Open Stack

The issue with this data is that who says something is not a good metric.
For example, this shows that I attended more than twice as many afternoon
meetings as the morning meetings when I know I actually only missed a
couple of morning ones. I just don't say anything unless there is something
that I feel I need to comment on.

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 12:02 AM, IWAMOTO Toshihiro <iwamoto at valinux.co.jp>
wrote:

> At Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:28:19 -0600,
> Doug Wiegley wrote:
> >
> > I don’t think it ninja merged. It had plenty of reviews, and was open
> during international hours. I don’t have any issue there.
> >
> > I don’t like the crazy early meeting, so I set out to prove it didn’t
> matter:
> >
> > Average attendance before rotating: 20.7 people
> > Average attendance on Monday afternoons (U.S. time): 20.9
> > Average attendance on Tuesday morning (U.S. time): 23.7
> >
> > Stupid data, that’s not what I wanted to see.
> >
> > I haven’t yet correlated people to which meeting time yet, but
> attendance was slightly up during the crazy early hated time, across the
> 1.25 years it was running (started 9/9/14). This is just people saying
> something; lurkers can just read the logs.
> >
> > Data is from eavesdrop meeting logs, if anyone else wants to crunch it.
>
> Overall attendance isn't a great metric.  Actually, the population
> does differ with meeting times.  Those who mostly attend only in one
> of the two timeslots are:
>
> $ python a.py
> Sukhdev 6/23 17/22
> ajo 22/23 4/22
> obondarev 10/23 0/22
> vikram 7/23 0/22
> kevinbenton 9/23 22/22
> ihrachyshka 13/23 1/22
> Swami 0/23 8/22
> (Legend: <irc nick> <attendance at 14UTC> <attendance at 21UTC>)
>
> The script is at bottom just in case if anyone cares. ;)
>
> > Thanks,
> > doug
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 12, 2016, at 4:32 PM, Tony Breeds <tony at bakeyournoodle.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 01:27:30PM +0100, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> > >> Agreed with Gary on behalf of my European compatriots. (Note that I
> > >> *personally* +1’d the patch because I don’t mind, doing late hours
> anyway;
> > >> but it’s sad it was ninja merged without giving any chance for those
> from
> > >> affected timezones to express their concerns).
> > >
> > > So Ninja merged has a negative connotation that I refute.
> > >
> > > I merged it.  It was judgment error, and I apologise for that.
> > >
> > > * I found and read through the list thread.
> > > * Saw only +1's yours included
> > >    - known you'd be affected I used your +1 as a barometer
> > >
> > > My mistake was not noticing your request to leave the review open for
> longer.
> > >
> > > I also noted in my review that reverting it is pretty low cost to back
> it out
> > > if needed.
> > >
> > > I understand that the 'root cause' for this change was the yaml2ical
> issue that
> > > stemmed from having 2 odd week in a row.  We've fixed that [1]. I'm
> also
> > > working a a more human concept of biweekly meeting in yaml2ical.
> > >
> > > Tony
> > > [1] the next time it could have been a problem is 2020/2021 ;P
>
> #!/usr/bin/python
> import os
> import re
>
> from scipy.stats import binom_test
>
> # Run the following before executing this:
> # $ wget http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking/2015/
> # $ for f in `sed -n  '/[^g].txt"/ s/.*href=.\([^"]*\)*".*/\1/p'
> index.html ` ; do wget
> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/networking/2015/$f; done
>
> fname_re = re.compile('-(\d\d)\.\d\d\.txt$')
> person_re = re.compile('^\* (.*[^_])_* \(\d+\)$')
>
> count = {}
> freq = {}
> for f in os.listdir('.'):
>     m = fname_re.search(f)
>     if not m:
>         continue
>     hour = m.group(1)
>     if hour not in freq:
>         freq[hour] = {}
>         count[hour] = 0
>     count[hour] += 1
>     f1 = freq[hour]
>     with open(f) as ff:
>         while True:
>             l = ff.readline()
>             if l.startswith('People present'):
>                 ll = ff.read().splitlines()
>                 break
>             if not l:
>                 raise Exception("Error reading %s" % f)
>         for l in ll:
>             m = person_re.match(l)
>             if m:
>                 name = m.group(1)
>                 f1[name] = f1.get(name, 0) + 1
>
> assert set(freq.keys()) == set(['14', '21'])
> people = set(freq['14'].keys()) | set(freq['21'].keys())
> total = count['14'] + count['21']
> c14 = count['14']
> c21 = count['21']
>
> sig_lvl = .05
> for n in people:
>     f14 = freq['14'].get(n, 0)
>     f21 = freq['21'].get(n, 0)
>     p = float(f14 + f21) / total
>     if binom_test(f14, c14, p) < sig_lvl or binom_test(f21, c21, p) <
> sig_lvl:
>         print("%s %d/%d %d/%d" % (n, f14, c14, f21, c21))
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>



-- 
Kevin Benton
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160113/9318798e/attachment.html>