the talks and workshops) – and also the Women in Open Source Lunch and some other evening events ! I was also a part of the Fedora ‘crew’ at LinuxCon and helping out with Fedora Booth !

Fedora at LinuxCon

fedora-crew-linuxcon

Our Fedora booth ‘crew’ consisted mainly of three members – JiriZach and me. Jiri and Zach are Fedora Ambassadors for EMEA region. But we were not the only booth with some Fedora content. Red Hat had a booth on the other side of the room. People could see Fedora and meet Fedora contributors there too. We were also joined by RedHat ‘gang’ involved in Fedora sometimes – mostly Adam (who currently works on Fedora Modularity, but is one of the lead developers and designers of the awesome Fedora Developer Portal) and also Brain Exelbird (Bex)  – the Fedora Community Action and Impact Co-ordinator (yes, it’s F-CAIC or F-CAKE depending on how much you like desserts 😛 ) . You can know more about the Fedora impact at LinuxCon + ContainerCon EU 2016 by reading Jiri’s report on LinuxCon EU 2016 on Fedora Community Blog here.

Impact of LinuxCon on Fedora

While we were able to create a special Fedora badge for LinuxCon EU attendees to gauge the impact of the event, out of the 16 times it was awarded , there was only one new contributor ganto and Jiri has talked about the reasons why this happened in his post on Fedora Community Blog.

That being said, there were many people interested in using and/or contributing to Fedora and we were able to point them in the right direction. If you are reading this post and are interested in contributing to Fedora Project but don’t know how to start ? or are confused about which team to join ? – check out Fedora website to help new contributors. If you still have any queries, you can contact one of us (or definitely me).

There were a few common troublepoints for us at the Fedora booth at LinuxCon –

  • There were quite a few people who felt the Fedora logo looked similar to Facebook.
  • Some people couldn’t understand that it was Fedora booth as the Fedora logo was at the bottom of the banners. (I think some people were hesitant in approaching the booth because of this too)
  • People were interested in installing Fedora but couldn’t take the workstation DVDs as their computers had no CD drives. I am not sure how many of those actually went home and downloaded Fedora.
  • Many were doubtful as why Fedora had a  booth separate from RedHat ? (Fedora booth was organized by the community and not Red Hat) and if so, why was it so away ? (Fedora and RedHat booths were at opposite ends of the hall. )

All of us had discussions during LinuxCon about how to improve visibility of Fedora at such events and quite a few interesting points came up including creating swag for interested contributors. Adam even worked on a design for a new Fedora banner with increased visibility. There were also quite a few technical discussions about ongoing developments in Fedora OS, modularity in Fedora and how we were working on it and so on. We also discussed amongst ourselves about different issues affecting Fedora Community including diversity and inclusion in Fedora community.

We ended the conference by going out for dinner at an Indian restaurant with Red Hat ‘gang’ where I ended up having ‘Vindaloo’ for the first time – even though I am an Indian ! 😛

My Takeaways as a Fedora contributor

On a personal note, I feel that conferences are not only a great way to help onboard new users and/or contributors but also a great learning opportunity for existing contributors about different parts of the project, meeting different community members, raising questions about a variety of issues related to the project, learning why some things are taking place in a certain way and sometimes even having a suggestion or idea which could potentially impact the system for better. In case of projects like Fedora where most of the contributions are virtual, it definitely ‘humanizes’ the project i.e. for me, I have began to understand that barriers for entry in FOSS are not unnecessarily high and I don’t have to be an expert in the area I contribute or I don’t need to have loads of free time – all I need is an avid interest and the rest will be taken care of !

