Quantitative Community Management
summary
Opt-in surveys prove massively biased: the 2001 FLOSS study reports 1.1% women, git-based Linux counts are precise and show many projects have median contributors = 1, and a Wikipedia opt-in produced implausible language and gender shifts until Pew phone data plus a logistic propensity model corrects them. Behavioral experiments matter: a women’s summer outreach program and railsbridge 2%→18% dramatically boost applicants, barnstar randomized tests give mixed retention effects, and dashboards/Trello workflows track newcomers though long-term retention remains uncertain.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (7)
- 0:00Start
- 0:55Positive Community Management
- 3:34The Floss Survey
- 4:44Demographic Data
- 7:13What Is the Median Number of Contributors to an Open Source Project
- 13:15Survey of Wikipedia Contributors
- 42:04The Ability Developer Advisory Team
related talks
23mEquity and inclusion as a way of developing diverse, resilient, and more relevant OSS
25mThis is bigger than us: Building a future for Open Source
39mState of diversity in open source communities
40mData Doesn't Lie: How to Influence Open Source Programming Through..
23mKeeping Your Open Source Project Accessible to All
22mCreative Approaches To Diversity
40mOpen Source Community Building
30mTokenism in Open Source: Diversity or Decoration?