Public record
Software health reportschema 0.16.0 · metrics 2.10.0 · 2026-07-21 02:42 UTC

mfogel / django-timezone-field

A Django app providing DB, form, and REST framework fields for zoneinfo and pytz timezone objects.

PythonBSD-2-Clause★ 414 stars⑂ 99 forkssince Apr 2012View on GitHub ↗
KindLibraryNetwork servicehow this is determined
#python#django#timezones

mfogel/django-timezone-field holds a health index of 60 out of 100, placing it in the Moderate band. It scores highest on Engineering Quality (66/100) and lowest on AI Readiness (35/100). It was last updated 44 days ago. A single contributor accounts for most of its recent work.

60
overall / 100
Moderate

Software health index

Metrics are grouped into weighted categories on one standardized 1–100 scale. Overall starts as their weighted mean, calibrated against the distribution of the public record so bands carry percentile meaning; when public evidence triggers the High-Risk Jurisdiction Policy, the rating is adjusted and receives an At Risk ceiling of 34.

60
Exceptional93-100The record's top tier (≈ top 5%); essentially all checked criteria met
Excellent80-92Strong across the board; minor gaps
Good65-79Healthy; gaps are limited and manageable
Moderate50-64Acceptable with notable gaps; review recommended
Weak35-49Material weaknesses across several areas
At Risk20-34Significant weaknesses; adoption warrants caution
Critical1-19Severe problems (abandoned, single-maintainer, no hygiene)
VitalityCommunity &AdoptionSustainability &GovernanceEngineeringQualitySecurityAI Readiness

Score profile

Each axis is a category. The shape matters more than the average — a healthy subject fills the whole shape, while a spike-and-crater profile means strength in one dimension is masking risk in another.

The weighted overall 57 is calibrated to 60 on the published index scale (record calibration 2026-08-02).

Ownership

Mike FogelPersonal account
66 followers89 public repossince Apr 2009

This repository is owned by a personal account. A single-owner project carries more continuity risk than an organization-backed one.

Package ecosystems

RegistryPackageVersionDownloads / moVersionsLast publish
PyPIdjango-timezone-field7.2.2-3144 days ago

Metrics by category

Vitality

Is the project alive — is code being written and are releases shipping?

46Weak · 21% of overall

Development activity

34At Risk
How it's scored
18/36Push recency — last push 44 days ago
1.4/36Commit cadence — 2/52 weeks with commits
9.7/18Commit volume — 11 commits in the last year
5/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
Inputs used
commits_last_year11
human_commit_share—
days_since_last_push44
active_weeks_last_year2

Release discipline

64Moderate
How it's scored
16.2/27Ships releases — 12 version tags (no GitHub releases)
36/36Release recency — latest release 44 days ago
5.4/27Release cadence — a release every ~545.8 days
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases — no data
Inputs used
releases_count12
latest_release_tag7.2.2
releases_from_tagsyes
days_since_latest_release44
mean_days_between_releases545.8
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): OpenSSF Scorecard: Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Community & Adoption

Does the project have users, downloads, attention, and a welcoming setup for contributors?

57Moderate · 17% of overall

Popularity & adoption

64Moderate
How it's scored
42.4/60Stars — 414 stars
16.6/25Forks — 99 forks
4.7/15Watchers — 8 watchers
Inputs used
forks99
stars414
watchers8
growth_stateunverified
growth_factor_pct100
growth_unverified_reasonno_history

Community health

50Moderate
How it's scored
22.5/22.5README
22.5/22.5License — recognized license (BSD-2-Clause)
0/18CONTRIBUTING guide
0/13.5Code of conduct
0/7.2Issue template
0/6.3PR template
Inputs used
has_readmeyes
has_licenseyes
readme_badges—
has_contributingno
has_issue_templateno
has_code_of_conductno
readme_badge_services—
has_pull_request_templateno

Sustainability & Governance

Will the project survive its people — bus factor, responsiveness, who backs it, and package upkeep?

