Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]

2014-04-15 Thread Robert Collins
This has been actioned. Welcome!

-Rob

On 8 April 2014 11:50, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
 tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose:
 bnemec
 greghaynes
 jdon


 On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote:
 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.

 So I've actioned the prior vote.

 I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews
 already, but...

 So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews:
 60 days:
 |greghaynes   | 1210  22  99   0   081.8% |
 14 ( 11.6%)  |
 |  bnemec | 1160  38  78   0   067.2% |
 10 (  8.6%)  |
 |   jdob  |  870  15  72   0   082.8% |
 4 (  4.6%)  |

 90 days:

 |  bnemec | 1450  40 105   0   072.4% |
 17 ( 11.7%)  |
 |greghaynes   | 1420  23 119   0   083.8% |
 22 ( 15.5%)  |
 |   jdob  | 1060  17  89   0   084.0% |
 7 (  6.6%)  |

 Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he
 shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is
 sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'.
 I'm delighted to support him for core now.

 Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty
 good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual
 awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking
 at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been
 beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs
 not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for
 core too.

 Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between
 Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another
 definite +1 from me.

 -Rob




 --
 Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com
 Distinguished Technologist
 HP Converged Cloud



-- 
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


Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]

2014-04-08 Thread Tomas Sedovic
On 08/04/14 01:50, Robert Collins wrote:
 tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose:
 bnemec
 greghaynes
 jdon

-1, there's a typo in jdob's nick ;-)

In all seriousness, I support all of them being added to core.

 
 
 On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote:
 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.
 
 So I've actioned the prior vote.
 
 I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews
 already, but...
 
 So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews:
 60 days:
 |greghaynes   | 1210  22  99   0   081.8% |
 14 ( 11.6%)  |
 |  bnemec | 1160  38  78   0   067.2% |
 10 (  8.6%)  |
 |   jdob  |  870  15  72   0   082.8% |
 4 (  4.6%)  |
 
 90 days:
 
 |  bnemec | 1450  40 105   0   072.4% |
 17 ( 11.7%)  |
 |greghaynes   | 1420  23 119   0   083.8% |
 22 ( 15.5%)  |
 |   jdob  | 1060  17  89   0   084.0% |
 7 (  6.6%)  |
 
 Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he
 shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is
 sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'.
 I'm delighted to support him for core now.
 
 Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty
 good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual
 awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking
 at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been
 beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs
 not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for
 core too.
 
 Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between
 Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another
 definite +1 from me.
 
 -Rob
 
 
 
 


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


Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]

2014-04-08 Thread Ladislav Smola

+1 for the -core changes

jdon sounds like a pretty cool Mafia name, +1 for Don Jay


On 04/08/2014 09:10 AM, Tomas Sedovic wrote:

On 08/04/14 01:50, Robert Collins wrote:

tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose:
bnemec
greghaynes
jdon

-1, there's a typo in jdob's nick ;-)

In all seriousness, I support all of them being added to core.



On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote:

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.

So I've actioned the prior vote.

I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews
already, but...

So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews:
60 days:
|greghaynes   | 1210  22  99   0   081.8% |
14 ( 11.6%)  |
|  bnemec | 1160  38  78   0   067.2% |
10 (  8.6%)  |
|   jdob  |  870  15  72   0   082.8% |
4 (  4.6%)  |

90 days:

|  bnemec | 1450  40 105   0   072.4% |
17 ( 11.7%)  |
|greghaynes   | 1420  23 119   0   083.8% |
22 ( 15.5%)  |
|   jdob  | 1060  17  89   0   084.0% |
7 (  6.6%)  |

Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he
shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is
sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'.
I'm delighted to support him for core now.

Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty
good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual
awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking
at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been
beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs
not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for
core too.

Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between
Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another
definite +1 from me.

-Rob






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



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


Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]

2014-04-08 Thread Jaromir Coufal


On 2014/08/04 01:50, Robert Collins wrote:

tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose:
bnemec
greghaynes
jdon


jdon - jdob

+1 for all the folks.

-- Jarda



On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote:

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.


So I've actioned the prior vote.

I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews
already, but...

