Ah, I think I know what this is. I removed one month from the target calculation because it would look like we were behind when starting every month otherwise, even if we hit last monthâs target (since the current monthâs target would be added on the moment the first of the month elapsed). However, I think I forgot to re-add this month if the target date is after the year is over, which is a bug.
The CC program requires (or required, at the time of coding the automation here) 20 hours average of contributions per month for each contributor. I think @antoviaque has leveraged the fact that as a company we tend to far exceed the contributions goal as a whole to get us some leniency during a time when our sustainability was not in a good direction. I donât think Axim would have wanted to revoke our CC rights when overall weâre contributing extremely heavily, possibly proportionally more than any other team (though I donât have the data to prove this, since I donât have the other teamsâ data.)
Last year we focused on refining and improving our processes-- aligning our discoveries more with the product proposal process, bringing in product, etc, so that way, way more of our normal billable hours would also be contributions. This made it to where we DO have some budget for non-billable contributions, though I donât know where thatâs at right now. Weâre also finishing up work to contribute several items that should have been contributed earlier but were not due to gaps in our processes (this work has been ongoing all over the last year).
However, I remember that @antoviaque also said there was discussion on the ToC to refine the requirements for CC contributions somehow. I donât recall hearing back on how that went. Xavier, was any adjustment made on the contribution requirements, or do you have any guidance here?
For now, itâs best to keep the lower ratio of core contributor hours; we are already the only ones to really put in the hours aside from Axim, so I would wait for that to be finalized before reevaluating.
It pulls the names from this article in Confluence, and only includes them if we have time logs for them during the reporting period itâs checking-- which right now still includes last year. So next month the team members who departed should be pruned from the list.
@tikr The next report will happen in the next month, which will drop the 2025 totals. Hereâs a manually generated revised set from the recent bugfix: