On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Tom Keiser<[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Jeffrey > Altman<[email protected]> wrote: >> On a separate not, I take great offense at your comment about "shaming" >> the gatekeepers into doing something. Take a look at the analysis of >> who actually has done something to improve OpenAFS >> >> https://www.ohloh.net/p/openafs/contributors >> >> What you will notice is that it is the gatekeepers that do the vast >> majority of the work. That list is measuring authorship not commits. > > I find your interpretation of those numbers dangerously distorting. > Firstly, what is meant by "to improve OpenAFS"? If you're referring > strictly to contributions accepted by the gatekeepers, then fine. > However, I consider that a rather narrow interpretation given the vast > amount of development work that goes on in the hopes that it will > someday be accepted upstream. > > Secondly, commit count is hardly a useful metric, as it has only a > slight positive correlation to actual work. In addition, things would > look quite different if the stats took into account the efforts of > various community members whose major contributions have been going > through the review process for the last several years. Especially > with the major development efforts, the current fiat-grounded power > structure is biased in favor of contributions by the gatekeepers. > Until a few years after we move to a just and meritocratic decision > model with elected leadership, I don't think such metrics are likely > to yield definitively useful information.
Which is exactly the sort of response I expected when I made the followup comment I did, which I notice you ignored. I could say nobody else is bending over to clean up cross platform build issues, but that would be a grave disservice to the people that are. But no one was bending over, for instance, to fix the build issue stemming from DAFS which was segfaulting the HPUX compiler; I had to do it, despite not even having hardware to test on. Gerrit has made contributing easier; talk is cheaper. The rest of your point, well, anyone who says they could do a better job reviewing large patches provided as simply a blob is either a savant, or lying to you, so I'm not sure what sort of miracle you expect from your proposition; If you'd like to get that person or persons to start reviewing, they'd prove themselves in short order. -- Derrick _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
