On 12/09/2013 07:43 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > 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. >
Agreed here, as well. While the stats provide some important insight, it's far from the whole picture. -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