63Moderate · 23% of overall

Maintainer resilience (bus factor)

38Weak
How it's scored
9/54Bus factor — 1 contributor(s) cover half of all commits
5.4/22.5Commit distribution — top contributor authored 76% of commits
13.5/13.5Contributor breadth — 28 contributors
10/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
Inputs used
bus_factor1
contributors_sampled28
top_contributor_share0.76

Issue & PR responsiveness

65Good
How it's scored
37.7/42Issue resolution — 90% of issues closed
15.9/30PR acceptance — 44/83 decided PRs merged
0/13Newcomer PR acceptance — no first-time contributor's PR decided in 30d
3/15OpenSSF Scorecard: Code-Review — Found 7/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
Inputs used
merged_prs44
open_issues8
closed_issues70
prs_merged_7d—
prs_decided_7d—
prs_merged_30d—
prs_decided_30d—
issue_closed_ratio0.897
closed_unmerged_prs39
first_time_authors_30d—
first_time_prs_merged_30d—
first_time_prs_decided_30d—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Newcomer PR acceptance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Ownership & stewardship

60Moderate
How it's scored
10/30Ownership backing — personal (user) account
0/20Verified domain — not applicable to user accounts
13.1/25Owner reach — 66 followers of mfogel
25/25Track record — 89 public repos, account ~17 yr old
Inputs used
followers66
owner_typeUser
is_verified—
owner_loginmfogel
public_repos89
account_age_days6,318
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Verified domain. Remaining weights renormalized.

Package maintenance

100Exceptional
How it's scored
25/25Published & resolvable — 1 package(s) on pypi
35/35Publish recency — latest publish 44 days ago
20/20Version history — 31 published versions
20/20Not deprecated — active, not deprecated or yanked
Inputs used
packagesdjango-timezone-field
ecosystemspypi
any_deprecatedno
min_days_since_publish44

Engineering Quality

Are baseline engineering and documentation practices in place?

66Good · 19% of overall

Engineering practices

70Good
How it's scored
24/24CI workflows — 1 workflow(s)
24/24Tests present
16/16Linter config — .flake8
0/9.6Pre-commit hooks
0/6.4.editorconfig
6/20OpenSSF Scorecard: CI-Tests — 7 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
Inputs used
has_ciyes
has_testsyes
has_editorconfigno
has_linter_configyes
has_precommit_configno

Documentation

60Moderate
How it's scored
30/30README
0/25Documentation directory
0/15Documentation / homepage site
10/10Repository description
10/10Topics — 3 topics
10/10Wiki
Inputs used
topicspython, django, timezones
has_wikiyes
homepage—
docs_site—
has_readmeyes
has_docs_dirno
has_descriptionyes

Security

Are visible security and supply-chain practices strong, without unresolved high-risk jurisdiction exposure?

55Moderate · 16% of overall

Security posture

44Weak
How it's scored
7.5/7.5Binary-Artifacts — no binaries found in the repo
0/7.5Branch-Protection — branch protection not enabled on development/release branches
0.8/2.5CI-Tests — 7 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0/2.5CII-Best-Practices — no effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
1.5/7.5Code-Review — Found 7/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
2.5/2.5Contributors — project has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10/10Dangerous-Workflow — no dangerous workflow patterns detected
7.5/7.5Dependency-Update-Tool — update tool detected
0/5Fuzzing — project is not fuzzed
2.5/2.5License — license file detected
3.8/7.5Maintained — 5 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
0/5Packaging — no data
0/5Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0/5SAST — SAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0/5Security-Policy — security policy file not detected
0/7.5Signed-Releases — no data
0/7.5Token-Permissions — detected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
4.5/7.5Vulnerabilities — 4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Inputs used
sourceopenssf_scorecard
checks_evaluated16
scorecard_versionv5.5.0
checks_inconclusive2
scorecard_aggregate4.4
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Packaging, Signed-Releases. Remaining weights renormalized.

