Open Stack

+1
On 04/03/2014 01:02 PM, Robert Collins 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
>
>