So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews:
60 days:
|greghaynes   | 1210  22  99   0   081.8% |
14 ( 11.6%)  |
|  bnemec | 1160  38  78   0   067.2% |
10 (  8.6%)  |
|   jdob  |  870  15  72   0   082.8% |
4 (  4.6%)  |

90 days:

|  bnemec | 1450  40 105   0   072.4% |
17 ( 11.7%)  |
|greghaynes   | 1420  23 119   0   083.8% |
22 ( 15.5%)  |
|   jdob  | 1060  17  89   0   084.0% |
7 (  6.6%)  |

Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he
shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is
sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'.
I'm delighted to support him for core now.

Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty
good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual
awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking
at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been
beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs
not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for
core too.

Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between
Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another
definite +1 from me.

-Rob


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


Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]

2014-04-08 Thread Chris Jones
Hi

+1

Cheers,
--
Chris Jones

 On 8 Apr 2014, at 00:50, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
 
 tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose:
 bnemec
 greghaynes
 jdon
 
 
 On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote:
 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.
 
 So I've actioned the prior vote.
 
 I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews
 already, but...
 
 So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews:
 60 days:
 |greghaynes   | 1210  22  99   0   081.8% |
 14 ( 11.6%)  |
 |  bnemec | 1160  38  78   0   067.2% |
 10 (  8.6%)  |
 |   jdob  |  870  15  72   0   082.8% |
 4 (  4.6%)  |
 
 90 days:
 
 |  bnemec | 1450  40 105   0   072.4% |
 17 ( 11.7%)  |
 |greghaynes   | 1420  23 119   0   083.8% |
 22 ( 15.5%)  |
 |   jdob  | 1060  17  89   0   084.0% |
 7 (  6.6%)  |
 
 Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he
 shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is
 sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'.
 I'm delighted to support him for core now.
 
 Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty
 good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual
 awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking
 at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been
 beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs
 not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for
 core too.
 
 Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between
 Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another
 definite +1 from me.
 
 -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

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


Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]

2014-04-08 Thread Imre Farkas

On 04/08/2014 01:50 AM, Robert Collins wrote:

tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose:
bnemec
greghaynes
jdon


+1

Imre


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


Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]

2014-04-08 Thread Derek Higgins
On 08/04/14 00:50, Robert Collins wrote:
 tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose:
 bnemec
 greghaynes
 jdon

+1 for all

 
 
 On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote:
 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.
 
 So I've actioned the prior vote.
 
 I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews
 already, but...
 
 So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews:
 60 days:
 |greghaynes   | 1210  22  99   0   081.8% |
 14 ( 11.6%)  |
 |  bnemec | 1160  38  78   0   067.2% |
 10 (  8.6%)  |
 |   jdob  |  870  15  72   0   082.8% |
 4 (  4.6%)  |
 
 90 days:
 
 |  bnemec | 1450  40 105   0   072.4% |
 17 ( 11.7%)  |
 |greghaynes   | 1420  23 119   0   083.8% |
 22 ( 15.5%)  |
 |   jdob  | 1060  17  89   0   084.0% |
 7 (  6.6%)  |
 
 Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he
 shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is
 sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'.
 I'm delighted to support him for core now.
 
 Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty
 good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual
 awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking
 at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been
 beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs
 not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for
 core too.
 
 Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between
 Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another
 definite +1 from me.
 
 -Rob
 
 
 
 


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


Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]

2014-04-08 Thread James Slagle
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Robert Collins
robe...@robertcollins.net wrote:
 tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose:
 bnemec
 greghaynes
 jdob

+1 to all. I've valued the feedback from these individuals as both
fellow reviewers and on my submitted patches.



-- 
-- James Slagle
--

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


Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]

2014-04-08 Thread Jan Provaznik

On 04/08/2014 01:50 AM, Robert Collins wrote:

tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose:
bnemec
greghaynes
jdon



+1 to all

Jan

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


Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]

2014-04-08 Thread Jay Dobies

On 04/07/2014 07:50 PM, Robert Collins wrote:

tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose:
bnemec
greghaynes
jdon


I'm comfortable with committing to at least 3 reviews a day and promise 
to wield the awesome power of +2 responsibly. I appreciate being 
nominated :)




On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote:

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.