LinuxCon EU talks and events

30077856536_c5a7c658ac_c

I didn’t know anything about containers before attending LinuxCon + ContainerCon but after attending some elementary talks on containers, I can definitely say I know the basics and can deploy a kubernetes module 😛

Apart from container-related talks, some other talks I found pretty interesting were

‘Gender-diversity analysis of technical contributions’ by dizquierdo from Bitergia.  The talk combined my two interests – metrics and diversity and really helps make sense of the diversity issue in FOSS by supporting it with numbers. I wanted to meet Daniel after the talk to discuss about the diversity metrics, the work Bitergia is doing and it’s similarity with my work involving community metrics in Fedora (on contributor engagement, impact of attending events on contributors and community, improving contributor retention rates and diversity related metrics) but somehow between being at Fedora booth and attending talks, I could never find him. So @dizquierdo, if you read this – however unlikely that is, I am a fan of Bitergia and would love to discuss more about metrics Bitergia compiles and analyses 🙂 (Slides for the talk are here )
The talk on ‘FOSS Involvement of Google’ was also very interesting. I always knew Google had some Open Source projects and even used them but never knew that Google actually contributed to LinuxKernel.  (Slides for the talk are here)
Other talks which I found interesting were ‘Outreachy Linux Kernel Internship Report’ by Julia Lawall and other past Outreachy interns, ‘Corporate Trends in Open Source Engagement’ by Nithya Ruff, ‘IF YOU BUILD IT,THEY WON’T COME’  about non-technical aspects of FOSS projects by Ruth Suehle, ‘Graphite@Scale:How to store million metrics per second’ by Vladimir Smirnov of Booking.com . I couldn’t attend all of these talks but the slides were informative and I hope the videos are uploaded soon.
You can find the slides for all talks here.

Networking is tough ! Or maybe, it’s all about curiousity

index

As with all conferences, LinuxCon is a great opportunity for networking. However, I am a dummy at ‘networking’ since I recently graduated from my college in India where networking was not in anybody’s vocabulary. While I did visit booths, collected swag, talked about job opportunities – I wasn’t able to forge any contacts. We had a networking event in evening at Charlottenberg Palace and I remember everybody talking and laughing with glasses of wine and me wondering about the right question to start a conversation. While I did manage to talk with different people by the end of the evening, I realised I forged contacts when I was actually interested and curious about the product and wasn’t just asking someone for jobs. I was able to talk to people working in different FOSS organizations, know about their experiences and the products they were working on, how they used data analytics and Machine Learning – and sometimes walk away with job opportunities – all because I was curious and interested in their organization, and not just looking for a job ! It was tougher to initiate personal contact at booths though since booths had multiple people at times and personal contacts were hard to make. However, I was able to learn a lot about the ongoing projects at organizations, the opportunities and work environment at the booths. I was especially fascinated by a Unity game made by a Business Administration intern at HP during his summer internship – it just shows the diversity of opportunities you have at such workplaces. I also took part in some raffle contents, but never won anything! (Zach won a game though – like Legos, but not as interesting – is all I could understand about it 😛 )

Research Opportunities and Scholarships

Since I am interested in pursuing a PhD, I was interested in exploring research collaborations with FOSS projects and organizations – via a research project with mentor in the organization, collecting data from the organization, scholarships or support for FOSS related research work or joint PhD programs with research institution and the FOSS organization but couldn’t find much opportunities in this area. Afaik, Red Hat Brno sometimes has students working for thesis with them but it is generally OS-development related and not for data analytics. Ping me, if you know something !

Marketing

Sponsors for conferences at LinuxCon spend a lot of money for the booths, the swag and goodies at the booth (giving away T-Shirts at booths was common and some even had USBs and power banks), and many more including the expenses of the employees who represent the organization at the event. The expenses are huge, but do organizations get returns for what they spent ? The rational answer is that they do, otherwise why else would they come back ? But isn’t there a better of evaluating the impact at these events ? Bex and I had a long discussion about the different costs a organization like Red Hat incurs for being a part of LinuxCon but I would love to know more about how they measure the impact they have at a particular event.

