Fedora Survey Summary - Dec, 2005
- File:Marketing Surveys Summary Marketing/Surveys/FedoraImprovementsSurveyResults.pdf
The survey format allowed for a range of responses, for example there were rating scales like: (Poor)1..2..3..(Good)4..5..6..(Excellent)7. This resulted in a lot of numbers/data. Below is an attempt to concisely summarize the overall results.
Note: the numbers listed here don't exactly correspond to the PDF file. Reason being, there were 2 ways to run the report; with or without including incompleteresponses. The numbers below listed the complete responses only; whereas the PDF file included incomplete responses. However, that didn't appreciably alter the results.
Please sort the items in this list in priority order based on what you suggest is the most important area for Red Hat to focus on in order to make improvements in Fedora.
(Results in priority order listed below. Score consists of adding up number of responses in top 4 priority column. Which correlated rather closely to purely top picks.)
- 1. Improve overall stability of Fedora Core - 436
- 2. Focus on implementing new features in the core Fedora distro - 393
- 3. Improve documentation and release notes - 280
- 4. Infrastructure enhancements to improve devel of Fedora extras pkgs - 256
- 5. Improve bugzilla responsiveness - 187
- 6. Increased visibility into Fedora core schedules and status - 161
- 7. Single CD install - 160
- 8. Reduce # of pkgs in core, by moving to extras - 151
- 9. Enable non-RH people to directly checkin to core - 139
- 10. Increase participation as reviewers for extras - 106
- 11. Internationalization - add more languages & improve input methods - 83
- 12. Provide free CDs - 70
Please rate your opinions on Fedora *Core's* (not Extras) performance in the following areas.
Results listed based on satisfaction ratio, calculated as (# of top 3 responses considering it a strong good to excellent / # of bottom 3 responses considering it as poor). So the things we are doing best are at the top of the list; things we do worst appear at the bottom of the list.
- 1. Overall quality - (508/30) - 16.9
- 2. Download infrastructure - (374/69) - 5.4
- 3. System performance, responsiveness - (432/81) - 5
- 4. Timeliness, delivery on schedule - (351/75) - 4.7
- 5. Ease of use - (383/93) - 4.1
- 6. Bug reporting infrastructure - (158/47) - 3.4
- 7. Development infrastructure - (41/22) - 1.9
- 8. Appropriate pkg placement in core vs extras - 177/159 - 1.1
- 9. Bug report responsiveness - (98/120) - .9
- 10. Availability of free CDs - (102/166) - .6
- 11. Documentation - (161/277) - .58
Please rate your opinions on Fedora *Extras'* (not core) performance in the following areas.
Results listed based on satisfaction ratio, calculated as (# of top 3 responses considering it a strong good to excellent / # of bottom 3 responses considering it as poor). So the things we are doing best are at the top of the list; things we do worst appear at the bottom of the list.
- 1. Overall quality - (343/45) - 7.6
- 2. Completeness, diversity of pkgs - (268/145) - 1.8
- 3. Responsiveness of reviewer comments - (35/26) - 1.3
- 4. Ease of obtaining developer sponsorship - (31/28) - 1.1
How do you think Fedora is doing overall?
Agreement rating (top 3 agree / bottom 3 disagree).
- 1. Fedora is a healthy and growing initiative - (586/29) - 20.2
- 2. RH is doing a good job balancing the needs of the community - (394/67) - 5.9
- 3. Fedora is doing better than otehr community distros at meeting the
needs of participants - (343/80) - 4.3
- 4. RH has been receptive to input on how to best conduct Fedora - (270/77) - 3.55
- 5. Fedora is doing the right thing by not including packages with suspect legal issues, ie various audio/video decoders/players. - (317/221) - 1.4
How frequently should Fedora Core releases occur?
- 1. Every 6 months - 41.5%
- 2. Every 9 months - 30.3%
- 3. Anually - 20.2%
- 4. 3 or 4 month interval - 5.1%
- 5. Less than 1 per year - 2.9%