So I've actioned the prior vote.

I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews
already, but...

So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews:
60 days:
|greghaynes   | 1210  22  99   0   081.8% |
14 ( 11.6%)  |
|  bnemec | 1160  38  78   0   067.2% |
10 (  8.6%)  |
|   jdob  |  870  15  72   0   082.8% |
4 (  4.6%)  |

90 days:

|  bnemec | 1450  40 105   0   072.4% |
17 ( 11.7%)  |
|greghaynes   | 1420  23 119   0   083.8% |
22 ( 15.5%)  |
|   jdob  | 1060  17  89   0   084.0% |
7 (  6.6%)  |

Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he
shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is
sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'.
I'm delighted to support him for core now.

Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty
good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual
awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking
at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been
beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs
not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for
core too.

Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between
Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another
definite +1 from me.

-Rob






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


Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]

2014-04-08 Thread Gregory Haynes
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Jay Dobies wrote:
 On 04/07/2014 07:50 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
  tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose:
  bnemec
  greghaynes
  jdon
 
 I'm comfortable with committing to at least 3 reviews a day and promise 
 to wield the awesome power of +2 responsibly. I appreciate being 
 nominated :)
 

I am also comfortable with performing at least 3 reviews daily and would
only 
use my new found powers responsibly. Thanks!

 
  On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote:
  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.
 
  So I've actioned the prior vote.
 
  I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews
  already, but...
 
  So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews:
  60 days:
  |greghaynes   | 1210  22  99   0   081.8% |
  14 ( 11.6%)  |
  |  bnemec | 1160  38  78   0   067.2% |
  10 (  8.6%)  |
  |   jdob  |  870  15  72   0   082.8% |
  4 (  4.6%)  |
 
  90 days:
 
  |  bnemec | 1450  40 105   0   072.4% |
  17 ( 11.7%)  |
  |greghaynes   | 1420  23 119   0   083.8% |
  22 ( 15.5%)  |
  |   jdob  | 1060  17  89   0   084.0% |
  7 (  6.6%)  |
 
  Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he
  shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is
  sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'.
  I'm delighted to support him for core now.
 
  Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty
  good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual
  awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking
  at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been
  beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs
  not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for
  core too.
 
  Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between
  Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another
  definite +1 from me.
 
  -Rob
 
 
 
 

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


Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]

2014-04-08 Thread Ben Nemec

On 04/08/2014 02:47 PM, Gregory Haynes wrote:

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Jay Dobies wrote:

On 04/07/2014 07:50 PM, Robert Collins wrote:

tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose:
bnemec
greghaynes
jdon


I'm comfortable with committing to at least 3 reviews a day and promise
to wield the awesome power of +2 responsibly. I appreciate being
nominated :)



I am also comfortable with performing at least 3 reviews daily and would
only
use my new found powers responsibly. Thanks!


+1 to all the above sentiments. :-)





On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote:

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.


So I've actioned the prior vote.

I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews
already, but...

So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews:
60 days:
|greghaynes   | 1210  22  99   0   081.8% |
14 ( 11.6%)  |
|  bnemec | 1160  38  78   0   067.2% |
10 (  8.6%)  |
|   jdob  |  870  15  72   0   082.8% |
4 (  4.6%)  |

90 days:

|  bnemec | 1450  40 105   0   072.4% |
17 ( 11.7%)  |
|greghaynes   | 1420  23 119   0   083.8% |
22 ( 15.5%)  |
|   jdob  | 1060  17  89   0   084.0% |
7 (  6.6%)  |

Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he
shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is
sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'.
I'm delighted to support him for core now.

Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty
good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual
awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking
at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been
beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs
not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for
core too.

Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between
Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another
definite +1 from me.

-Rob






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




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


Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]

2014-04-08 Thread Dan Prince


- Original Message -
 From: Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net
 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
 openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
 Sent: Monday, April 7, 2014 7:50:57 PM
 Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional  
 cores]
 
 tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose:
 bnemec
 greghaynes
 jdon

+1

 
 
 On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote:
  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.
 
 So I've actioned the prior vote.
 
 I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews
 already, but...
 