Women in Open Source

Diversity and Inclusion in FOSS is one of the topics very close to my heart and I was extremely excited to be given an opportunity to be a part of the Women in Open Source Lunch at LinuxCon. Since I am also a part of Diversity Team at Fedora and involved with FOSSWave (an outreach initiative for new FOSS contributors in India), I felt this would be a great learning opportunity where I could apply the learnings directly towards the benefit of the FOSS community.

Lunch and Discussion, Meeting Role models

cube5svvmaakbii-jpglarge

Over lunch, girls and women from different phases of their career and involved with different FOSS projects discussed about different issues related to diversity and inclusion in FOSS communities. The 50 or so group of women were divided around 8-10 tables with each table discussing a particular issue(question). At the end of the lunch, a moderator from each table spoke in brief about the ideas or solutions they had come up regarding the issue.The questions we discussed ranged from ‘What diversity or inclusivity programs do you see working and how can FOSS communities adopt those ? Programs from software, propreitery companies, FOSS companies etc‘(which was my table), ‘How can women support other women in community?‘ to ‘What does safety mean in online communities? What can we do to ensure communities are safe ?

I found the format especially helpful and efficient when conducting such a diversity related panel/QA session at conferences. I have compiled a list of the topics we discussed and the solutions other women came up with here which you can edit with your own comments on the issue.

My key takeaways from the discussion were :

  1. Start young – start breaking down the stereotypes in high school. The root of the problem starts in high schools and it is easier to tackle at the earliest stage. Also, when doing this , involve not just students but also parents and teachers as they make up the environment and community which shapes the individuals perceptions !
  2. Start small ! Speak up! – If you see something wrong – don’t ignore or let it slide even if it is not technically harmful. Small disruptions lead to big changes. Share your success stories, mentor someone from your community – every small bit counts.
  3. Provide role models and mentors – Many succesful programs involve mentorship. Helps ease the transition and feels good to have a support system and know people who have done it, you don’t feel alone.
  4. We need a dedicated and active support channel for diversity and inclusion related issues across projects and communities.

During the lunch, I was also able to meet a lot of my role models from FOSS communites and learnt about the experiences of some awesome women in Open Source like Nithya Ruff of Western Digital, Julia Lawall of Linux Kernal and many past Outreachy interns as well as FOSS contributors.

Along with the awesome lunch, goodies by Sandisk (I desperately needed a pen drive, thank you!) and beautiful birds-eye view of Berlin from 13th floor of the hotel, the event also had some fun activities like raffle in the end – and surprisingly, I got lucky and won a Berlin Bear ! Yaay !

Diversity Survey, Talking to different organizations and people

There are multiple ongoing efforts across different FOSS projects and organizations to improve diversity and promote workplace inclusion for minority groups in their respective communities. However, these efforts are not consolidated and do not look towards analyzing the impact of those strategies – about what is working and what isn’t ! With this in mind, I have started a  Diversity and Inclusion study (more details here) to get an overview of diversity and inclusion practices across different FOSS projects, communities or organizations and learn from their success and failures too and share it with other FOSS organizations and projects so that the same mistakes don’t get repeated again and again ! The study is still in it’s nascent stage and I am working on the shortcomings to better develop the study however, I talked to different people and organizations(representatives at Booths) to learn about their experiences and/or how their organization is working towards this. I learnt quite a few interesting things and if you would love to be a part of this study, please ping me so we can discuss more.

To sum it up, LinuxCon was an awesome learning experience, full of fun – I wish I could have attended more talks and talked to more people(especially those from Bitergia and Fitbit) – but I gained knowledge about a lot of new stuff like Containers, learnt about new FOSS projects and organizations, helped onboard some new contributors to Fedora and brainstormed about some community issues, gained a fresh perspective on diversity and inclusion in FOSS – all while collecting some awesome swag and a Berlin bear along the way !

Advertisements

Software Freedom Kosova 2016

Software Freedom Kosova (SFK) 2016 took place in Prishtina from October 21-23, 2016. We were able to push a special Fedora badge for SFK  to be awarded to SFK attendees who vist the Fedora booth. The badge was awarded 14 times out of which 12 were existing contributors while 2 new contributors were onboarded at the event ! Yaay – we look forward to seeing you in the community nafieshehu and marianab.

