Hello to all developers participating in the Dev Airdrop!

The team has received a lot of great feedback, and we’d like to share it with all.

Feedbacks:

- The use of tools to manipulate the number of commits can be dishonest.
- If you want to support someone who has been supporting OSS for many years, you can use a contribution of around 5 years instead of the last year.
- I’ve supported OSS for all these years, but last year I couldn’t do it.
- I have a big and stable project with got many stars, the code in those is stable and the number of commits is reduced. Instead, my main contribution will be answering questions and reporting issues.

We have received reports of fraud and, as we have previously announced, we need to review our rules to deal with these.

Our hope is to support a wide range of pure OSS, from young to stable projects. Therefore we are considering the following updates

We would love to hear your feedback on this. Please tell us your thoughts.

Period: Feedback will be accepted for two days, **from May 31 to June 1, 9 am UTC.**

## How to count contribution?

The rules currently used by the airdrop are the total number of public contributions from 1 May 2020 to 1 May 2021.

We have now created a new formula that aims to consider developers who have supported OSS for many years and exclude, to some extent, fraudulently boosted contributions.

- Geometric mean of annual contributions over the last 5 years. By using the geometric mean instead of the arithmetic mean, the effects of temporary contribution rushes are kept small.
- However, if you created the account less than 5 years ago, then the annual contributions made since the account was created are included. The annual contributions for the year in which this applies are the average number of contributions calculated by multiplying by 365 for the average contributions per day of the year.
- Years with 0 contributions are counted as 1
- Contributions include commits, pull requests, code reviews, and issues.

Here’s a simulator that allows you to see this specification:

https://jsfiddle.net/aggre/obs24vn3/

**Please also try a version of 3-years**: https://jsfiddle.net/aggre/obs24vn3/

Those who have a simulator result number of 500 or more are eligible.

What do you think about this rule? If there are not too many negative factors until 1 June, we are going to adopt them.

We considered including the number of followers and stars in the formula, but we agreed that it would be better not to use them in the airdrop program. Since they don’t have a time series, it’s hard to handle the submission period, and we don’t want to risk losing fairness by making the variables more complex. (Perhaps they can be adopted in another airdrop program)

## Quotas

As an alternative to the rule that quotas are decremented on a first-come-first-served basis, the idea is to use sorting by a number of contributions. This would give equal opportunity to all developers, with no preference given to timezone. What do you think about this?

## Entries

All entries will be reviewed, and we will exclude any illegal manipulation of the contributions.

We would love to hear your feedback on this. Please tell us your thoughts.

Period: Feedback will be accepted for two days, **from May 31 to June 1, 9 am UTC.**