Hi +1 for your proposed -core changes.
Re your question about whether we should retroactively apply the 3-a-day rule to the 3 month review stats, my suggestion would be a qualified no. I think we've established an agile approach to the member list of -core, so if there are a one or two people who we would have added to -core before the goalposts moved, I'd say look at their review quality. If they're showing the right stuff, let's get them in and helping. If they don't feel our new goalposts are achievable with their workload, they'll fall out again naturally before long. Cheers, Chris On 3 April 2014 12:02, Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> wrote: > Getting back in the swing of things... > > Hi, > like most OpenStack projects we need to keep the core team up to > date: folk who are not regularly reviewing will lose context over > time, and new folk who have been reviewing regularly should be trusted > with -core responsibilities. > > In this months review: > - Dan Prince for -core > - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core > - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core > - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core > > Existing -core members are eligible to vote - please indicate your > opinion on each of the three changes above in reply to this email. > > Ghe, please let me know if you're willing to be in tripleo-core. Jan, > Jordan, Martyn, Jiri & Jaromir, if you are planning on becoming > substantially more active in TripleO reviews in the short term, please > let us know. > > My approach to this caused some confusion a while back, so I'm keeping > the boilerplate :) - I'm > going to talk about stats here, but they are only part of the picture > : folk that aren't really being /felt/ as effective reviewers won't be > asked to take on -core responsibility, and folk who are less active > than needed but still very connected to the project may still keep > them : it's not pure numbers. > > Also, it's a vote: that is direct representation by the existing -core > reviewers as to whether they are ready to accept a new reviewer as > core or not. This mail from me merely kicks off the proposal for any > changes. > > But, the metrics provide an easy fingerprint - they are a useful tool > to avoid bias (e.g. remembering folk who are just short-term active) - > human memory can be particularly treacherous - see 'Thinking, Fast and > Slow'. > > With that prelude out of the way: > > Please see Russell's excellent stats: > http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-reviewers-30.txt > http://russellbryant.net/openstack-stats/tripleo-reviewers-90.txt > > For joining and retaining core I look at the 90 day statistics; folk > who are particularly low in the 30 day stats get a heads up so they > aren't caught by surprise. > > 90 day active-enough stats: > > > +-------------------------+---------------------------------------+----------------+ > | Reviewer | Reviews -2 -1 +1 +2 +A +/- % | > Disagreements* | > > +-------------------------+---------------------------------------+----------------+ > | slagle ** | 655 0 145 7 503 154 77.9% | > 36 ( 5.5%) | > | clint-fewbar ** | 549 4 120 11 414 115 77.4% | > 32 ( 5.8%) | > | lifeless ** | 518 34 203 2 279 113 54.2% | > 21 ( 4.1%) | > | rbrady | 453 0 14 439 0 0 96.9% | > 60 ( 13.2%) | > | cmsj ** | 322 0 24 1 297 136 92.5% | > 22 ( 6.8%) | > | derekh ** | 261 0 50 1 210 90 80.8% | > 12 ( 4.6%) | > | dan-prince | 257 0 67 157 33 16 73.9% | > 15 ( 5.8%) | > | jprovazn ** | 190 0 21 2 167 43 88.9% | > 13 ( 6.8%) | > | ifarkas ** | 186 0 28 18 140 82 84.9% | > 6 ( 3.2%) | > =========================================================== > | jistr ** | 177 0 31 16 130 28 82.5% | > 4 ( 2.3%) | > | ghe.rivero ** | 176 1 21 25 129 55 87.5% | > 7 ( 4.0%) | > | lsmola ** | 172 2 12 55 103 63 91.9% | > 21 ( 12.2%) | > | jdob | 166 0 31 135 0 0 81.3% | > 9 ( 5.4%) | > | bnemec | 138 0 38 100 0 0 72.5% | > 17 ( 12.3%) | > | greghaynes | 126 0 21 105 0 0 83.3% | > 22 ( 17.5%) | > | dougal | 125 0 26 99 0 0 79.2% | > 13 ( 10.4%) | > | tzumainn ** | 119 0 30 69 20 17 74.8% | > 2 ( 1.7%) | > | rpodolyaka | 115 0 15 100 0 0 87.0% | > 15 ( 13.0%) | > | ftcjeff | 103 0 3 100 0 0 97.1% | > 9 ( 8.7%) | > | thesheep | 93 0 26 31 36 21 72.0% | > 3 ( 3.2%) | > | pblaho ** | 88 1 8 37 42 22 89.8% | > 3 ( 3.4%) | > | jonpaul-sullivan | 80 0 33 47 0 0 58.8% | > 17 ( 21.2%) | > | tomas-8c8 ** | 78 0 15 4 59 27 80.8% | > 4 ( 5.1%) | > | marios ** | 75 0 7 53 15 10 90.7% | > 14 ( 18.7%) | > | stevenk | 75 0 15 60 0 0 80.0% | > 9 ( 12.0%) | > | rwsu | 74 0 3 71 0 0 95.9% | > 11 ( 14.9%) | > | mkerrin | 70 0 14 56 0 0 80.0% | > 14 ( 20.0%) | > > The ==== line is set at the just voted on minimum expected of core: 3 > reviews per work day, 60 work days in a 90 day period (64 - fudge for > holidays), 180 reviews. > I cut the full report out at the point we had been previously - with > the commitment to 3 reviews per day, next months report will have a > much higher minimum. In future reviews, we'll set the bar up around > where the === is - but of course, human judgement will always apply > :). > > > rbrady is a very active review - which is fantastic. However I'd like > to see deeper thought - when I reviewed his reviews there were often > things missed (which the disagreements % above does capture to a bit, > but since its per-patch, I'm not sure the metric is sufficient - but > thats a different discussion. > > Dan has got much deeper in in his reviews and I now would be delighted > to have him in core. > > Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews already, but > since we've now set a commitment for cores - I'm not sure if we should > offer core to folk who aren't up at the 180 line - core. What do folk > think? I'd certainly have been nominating at least one more person if > we hadn't recently moved the goalposts... > > > And the 90 day not-active-enough status: > > | jtomasek ** | 24 0 2 15 7 3 91.7% | > 0 ( 0.0%) | > | jomara ** | 22 0 5 8 9 11 77.3% | > 0 ( 0.0%) | > | jcoufal ** | 12 0 3 6 3 3 75.0% | > 2 ( 16.7%) | > > As we discussed last time - I propose we remove these folk from core - > they are still contributing, but core is primarily a responsibility - > and folk can step back up as core very quickly if they want to. > > Now, 30 day history - this is the heads up for folk to avoid surprises > in April. For this, I've used the new commitment of 3 per day - or 60 > per 30 day window (same math as above). > > Folk that are on track to retain/ be asked to be -core (on volume, not > quality- thats looked in detail later): > > | slagle ** | 205 0 46 5 154 40 77.6% | > 9 ( 4.4%) | > | lifeless ** | 204 13 98 0 93 42 45.6% | > 4 ( 2.0%) | > | clint-fewbar ** | 197 4 55 6 132 31 70.1% | > 10 ( 5.1%) | > | rbrady | 147 0 7 140 0 0 95.2% | > 20 ( 13.6%) | > | derekh ** | 111 0 26 0 85 33 76.6% | > 5 ( 4.5%) | > | cmsj ** | 91 0 9 0 82 39 90.1% | > 4 ( 4.4%) | > | dan-prince | 89 0 30 46 13 6 66.3% | > 6 ( 6.7%) | > | greghaynes | 84 0 18 66 0 0 78.6% | > 9 ( 10.7%) | > | rpodolyaka | 80 0 12 68 0 0 85.0% | > 11 ( 13.8%) | > | jonpaul-sullivan | 77 0 31 46 0 0 59.7% | > 17 ( 22.1%) | > | bnemec | 72 0 23 49 0 0 68.1% | > 7 ( 9.7%) | > | jprovazn ** | 65 0 13 0 52 9 80.0% | > 9 ( 13.8%) | > | lsmola ** | 65 0 6 14 45 23 90.8% | > 6 ( 9.2%) | > | ghe.rivero ** | 63 1 11 10 41 20 81.0% | > 3 ( 4.8%) | > | mkerrin | 60 0 10 50 0 0 83.3% | > 12 ( 20.0%) | > | ifarkas ** | 60 0 7 1 52 30 88.3% | > 1 ( 1.7%) | > | jistr ** | 58 0 5 7 46 13 91.4% | > 1 ( 1.7%) | > > > -core that are not keeping up recently... : > > | tomas-8c8 ** | 31 0 4 2 25 8 87.1% | > 1 ( 3.2%) | > | marios ** | 27 0 1 17 9 7 96.3% | > 3 ( 11.1%) | > | tzumainn ** | 27 0 3 23 1 4 88.9% | > 0 ( 0.0%) | > | pblaho ** | 17 0 0 4 13 4 100.0% | > 1 ( 5.9%) | > | jomara ** | 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0% | > 0 ( 0.0%) | > > > Please remember - the stats are just an entry point to a more detailed > discussion about each individual, and I know we all have a bunch of > work stuff, on an ongoing basis :) > > I'm using the fairly simple metric we agreed on - 'average at least > three reviews a > day' as a proxy for 'sees enough of the code and enough discussion of > the code to be an effective reviewer'. The three review a day thing we > derived based > on the need for consistent volume of reviews to handle current > contributors - we may > lower that once we're ahead (which may happen quickly if we get more > cores... :) > But even so: > - reading three patches a day is a pretty low commitment to ask for > - if you don't have time to do that, you will get stale quickly - > you'll only see under > 33% of the code changes going on (we're doing about 10 commits > a day - twice as many since december - and hopefully not slowing down!) > > Cheers, > Rob > > > -- > Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> > Distinguished Technologist > HP Converged Cloud > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Cheers, Chris
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