I was supposed to be speaking on ‘What is Machine Learning and how FOSS Organizations use it?’ at SFK. However, there were problems with my visa and Easyjet crew wouldn’t let me board my flight to Prishtina. The SFK organizers (most of them contributors from FLOSSK) were really understanding and helpful. I was able to finally conduct my talk remotely. I am especially thankful to Jona Azizaj and Ardian Haxha .

The talk was about –

  • What is Machine Learning ? and it’s applications.
  • Basic Machine Learning Algorithms with examples
  • Case Studies of FOSS organizations : How do FOSS organizations like Fedora, Wikimedia, Mozilla use Machine Learning ?
  • Interested in Machine Learning ? Resources

You can find the preliminary version of slides for the talk here

The talk aimed at introducing Machine Learning to the audience and I would love to interact with anyone interested in knowing more about learning Machine Learning or contributing to FOSS organizations in this area.

Jona and I were also going to conduct a workshop on Introduction to Non Technical Contributions in Free and Open Source Software. It is a common misconception that you need to know programming to contribute to FLOSS organizations and that contributors only work on technical tasks. This workshop aimed to bust this myths by introducing participants to non coding tasks in FLOSS organizations and mainly Fedora. We (Jona and I) were going to talk about diverse non technical contribution opportunities in FOSS by taking example of Fedora like Marketing, Translation, Design, Writing articles for Fedora Magazine or contributing to Community Operations. Jona went on to conduct the workshop with other Fedora contributors at SFK like Giannis K. , Anxhela H, Elio Qoshi and others.

The slides for the workshop are here. You can view it better after you download it.

Even though I couldn’t attend SFK, I could feel it to be a huge success all the way to Berlin !

I hope to learn from the presentations of the talks I wanted to but couldn’t attend – especially ‘Hacking the tenders data: the quest for public spending patterns’ by Victor Netu and ‘Using Open Source Technology for Social Change’ by Blinera Merta. I also planned to visit FLOSSK , Prishtina Hackerspace and Girls Coding Kosova – which are some awesome FOSS communities in Prishtina and learn about their ongoing projects, their journey (Prishtina Hackerspace was founded by crowdsourcing the funds!) and hoped to apply those learnings in India – but better luck next time (maybe during next SFK).

Shihemi se shpejti, Prishtina !

 

 

Fedora at FOSDEM

* Introduction blatantly copied from mattdm’s Five Things in Fedora This week post in Magazine .

” Fedora spends quite a bit of energy, time, money, and other resources on Fedora’s presence at conferences. But, it’s unclear how much this actually matters — does it bring in new Fedora users?  What about contributors?  Well, over on the CommOps team, contributor Bee Padalkar set out to figure out. As I discussed in my State of Fedora talk at Devconf.cz, a lot of the activity in Fedora infrastructure generates messages on fedmsg — it’s like Twitter for all of our systems talking to each other, rather than for humans.

Bee starts by looking at attendees who got the FOSDEM 2016 Badge at the Fedora booth there, and then observing their activity after the conference. Accounts which start at the conference and then become ongoing, active contributors = measurable conference success. Read about this on the CommOps list, and stay tuned for more analysis of other conferences, and of course my favorite — pretty graphs.*  ” — mattdm

This article tries to measure the impact of FOSDEM – especially in terms of newcomer onboarding and contributor retention in Fedora. I start by looking at the attendees who claimed the FOSDEM Badge[1][2] [3] at the Fedora Booth.

FOSDEM Participation

Number of Fedora Contributors who attended FOSDEM 2016 : 76 out of which 19 were newcomers onboarded during the event.

Number of Fedora Contributors who attended FOSDEM 2015 : 52 – unfortunately, no newcomers were onboarded during FOSDEM 2015.

