statsmodels welcomes contributions of all sizes, including:
Documentation is hard, and many eyes help fix typos, missing parameters, and many other issues. We are always happy to accept docstring improvements. The doc builds on Travis CI contains a log of docstrings that aren't up to standards (about 6000 issues at the time of writing). Improvements to these are especially welcome.
Examples are incredibly useful. If you have a written a notebook that highlights using sm in ways that are not already covered in examples, please share these to improve the documentation.
Bug fixes are always welcome. There are plenty of opportunities on the issue tracker to contribute.
statsmodels is community-driven, and so enhancements are welcome. Large enhancements, for example, new models should:
Smaller enhancements, for example, a new option on an existing method, are also welcome. More minor enhancements have a lower bar and should:
Pure code clean-ups are generally discouraged. (Locally) cleaning up code as part of contributing to one of the other goals is encouraged.
I'm trying to find the log of docstrings not up to standard you mention but I don't see it, can you clarify?
If you look at the output of a docbuild run such as
https://travis-ci.org/github/statsmodels/statsmodels/jobs/732588884
and then search for
Checking Doc Strings
You will see a long list of docstrings that have missing variables or other issues.
The most important types look like
statsmodels.discrete.conditional_models.ConditionalLogit.predict: Parameters {*args, exog, params, **kwargs} not documented
and
statsmodels.discrete.conditional_models.ConditionalLogit: Unknown parameters {groups}
since there are variables that are not defined or are most likely misnamed.
Most helpful comment
If you look at the output of a docbuild run such as
https://travis-ci.org/github/statsmodels/statsmodels/jobs/732588884
and then search for
Checking Doc Strings
You will see a long list of docstrings that have missing variables or other issues.