 So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews:
 60 days:
 |greghaynes   | 1210  22  99   0   081.8% |
 14 ( 11.6%)  |
 |  bnemec | 1160  38  78   0   067.2% |
 10 (  8.6%)  |
 |   jdob  |  870  15  72   0   082.8% |
 4 (  4.6%)  |
 
 90 days:
 
 |  bnemec | 1450  40 105   0   072.4% |
 17 ( 11.7%)  |
 |greghaynes   | 1420  23 119   0   083.8% |
 22 ( 15.5%)  |
 |   jdob  | 1060  17  89   0   084.0% |
 7 (  6.6%)  |
 
 Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he
 shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is
 sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'.
 I'm delighted to support him for core now.
 
 Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty
 good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual
 awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking
 at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been
 beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs
 not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for
 core too.
 
 Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between
 Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another
 definite +1 from me.
 
 -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
 

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


Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]

2014-04-08 Thread mar...@redhat.com
On 08/04/14 02:50, Robert Collins wrote:
 tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose:
 bnemec
 greghaynes
 jdon
 

+1

 
 On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote:
 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.
 
 So I've actioned the prior vote.
 
 I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews
 already, but...
 
 So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews:
 60 days:
 |greghaynes   | 1210  22  99   0   081.8% |
 14 ( 11.6%)  |
 |  bnemec | 1160  38  78   0   067.2% |
 10 (  8.6%)  |
 |   jdob  |  870  15  72   0   082.8% |
 4 (  4.6%)  |
 
 90 days:
 
 |  bnemec | 1450  40 105   0   072.4% |
 17 ( 11.7%)  |
 |greghaynes   | 1420  23 119   0   083.8% |
 22 ( 15.5%)  |
 |   jdob  | 1060  17  89   0   084.0% |
 7 (  6.6%)  |
 
 Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he
 shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is
 sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'.
 I'm delighted to support him for core now.
 
 Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty
 good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual
 awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking
 at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been
 beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs
 not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for
 core too.
 
 Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between
 Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another
 definite +1 from me.
 
 -Rob
 
 
 
 


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


Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]

2014-04-07 Thread Robert Collins
tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose:
bnemec
greghaynes
jdon


On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote:
 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.

So I've actioned the prior vote.

I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews
already, but...

So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews:
60 days:
|greghaynes   | 1210  22  99   0   081.8% |
14 ( 11.6%)  |
|  bnemec | 1160  38  78   0   067.2% |
10 (  8.6%)  |
|   jdob  |  870  15  72   0   082.8% |
4 (  4.6%)  |

90 days:

|  bnemec | 1450  40 105   0   072.4% |
17 ( 11.7%)  |
|greghaynes   | 1420  23 119   0   083.8% |
22 ( 15.5%)  |
|   jdob  | 1060  17  89   0   084.0% |
7 (  6.6%)  |

Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he
shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is
sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'.
I'm delighted to support him for core now.

Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty
good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual
awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking
at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been
beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs
not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for
core too.

Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between
Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another
definite +1 from me.

-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


Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]

2014-04-07 Thread Ghe Rivero
+1 for the -core changes

On 04/08/2014 01:50 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
 tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose:
 bnemec
 greghaynes
 jdon


 On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote:
 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.
 So I've actioned the prior vote.

 I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews
 already, but...

 So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews:
 60 days:
 |greghaynes   | 1210  22  99   0   081.8% |
 14 ( 11.6%)  |
 |  bnemec | 1160  38  78   0   067.2% |
 10 (  8.6%)  |
 |   jdob  |  870  15  72   0   082.8% |
 4 (  4.6%)  |

 90 days:

 |  bnemec | 1450  40 105   0   072.4% |
 17 ( 11.7%)  |
 |greghaynes   | 1420  23 119   0   083.8% |
 22 ( 15.5%)  |
 |   jdob  | 1060  17  89   0   084.0% |
 7 (  6.6%)  |

 Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he
 shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is
 sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'.
 I'm delighted to support him for core now.

 Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty
 good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual
 awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking
 at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been
 beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs
 not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for
 core too.

 Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between
 Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another
 definite +1 from me.

 -Rob






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