Number of Fedora Contributors who attended FOSDEM 2014 : 52 out of which 9 were newcomers onboarded during the event.

1

 

The number of past FOSDEM attendees coming back to attend FOSDEM is also interesting.

In FOSDEM 2015, 19 attendees out of 52 had previously attended FOSDEM (from FOSDEM 2014). In 2016, 21 contributors from FOSDEM 2015 attended FOSDEM 2016. Overall in 2016, 28 contributors out of 76 had attended FOSDEM in the past. There are 10 Fedora contributors who are regular FOSDEM attendees – 2014,2015,2016 . We can obviously see that the popularity of FOSDEM has increased amongst Fedora contributors – especially those who have attended the event in past. Also, number of newcomers onboarded in FOSDEM 2016 was significantly greater than previous years – about one third of existing contributors who attended FOSDEM 2016 !

3

Contribution Activity

Contribution Activity during FOSDEM

FOSDEM 2014

Highest fedmsg Activity by Fedora contributor during event : 698 messages (gnokii)

Lowest fedmsg Activity by Fedora contributor during event : 0 messages (2 contributors)

Mean fedmsg Activity by Fedora contributor during event : 25 messages

Median fedmsg Activity by Fedora contributor during event : 5 messages

Mean fedmsg Activity by newcomer during event : 7 messages

Median fedmsg Activity by newcomer during event : 8 messages

FOSDEM 2015

Highest fedmsg Activity by Fedora contributor during event : 6219 messages (pbrobinson)

Lowest fedmsg Activity by Fedora contributor during event : 0 messages (17 contributors)

Mean fedmsg Activity by Fedora contributor during event : 125 messages

Median fedmsg Activity by Fedora contributor during event : 2 messages

(No newcomers were onboarded during FOSDEM 2015)

FOSDEM 2016

Highest fedmsg Activity by Fedora contributor during event : 6968 messages (pbrobinson )

Lowest fedmsg Activity by Fedora contributor during event : 0 messages (5 contributors)

Mean fedmsg Activity by Fedora contributor during event : 99 messages

Median fedmsg Activity by Fedora contributor during event : 5 messages

Mean fedmsg Activity by newcomer during event : 13 messages

Median fedmsg Activity by newcomer during event : 12 messages

The median is a more representative measure for measuring overall activity of existing Fedora contributors during FOSDEM as it is not affected by extreme values in data. The high number of fedmsgs generated by pbrobinson during FOSDEM 2015 and 2016 had led to an increase in the overall mean , while the median remains almost the same. Overall, FOSDEM 2014 and 2016 show higher activity than FOSDEM 2015.

It is interesting to note that

  • Every Fedora newcomer has had some contribution activity during FOSDEM apart from just claiming the FOSDEM badge (unlike existing contributors).
  • The median fedmsg activity of newcomers during FOSDEM has been higher than that of of existing Fedora contributors during FOSDEM .
  • Existing Fedora contributors have a vast difference between their mean and median activities during FOSDEM suggesting highly unequal distribution of contribution activity during the event. This is unlike the case of newcomers who have very similar mean and median values i.e. overall similar contribution activity during their initial onboarding.

As we can see till now ,  FOSDEM 2016 has been a success for Fedora in terms of participation , newcomer onboarding as well as contributions during the event.

 

Post FOSDEM Contribution Activity

I measured the contribution activity of FOSDEM attendees over short term i.e. one month as well as long term i.e. one year pre and post the event to understand how the conference has impacted their work .

Apart from generating visualizations for comparing the pre event and post event activity(both short term and long term), I also tried to classify contributors according to their pre and post event activity to quantify any increase/decrease in their contribution pattern. For this , contributors was divided into different categories based on their fedmsg activity i.e. 1. low activity contributors (<10 contributions in a month or < 100 in a year) , 2. moderately active contributors(10 -100 contributions in a month or 100 – 1000 in a year) , highly active contributors(100 – 500 contributions in a month or 1000 – 5000 in a year ) , super *awesome* ninja contributors (> 500 contributions in a month or >5000 contributions in a year). I looked for ‘jumps’ by contributors from one activity group to another.

