[openstack-dev] [heat] Core criteria, review stats vs reality

Mark McLoughlin markmc at redhat.com
Mon Dec 9 23:13:27 UTC 2013

On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 10:00 -0500, Russell Bryant wrote:
> 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.

The stats exist and they're really the only concrete thing an aspiring
core reviewer can look at to judge how they're doing and whether/when
their review contributions are likely to be valued enough for them to be
added to the team.

Robert and Clint took issue with TripleO being painted in a bad light
here. I agree because I think Robert is actually setting an really
interesting example for other PTLs.

For example, thanks to his email, look at the feedback I have:


  Mark is contributing great throughtful reviews, but the vast majority
  are very recent - like Roman, I want to give him some more time
  getting settled in with TripleO before proposing him for core.

Nevermind Robert's approach to the more delicate question of
expectations around some of the Tuskar developers who were added to
-core when the projects merged.

As a PTL, I would have been reluctant to take this approach because it's
so brutally personal. But OTOH the complete openness leaves it in no
doubt that everything is being done in absolute good faith and everyone
can be absolutely sure what is expected of them. I'm very pleasantly
surprised at how well it works.


More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list