On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 13:31 +1300, Robert Collins wrote:

> We have a bit of a bug in OpenStack today, IMO, in that there is more
> focus on being -core than on being a good effective reviewer. IMO
> that's backwards: the magic switch that lets you set +2 and -2 is a
> responsibility, and that has some impact on the weight your comments
> in reviews have on other people - both other core and non-core, but
> the contribution we make by reviewing doesn't suddenly get
> significantly better by virtue of being -core. There is an element of
> trust and faith in personality etc - you don't want destructive
> behaviour in code review, but you don't want that from anyone - it's
> not a new requirement place on -core.

FWIW, I see the this "focus on being -core" as an often healthy desire
to be recognized as a good effective reviewer.

I guess that's related to where you said something similar in the Heat
thread:

  http://www.mail-archive.com/openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org/msg11121.html

  there is a meme going around (I don't know if it's true or not) that
  some people are assessed - performance review stuff within vendor
  organisations - on becoming core reviewers.

For example, if managers in these organizations said to people "I want
to spend a significant proportion of your time contributing good and
effective upstream reviews" that would be a good thing, right?

One way that such well intentioned managers could know whether the
reviewing is good and effective is whether the reviewers are getting
added to the -core teams. That also seems mostly positive. Certainly
better than looking at reviewer stats?

Mark.


_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to