Steven Hardy wrote: > [...] > The issues I have are: > - Russell's stats (while very useful) are being used by some projects as > the principal metric related to -core membership (ref TripleO's monthly > cull/name&shame, which I am opposed to btw). This is in some cases > encouraging some stats-seeking in our review process, IMO. > > - Review quality can't be measured mechanically - we have some folks who > contribute fewer, but very high quality reviews, and are also very active > contributors (so knowledge of the codebase is not stale). I'd like to > see these people do more reviews, but removing people from core just > because they drop below some arbitrary threshold makes no sense to me. > [...]
In our governance each program's PTL is free to choose his preferred method of selecting core reviewers, but FWIW I fully agree with you here. Using the review stats as the principal metric in deciding -core membership is IMHO destructive in the long run. You can use it to check for minimum volume, but then review quality should be the main factor, and the only way to assess that is to see consistent quality reviews made by others and then suggest them for -core membership. -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev