I see mainly posts from players the top alliances here. So, the observations thus far are probably somewhat coloured. Of course, my observations are also coloured, but a different colour.
One thing is for sure: the current galaxy size is detrimental for the game. I have been/am in a fenced gal this round, and tbh I do not like it. And the fence grew with time. Thus, what you have now is: fortress gals, fenced gals, and random gals. Both fortress and fenced galaxies are detrimental for game play imo.
Fortress galaxies are not suited for attack by any alliance under top6 and a top 6 alliance who will attack will know it is in war directly, thus that is no good thing imo. Fenced gals can not be stopped, however, the galaxy size can decrease so there will be more galaxies and fences are less prominent.
Second, what is positive for one alliance (Jesterina --> aligned interest/protection outside of wars) I would analyse it to be detrimental to the game as a whole as well. I understand it must be wonderful to be able to say "hah, nobody attacks us coz they know they'll get pwned if they do", but I think it stagnates gameplay. Especially in this small playerbase.
Third, Gate's assumption that the extent of "fortressness" of a galaxy determines the strength of community is nonsense tbh. I know for instance of a galaxy called "Mercenaries" which has a strong community, but they are not a fortress galaxy, and to a lesser extent fenced.
Community is determined by people, not by a mostly single alliance composition of a galaxy.
Thus, my answer to your question whether it is good is a resounding "no".
To mz: your statement that there is a non-significant difference is false. Your n (number of observations) of the second group was 6. In statistics as a rule of thumb at least 20 observations are needed to validate it as a normal distribution. Your observation is thus not valid as you cannot draw conclusions on this comparison.