Dependency advisories

100Exceptional
How it's scored
35/35Direct dependencies free of known advisories — no direct dependency carries a known advisory
25/25Indirect dependencies free of known advisories — no indirect dependency carries a known advisory
0/40No advisories left outstanding — no advisory carries a publication date
Inputs used
sourceosv
advisories0
affected_packages0
assessed_packages3
unassessed_packages0
affected_by_severitynone
direct_affected_packages0
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): No advisories left outstanding. Remaining weights renormalized. Matched the pypi:django-timezone-field@7.2.2 runtime dependency closure — what installing the published package pulls in — 3 packages. Reachability is not analyzed.

AI Readiness

How well is the repo equipped to be developed and maintained with AI coding agents? Carries a deliberately small weight (4%): agent tooling is a real maintenance signal, but a repository with none can still reach 100/100.

35Weak · 4% of overall

Agent context & guidance

1Critical
How it's scored
0/45Agent instructions — no CLAUDE.md / AGENTS.md / editor rules
0/15Machine-readable docs (llms.txt)
0/40Legible commit history — no data
Inputs used
has_llms_txtno
llms_txt_url—
legible_history_share—
agent_instruction_files—
agent_instruction_max_bytes—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Legible commit history. Remaining weights renormalized.

Verify loop (build / test / typecheck)

52Moderate
How it's scored
0/18One-command bootstrap
22/22Automated tests
11/11Lint / format config — .flake8
0/11Static type checking
10/10Reproducible environment — lockfile
0/10Demonstrated agent practice — no data
0/8Automated maintenance — no data
0/10OpenSSF Scorecard: Pinned-Dependencies — dependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
Inputs used
has_nixno
has_testsyes
lockfilespoetry.lock
has_dockerfileno
typed_languageno
bootstrap_files—
has_devcontainerno
has_linter_configyes
typecheck_configs—
agent_commit_share—
toolchain_manifests—
dependency_bot_commit_share—
Excluded from scoring (no data or not applicable): Demonstrated agent practice, Automated maintenance. Remaining weights renormalized.

Code legibility for models

55Moderate
How it's scored
0/45Type-checkable code — Python without a type-check config
55/55Manageable file sizes — 0/23 source files over 60KB
Inputs used
primary_languagePython
largest_source_bytes8,247
source_files_sampled23
oversized_source_files0

Key facts

414GitHub stars
28contributors
11commits, last 12 months
44days since last push
12releases
1bus factor
8open issues
PyPIpackage ecosystems

More detail

OpenSSF Scorecard 4.4 / 10
4.4aggregate

Independent, tool-agnostic security assessment from the open-source OpenSSF Scorecard. Each check rewards a security practice, not a specific vendor's tool. Checks Scorecard could not determine are marked n/a and excluded from the security score (never counted as zero).Scorecard v5.5.0 · 2026-07-21 02:42 UTC

10Binary-Artifactsno binaries found in the repo
0Branch-Protectionbranch protection not enabled on development/release branches
3CI-Tests7 out of 20 merged PRs checked by a CI test -- score normalized to 3
0CII-Best-Practicesno effort to earn an OpenSSF best practices badge detected
2Code-ReviewFound 7/27 approved changesets -- score normalized to 2
10Contributorsproject has 4 contributing companies or organizations
10Dangerous-Workflowno dangerous workflow patterns detected
10Dependency-Update-Toolupdate tool detected
0Fuzzingproject is not fuzzed
10Licenselicense file detected
5Maintained5 commit(s) and 1 issue activity found in the last 90 days -- score normalized to 5
n/aPackagingpackaging workflow not detected
0Pinned-Dependenciesdependency not pinned by hash detected -- score normalized to 0
0SASTSAST tool is not run on all commits -- score normalized to 0
0Security-Policysecurity policy file not detected
n/aSigned-Releasesno releases found
0Token-Permissionsdetected GitHub workflow tokens with excessive permissions
6Vulnerabilities4 existing vulnerabilities detected
Direct dependencies 2
RegistryPackageVersion constraintManifest
PyPIDjango>=4.2,<6.2pyproject.toml
PyPIbackports.zoneinfo^0.2.1pyproject.toml
All dependencies 37

Full resolved dependency set from the GitHub dependency graph: 2 direct and 35 indirect (transitive) packages. The transitive closure is complete when the repository commits a lockfile.

