+1 to what Jarek and Vincent wrote. 5 as a cap sounds good. Best, Przemek
On 2026/09/21 19:23:05 Jarek Potiuk wrote: > Correction: Thursday the 24th at 7:00pm CEST. - which is 72 hrs from the > beginning of that thread, > > And one more comment: I thought for a long time about the metrics "Threads > vs. PRs". For me this is **embodiment** of community-aware, empathic > contributor - on the way to become a commmiter. And I **knew** - because I > checked it before - that practically **all** committers have a very high > number here. > > I deliberately never mentioned it in our discussions. As we all know, > anything you set as a goal stops being a useful metric. There are always > ways to game the system. > > That's why I waited for quite a while to accumulate the data and showed > completely different numbers - and never discussed the thread vs. PRs idea > - to ensure this particular metric remained totally unbiased. > And - just for the record - this is the last time this metric will be > unbiased—now that we will publicly say we "care" about it. > > And here is Claude's analysis on those top-20. And my thinking is that we > should care about the needs of groups in this way: A > B > C. > > ------------ > > Three buckets, all 24 (top-19 + the five-way tie at 6 open PRs) > > Bucket rule, stated up front so the borderline calls are visible: > engagement = others' threads per open PR (≥1.5 counts as engaged), quality > = all-time merge rate (≥40% healthy). I picked these thresholds to match > where the data actually clusters - there's a real gap between 1.7 and 0.8 > on engagement, and between 40% and 31% on the merge rate. > > --- > > A. Net reviewers — they give back more than they ask for (9 people, 103 > open PRs) > > ┌─────────────────┬──────┬─────────────────┬─────────┬─────────┐ > │ Author │ Open │ Threads/open PR │ Reviews │ Merge % │ > ├─────────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ SameerMesiah97 │ 6 │ 60.3 │ 350 │ 90% │ > ├─────────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ shivaam │ 6 │ 13.0 │ 55 │ 67% │ > ├─────────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ Vamsi-klu │ 10 │ 10.8 │ 58 │ 38% │ > ├─────────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ Andrushika │ 9 │ 4.6 │ 33 │ 79% │ > ├─────────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ yuseok89 │ 12 │ 3.8 │ 49 │ 77% │ > ├─────────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ steveahnahn │ 14 │ 3.2 │ 40 │ 59% │ > ├─────────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ ColtenOuO │ 23 │ 2.6 │ 70 │ 59% │ > ├─────────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ stephen-bracken │ 6 │ 2.3 │ 16 │ 56% │ > ├─────────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ fat-catTW │ 17 │ 1.7 │ 33 │ 50% │ > └─────────────────┴──────┴─────────────────┴─────────┴─────────┘ > > Vamsi-klu is the odd one: 108 threads and 58 reviews (bucket-A engagement) > on a 38% merge rate. Placed here because the review effort is unambiguous. > fat-catTW and stephen-bracken are the borderline entries - drop the > threshold to 2.0 and fat-catTW moves out. > > B. Shippers, not reviewers - volume with normal merge rates (6 people, 115 > open PRs) > > ┌───────────────┬──────┬─────────────────┬─────────┬─────────┐ > │ Author │ Open │ Threads/open PR │ Reviews │ Merge % │ > ├───────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ Eason09053360 │ 35 │ 0.3 │ 13 │ 52% │ > ├───────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ 1fanwang │ 34 │ 0.8 │ 36 │ 40% │ > ├───────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ rjgoyln │ 27 │ 0.7 │ 34 │ 53% │ > ├───────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ Samin061 │ 7 │ 0.4 │ 4 │ 58% │ > ├───────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ jeff3071 │ 6 │ 0.3 │ 7 │ 46% │ > ├───────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ YAshhh29 │ 6 │ 0.2 │ 1 │ 45% │ > └───────────────┴──────┴─────────────────┴─────────┴─────────┘ > > The work lands—merge rates here are ordinary, some above committer-adjacent > levels—but the top three are carrying 96 open PRs between them while having > commented on 56 of other people's threads in total. 1fanwang sits exactly > on the 40% line. > > C. Low engagement and low merge rate (9 people, 82 open PRs) > > ┌───────────────────┬──────┬─────────────────┬─────────┬─────────┐ > │ Author │ Open │ Threads/open PR │ Reviews │ Merge % │ > ├───────────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ bujjibabukatta │ 16 │ 0.2 │ 5 │ 11% │ > ├───────────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ anmolxlight │ 12 │ 0.4 │ 12 │ 31% │ > ├───────────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ dheerenmohta │ 10 │ 0.2 │ 0 │ 28% │ > ├───────────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ namanjain24-sudo │ 8 │ 1.1 │ 1 │ 11% │ > ├───────────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ Kunal8954 │ 8 │ 0.8 │ 6 │ 20% │ > ├───────────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ bramhanandlingala │ 8 │ 0.0 │ 1 │ 22% │ > ├───────────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ zozo123 │ 7 │ 0.1 │ 6 │ 17% │ > ├───────────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ GayathriSrividya │ 7 │ 0.0 │ 9 │ 22% │ > ├───────────────────┼──────┼─────────────────┼─────────┼─────────┤ > │ nagasrisai │ 6 │ 0.7 │ 6 │ 29% │ > └───────────────────┴──────┴─────────────────┴─────────┴─────────┘ > > bramhanandlingala and GayathriSrividya have commented on zero threads they > didn't author. This bucket is 82 open PRs with an aggregate merge rate > around 21% - roughly four reviews spent per PR that eventually lands. > > > > J. > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 9:09 PM Henry Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks Jarek and Vincent for the detailed data and perspective that > > context is really helpful. Seeing the actual numbers (especially that even > > the top contributors rarely hit 5 open PRs), a cap of 5 makes sense to me > > as a starting point. Happy to go with it and adjust later if we find it's > > too tight in practice. > > > > Thanks > > Henry > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