Other than that, I also tried to find correlations in contribution activity to answer the following questions :

  • Consistency of Contributions : How correlated is the short term activity and long term activity of a contributor ?
  • Correlation of contribution Activity during the event to future behavior
  • Impact of Event on Activity : Correlation between pre and post event activity

To understand this, I used Pearson correlation coefficient and p-value as a measure.

The Pearson correlation coefficient measures the linear relationship between two datasets. Like other correlation coefficients, this one varies between -1 and +1 with 0 implying no correlation. Correlations of -1 or +1 imply an exact linear relationship. Positive correlations imply that as x increases, so does y. Negative correlations imply that as x increases, y decreases.

The p-value roughly indicates the probability of an uncorrelated system producing datasets that have a Pearson correlation at least as extreme as the one computed from these datasets.

FOSDEM 2014

Short Term Contribution Activity of FOSDEM 2014 attendees

Find the datagrepper charts link here . The timeline is from one month before the event till one month after the event. Notably, the middle of the timeline shows a peak denoting FOSDEM.

ShortFOSDEM2014

 

Long Term Contribution Activity of FOSDEM 2014 attendees

The timeline is from one year before the event till one year after the event. Hence, the middle of the timeline or 12 months from the start denotes FOSDEM 2014 .

LongTermFOSDEM2014L

While the activity just after FOSDEM seems to have decreased, a huge amount of activity seems to have been generated starting from five months after the event. However, it needs to be investigated further if this is due to impact of FOSDEM or due to any infrastructure or other changes perhaps.

Activity of Newcomers Onboarded from FOSDEM 2014

9 Newcomers were onboarded during FOSDEM 2014.

Find the datagrepper charts link here. The timeline is from the ending of FOSDEM till one year afterwards. It is important to note that out of 9 newcomers onboarded during FOSDEM 2014 only one continued contributing post the event. This graph hence denotes activity of only one newcomer. It is also important to note the scale of fedmsg activity here – the messages are too less(<15) over the year though there has been an immediate surge in activity post FOSDEM.

NewcomersFOSDEM2014

Patterns in User activity for FOSDEM 2014

Consistency of Contributions : How correlated is the short term activity and long term activity of a contributor ?

Correlation between short term activity and long term activity (pre FOSDEM activity) :  0.29194433524400315            P value : 0.035724116013432963

Correlation between short term activity and long term activity (post FOSDEM activity) : 0.21466778695361466           P value :  0.12645318597081681

Correlation of contribution Activity during the event to future behavior

Correlation between event activity and Short Term Activity Post event : 0.21503645664240145        P value : 0.12578747089809081
Correlation between event activity and Long Term Activity Post event : -0.03127131151557708        P value :  0.82581453809443239

Impact of Event on Activity : Correlation between pre and post event activity

Correlation between pre and post event Short Term Activity : 0.84370827747699251        P value :  4.0876708021516965e-15
Correlation between pre and post event Long Term Activity : 0.054556575463531362      P value :  0.70087773348995186

 

The correlation coefficient values for activity of FOSDEM 2014 contributors are too low and hence, inconclusive except for the correlation between pre and post event Short Term Activity. Short term activity before and after FOSDEM for contributors is highly correlated and also has a very small p-value. I do not derive conclusions from these values as they may have been affected due to huge amount of activity generated five months from FOSDEM 2014 which can be due to infra changes.

Activity wise Contributor Classification of FOSDEM 2014 attendees

 Short Term Activity

JumpShortFOSDEM2014

Out of 52 contributors who attended FOSDEM 2014, 10 contributors had an increase in their activity immediately after FOSDEM and jumped ‘up’ i.e. from lower activity groups before FOSDEM to higher activity groups after FOSDEM while 7 contributors had a decrease in activity immediately after FOSDEM and jumped ‘down’ i.e. classified into a lower activity region.

