Open Stack

> >>> 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
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.

Thanks for the response.

I don't know if drive-by attendance at design summit sessions by under-
qualified or uninformed summiteers is encouraged by the availability of
ATC passes. But as long as those individuals aren't actively derailing
the conversation in sessions, I wouldn't consider their buzz soakage as
a major issue TBH. 

In any case, I would say that just meeting the bar for an ATC summit pass
(by landing the required number of patches) is not bending the rules or
misrepresenting in any way.

Even if specifically motivated by the ATC pass (as opposed to scratching
a very specific itch) it's still simply an honest and rational response
to an incentive offered by the foundation.

One could argue whether the incentive is mis-designed, but that doesn't
IMO make a gamer of any contributor who simply meets the required threshold
of activity.

Cheers,
Eoghan