RegistryPackageVersionRelation
PyPIbackports-zoneinfo0.2.1direct
PyPIdjango4.2.30direct
PyPIasgiref3.8.1indirect
PyPIastroid2.15.8indirect
PyPIblack24.8.0indirect
PyPIclick8.1.8indirect
PyPIcolorama0.4.6indirect
PyPIcoverage6.5.0indirect
PyPIdill0.4.0indirect
PyPIdjangorestframework3.15.2indirect
PyPIexceptiongroup1.3.1indirect
PyPIflake85.0.4indirect
PyPIiniconfig2.1.0indirect
PyPIisort5.13.2indirect
PyPIlazy-object-proxy1.10.0indirect
PyPImccabe0.7.0indirect
PyPImypy-extensions1.1.0indirect
PyPIpackaging26.2indirect
PyPIpathspec0.12.1indirect
PyPIplatformdirs4.3.6indirect
PyPIpluggy1.5.0indirect
PyPIpsycopg2-binary2.9.10indirect
PyPIpycodestyle2.9.1indirect
PyPIpyflakes2.5.0indirect
PyPIpylint2.17.7indirect
PyPIpytest8.3.5indirect
PyPIpytest-cov3.0.0indirect
PyPIpytest-django4.11.1indirect
PyPIpytest-lazy-fixtures1.4.0indirect
PyPIpytest-pythonpath0.7.3indirect
PyPIpytz2024.2indirect
PyPIsqlparse0.5.5indirect
PyPItomli2.4.1indirect
PyPItomlkit0.13.3indirect
PyPItyping-extensions4.13.2indirect
PyPItzdata2023.4indirect
PyPIwrapt1.17.3indirect
Dependency advisories 0

Installing pypi:django-timezone-field@7.2.2 pulls in 3 packages, direct and transitive: 0 carry known advisories, of which 0 are direct dependencies.

No known advisories affect the assessed dependencies.

An advisory means the version recorded in the dependency graph falls inside an advisory’s affected range. Reachability is not analysed, and the graph includes development and test pins — a finding may concern tooling rather than shipped software.

Raw JSON report machine-readable

Feedback

Spotted something off in this report, or have thoughts to share? Wrong measurements, missed tooling, ideas, questions — anything is welcome. Every message is read and gets a response.

The message is kept through sign-in.

Related records

Inspected repositories sharing catalogue tags or ecosystems with mfogel/django-timezone-field. Read them side by side →

99wagtail/wagtailA Django content management system focused on flexibility and user experienceExceptional98django/djangoThe Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.Exceptional98strawberry-graphql/strawberryA GraphQL library for Python that leverages type annotations 🍓Exceptional98netbox-community/netboxThe premier source of truth powering network automation. Open source under Apache 2. Try NetBox Cloud free: https://netboxlabs.com/products/free-netbox-cloud/Exceptional97elastic/apm-agent-pythonExceptional97typeddjango/django-stubsPEP-484 stubs for DjangoExceptional

Scores are signals, not warranties. They reflect publicly visible practices on GitHub — not a code audit, and not a security guarantee.

Missing data is excluded and weights renormalized, never scored as zero. Methodology is versioned and open: metrics v2.10.0, schema v0.16.0 — full methodology · metrics wiki.

How one result sits in the wider record: aggregate statistics — PyPI.