 Long Term Activity

JumpLongFOSDEM2014

Out of 52 contributors who attended FOSDEM 2014, 18 contributors had an increase in their long term activity after FOSDEM and jumped ‘up’ i.e. from lower activity groups before FOSDEM to higher activity groups after FOSDEM while 3 contributors had a decrease in their long term activity after FOSDEM and jumped ‘down’ i.e. classified into a lower activity region.

Overall, in both short term and long term , number of contributors who had an increase in their level of contribution activity were higher than those who had a decrease.

It is also interesting to note that :

  1. Only one out of nine newcomers on boarded continued contributing after the event and had low activity (<15 messages in year)
  2. Out of existing contributors who attended FOSDEM many seemed to have had an ‘significant’ increase in their long term contribution activity and have even jumped from lower activity levels to extremely high contribution level (>5000 messages in one year )
  3. In long term post FOSDEM , number of contributors in extremely high activity level (>5000 messages in one year ) is same as those in any other level and contributors are equally distributed within levels while prior to FOSDEM, it was skewed it majority of contributors in medium activity range and very less contributors in high activity range.

FOSDEM 2015

Short Term Contribution Activity of FOSDEM 2015 attendees

Find the datagrepper charts link here . The timeline is from one month before the event till one month after the event. The middle of the timeline denotes FOSDEM. While there is a decrease in activity of FOSDEM 2015 attendees during FOSDEM itself, their contribution activity has increased a lot immediately after FOSDEM as compared to just before the event.

FOSDEM2015ShortActivity.png

Long Term Contribution Activity of FOSDEM 2015 attendees

The timeline is from one year before the event till one year after the event. Hence, the middle of the timeline or 12 months from the start denotes FOSDEM 2015 .

LongTermFOSDEM2015

There has been a slow increase in overall activity of FOSDEM 2015 attendees over long term.

Activity of Newcomers Onboarded from FOSDEM 2015

No Newcomers were onboarded during FOSDEM 2015 😦

Patterns in User activity for FOSDEM 2015

Consistency of Contributions : How correlated is the short term activity and long term activity of a contributor ?

Correlation between short term activity and long term activity (pre FOSDEM activity) : 0.99976042499094453     P value : 1.1504582302433539e-84

Correlation between short term activity and long term activity (post FOSDEM activity) : 0.99579135469119795    P value : 1.4403938083159664e-53

  • Short term and Long term activity of a contributor are highly positively correlated i.e. same behavior overall (high contribution in short term implies high contribution in long term)
  • We can see relatively less correlation in post FOSDEM activity i.e. jumps in activity levels of some contributors

Correlation of contribution Activity during the event to future behavior

Correlation between event activity and Short Term Activity Post event : 0.9929294720489632      P value : 5.9819168066219279e-48
Correlation between event activity and Long Term Activity Post event : 0.99952299446342929    P value :  3.441347571962578e-77

  • contributions during the event and after the event are very highly positively correlated i.e. more the contribution during FOSDEM, higher the contribution activity in future
  • Especially high correlation between event contributions and long time activity – High activity contributors tend to contribute highly during FOSDEM too ?

Impact of Event on Activity : Correlation between pre and post event activity

Correlation between pre and post event Short Term Activity : 0.99386844489943016      P value :  1.7160498882448765e-49
Correlation between pre and post event Long Term Activity : 0.999993249375565      P value : 2.0398511232841224e-123

  • Long term activity is very highly correlated as compared to short term activity – More impact of FOSDEM in short term as compared to long term ? but long term activity had more jumps between activity levels

 

Activity wise Contributor Classification of FOSDEM 2015 attendees

Short Term Activity

JumpShortFOSDEM2015

Out of 52 contributors who attended FOSDEM 2014, 8 contributors had an increase in their activity immediately after FOSDEM and jumped ‘up’ i.e. from lower activity groups before FOSDEM to higher activity groups after FOSDEM while 7 contributors had a decrease in activity immediately after FOSDEM and jumped ‘down’ i.e. classified into a lower activity region.

