On 02/29/2016 05:34 PM, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2016-02-29 at 15:57 -0500, Anita Kuno wrote: >> On 02/29/2016 03:10 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote: >>> >>>>> Current thinking would be to give preferential rates to access >>>>> the main summit to people who are present to other events (like >>>>> this new separated contributors-oriented event, or Ops >>>>> midcycle(s)). That would allow for a wider definition of >>>>> "active community member" and reduce gaming. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think reducing gaming is important. It is valuable to include >>>> those folks who wish to make a contribution to OpenStack, I have >>>> confidence the next iteration of entry structure will try to more >>>> accurately identify those folks who bring value to OpenStack. >>> >>> There have been a couple references to "gaming" on this thread, >>> which seem to imply a certain degree of dishonesty, in the sense of >>> bending the rules. >>> >>> Can anyone who has used the phrase clarify: >>> >>> (a) what exactly they mean by gaming in this context >>> >>> and: >>> >>> (b) why they think this is a clear & present problem demanding a >>> solution? >>> >>> For the record, landing a small number of patches per cycle and >>> thus earning an ATC summit pass as a result is not, IMO at least, >>> gaming. >>> >>> Instead, it's called *contributing*. >>> >>> (on a small scale, but contributing none-the-less). >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Eoghan >>> >>> ___________________________________________________________________ >>> _______ >>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsu >>> bscribe >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >> >> Sure I can tell you what I mean. >> >> In Vancouver I happened to be sitting behind someone who stated "I'm >> just here for the buzz." Which is lovely for that person. The problem >> is that the buzz that person is there for is partially created by me >> and I create it and mean to offer it to people who will return it in >> kind, not just soak it up and keep it to themselves. > > Sorry about that; it does sound like a thing a sales or marketing > person would say.
I would hardly expect you to take responsibility for someone else's behaviour. It feels odd to me that you would try. > >> Now I have no way of knowing who this person is and how they arrived >> at the event. But the numbers for people offering one patch to >> OpenStack (the bar for a summit pass) is significantly higher than >> the curve of people offering two, three or four patches to OpenStack >> (patches that are accepted and merged). So some folks are doing the >> minimum to get a summit pass rather than being part of the cohort >> that has their first patch to OpenStack as a means of offering their >> second patch to OpenStack. > > Which does sound like the ATC inducement is working. If you don't want > it to encourage people to submit patches then it shouldn't be offered. I didn't offer it. And personally I do want people to submit patches. It is their motivation for doing so that I am drawing attention to. > >> I consider it an honour and a privilege that I get to work with so >> many wonderful people everyday who are dedicated to making open >> source clouds available for whoever would wish to have clouds. I'm >> more than a little tired of having my energy drained by folks who >> enjoy feeding off of it while making no effort to return beneficial >> energy in kind. >> >> So when I use the phrase gaming, this is the dynamic to which I >> refer. > > While I accept there is potentially a gaming problem in all forms of > Open Source (we see this in the kernel with the attempt to boost patch > counts with trivial changes), I'd be hesitant to characterise people > who only submit a single patch as gamers because there's a lot of drive > by patching that goes on in the long tail of any project. The usual > reason for this is everything works great apart from one thing, which > the person gets annoyed enough over to investigate and patch. I've > done it myself in a lot of Open Source projects. Once your patch is > in, you've no need to submit another because everything is now working > as you wished and your goal was to fix the problem not become further > involved in the development side of things. I suspect if you look in > the long tail of OpenStack you'll find a lot of user and operator > patches for precisely this reason. I think you are missing the point of my explanation to the question I was asked. I am interested in mutually beneficial interactions. I am not interested in unbalanced or one sided interactions. Sorry I was unclear earlier. Thanks, Anita. > > James > __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