Long Term Activity

JumpLongFOSDEM2015

Out of 52 contributors who attended FOSDEM 2014, 12 contributors had an increase in their long term activity after FOSDEM and jumped ‘up’ i.e. from lower activity groups before FOSDEM to higher activity groups after FOSDEM while 4 contributors had a decrease in their long term activity after FOSDEM and jumped ‘down’ i.e. classified into a lower activity region.

Overall, in both short term and long term , number of contributors who had an increase in their level of contribution activity were higher than those who had a decrease.

It is also interesting to note that :

  1. We can see a significant increase in contribution activity over long term rather than just short term(immediate) behavior.
  2. In long term post FOSDEM , number of contributors in extremely high activity level (>5000 messages in one year ) is same as those in any other level and contributors are equally distributed within levels while prior to FOSDEM,there were very less contributors in high activity range.

FOSDEM 2016

Short Term Contribution Activity of FOSDEM 2016 attendees

Find the datagrepper charts link here . The timeline is from one month before the event till one month after the event.The middle of the timeline denotes FOSDEM. While there is a decrease in activity of FOSDEM 2016 attendees during FOSDEM itself, their contribution activity has increased immensely immediately after FOSDEM as compared to just before the event.

ShortFOSDEM2016

Long Term Contribution Activity of FOSDEM 2016 attendees

Just one month since the event hence no long-term analysis for FOSDEM 2016 !

Activity of Newcomers Onboarded from FOSDEM 2016

19 newcomers were onboarded during FOSDEM 2016.

Find the datagrepper charts link here .The timeline is from the ending of FOSDEM till current time(about a month afterwards). It is important to note that out of 19 newcomers onboarded during FOSDEM 2016 everyone has continued contributing post the event. While most have low contribution activity (<10 messages in  a month following onboarding), three newcomers onboarded already have medium contribution activity. There has been a surge in activity about two weeks post FOSDEM but there has been no activity post that !

Needless to say, Newcomer Onboarding from FOSDEM 2016 has been a success ! However, we need more efforts to retain these new contributors.

 

Newcomer2016

Patterns in User activity for FOSDEM 2016

Correlation of contribution Activity during the event to future behavior

Correlation between event activity and Short Term Activity Post event : 0.99996831639782602     P value : 4.3112590423096029e-157

  • Increased correlation in contributions during FOSDEM 2016 and immediately after FOSDEM 2016 as compared to FOSDEM 2015 i.e. Event activity has started to resemble short term contribution behavior more !

Impact of Event on Activity : Correlation between pre and post event activity

Correlation between pre and post event Short Term Activity : 0.9999976975958108      P value :  3.1964456239779497e-199

  • Almost perfect correlation between pre and post event short term activity – Less Impact of FOSDEM 2016 in short term ?

 

Activity wise Contributor Classification of FOSDEM 2015 attendees

Short Term Activity

JumpShortFOSDEM2016

Out of 76 contributors who attended FOSDEM 2014, 19 contributors had an increase in their immediate activity after FOSDEM and jumped ‘up’ i.e. from lower activity groups before FOSDEM to higher activity groups after FOSDEM while 5 contributors had a decrease in their immediate activity after FOSDEM and jumped ‘down’ i.e. classified into a lower activity region.

While there have been greater number of jumps, the difference in their pre and post FOSDEM activities has not been much. Many of these contributors jumping between activity levels were border cases. Also, the jumps have been such that there has been an uneven distribution with more contributors having low to medium contribution activity.

Possible Future Work

  • In which areas do FOSDEM attendees generally contribute ?
  • Understand preferance evolution of contributors ? Has FOSDEM impacted contribution areas of attendees ? Perhaps more diverse contributions post FOSDEM ?