Open Stack

Hi,

As the development of Tuskar-UI somehow stagnated recently, I have been 
focusing more on Horizon project lately to get features we need for 
Tuskar-UI. I acknowledge that I haven't been paying enough attention and 
reviews in TripleO. The statistics says it all. Although as the 
development of Tuskar-UI is about to rise rapidly, it would be nice to 
be able to give +2's here. I'll try to get up to speed with TripleO 
together with upcoming Tuskar-UI changes.

Jirka


On 12/04/2013 08:12 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
> 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:
>   - Ghe Rivero for -core
>   - Jan Provaznik for removal from -core
>   - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core
>   - Martyn Taylor 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 going
> to throw in some boilerplate here for a few more editions... - 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.
>
> Our merger with Tuskar has now had plenty of time to bed down; folk
> from the Tuskar project who have been reviewing widely within TripleO
> for the last three months are not in any way disadvantaged vs previous
> core reviewers when merely looking at the stats; and they've had three
> months to get familiar with the broad set of codebases we maintain.
>
> 90 day active-enough stats:
>
> +------------------+---------------------------------------+----------------+
> |     Reviewer     | Reviews   -2  -1  +1  +2  +A    +/- % | Disagreements* |
> +------------------+---------------------------------------+----------------+
> |   lifeless **    |     521   16 181   6 318 141    62.2% |   16 (  3.1%)  |
> |     cmsj **      |     416    1  30   1 384 206    92.5% |   22 (  5.3%)  |
> | clint-fewbar **  |     379    2  83   0 294 120    77.6% |   11 (  2.9%)  |
> |    derekh **     |     196    0  36   2 158  78    81.6% |    6 (  3.1%)  |
> |    slagle **     |     165    0  36  94  35  14    78.2% |   15 (  9.1%)  |
> |    ghe.rivero    |     150    0  26 124   0   0    82.7% |   17 ( 11.3%)  |
> |    rpodolyaka    |     142    0  34 108   0   0    76.1% |   21 ( 14.8%)  |
> |    lsmola **     |     101    1  15  27  58  38    84.2% |    4 (  4.0%)  |
> |    ifarkas **    |      95    0  10   8  77  25    89.5% |    4 (  4.2%)  |
> |     jistr **     |      95    1  19  16  59  23    78.9% |    5 (  5.3%)  |
> |      markmc      |      94    0  35  59   0   0    62.8% |    4 (  4.3%)  |
> |    pblaho **     |      83    1  13  45  24   9    83.1% |   19 ( 22.9%)  |
> |    marios **     |      72    0   7  32  33  15    90.3% |    6 (  8.3%)  |
> |   tzumainn **    |      67    0  17  15  35  15    74.6% |    3 (  4.5%)  |
> |    dan-prince    |      59    0  10  35  14  10    83.1% |    7 ( 11.9%)  |
> |       jogo       |      57    0   6  51   0   0    89.5% |    2 (  3.5%)  |
>
>
> This is a massive improvement over last months report. \o/ Yay. The
> cutoff line here is pretty arbitrary - I extended a couple of rows
> below one-per-work-day because Dan and Joe were basically there - and
> there is a somewhat bigger gap to the next most active reviewer below
> that.
>
> About half of Ghe's reviews are in the last 30 days, and ~85% in the
> last 60 - but he has been doing significant numbers of thoughtful
> reviews over the whole three months - I'd like to propose him for
> -core.
> Roman has very similar numbers here, but I don't feel quite as
> confident yet - I think he is still coming up to speed on the codebase
> (nearly all his reviews are in the last 60 days only) - but I'm
> confident that he'll be thoroughly indoctrinated in another month :).
> 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.
> Dan has a lower number of reviews but has been tracking fairly
> consistently over the last three + months, which is great. My personal
> feeling is that I don't think he's got quite enough alignment with
> everyone else [yet] - but perhaps that doesn't matter? I'm inclined to
> revisit next month as well.
> Joe is also in the 'great start, the contribution is welcome' - but
> needs more time settling into the things we need to care for in the
> TripleO codebases - keep it up.
>
> And the 90 day not-active-enough status:
>
> |   jprovazn **    |      22    0   5  10   7   1    77.3% |    2 (  9.1%)  |
> |    jomara **     |      21    0   2   4  15  11    90.5% |    2 (  9.5%)  |
> |    mtaylor **    |      17    3   6   0   8   8    47.1% |    0 (  0.0%)  |
> |   jtomasek **    |      10    0   0   2   8  10   100.0% |    1 ( 10.0%)  |
> |    jcoufal **    |       5    3   1   0   1   3    20.0% |    0 (  0.0%)  |
>
> Jan, Jordan, Martyn, Jiri and Jaromir are still actively contributing
> to TripleO and OpenStack, but I don't think they are tracking /
> engaging in the code review discussions enough to stay in -core: I'd
> be delighted if they want to rejoin as core - as we discussed last
> time, after a shorter than usual ramp up period if they get stuck in.
>
> Now, 30 day history - this is the heads up for folk to avoid surprises
> in January
>
> Folk that are on track to retain/ be asked to be -core:
>
> |   lifeless **   |     184    4  68   0 112  42    60.9% |    6 (  3.3%)  |
> |    ghe.rivero   |      85    0  17  68   0   0    80.0% |    8 (  9.4%)  |
> |    rpodolyaka   |      79    0  15  64   0   0    81.0% |   17 ( 21.5%)  |
> |      markmc     |      70    0  33  37   0   0    52.9% |    3 (  4.3%)  |
> |    derekh **    |      60    0  14   0  46  19    76.7% |    4 (  6.7%)  |
> |    slagle **    |      59    0  14  10  35  14    76.3% |    3 (  5.1%)  |
> |    marios **    |      54    0   6  20  28  13    88.9% |    5 (  9.3%)  |
> |    pblaho **    |      53    1   8  39   5   3    83.0% |   15 ( 28.3%)  |
> |     cmsj **     |      49    0   5   1  43  22    89.8% |    6 ( 12.2%)  |
> |     jistr **    |      46    1   5   9  31  10    87.0% |    3 (  6.5%)  |
> |    ifarkas **   |      44    0   3   0  41  16    93.2% |    1 (  2.3%)  |
> |    lsmola **    |      36    0   1   8  27  25    97.2% |    0 (  0.0%)  |
>
>
>
> -core that are not keeping up recently...:
>
> | clint-fewbar ** |      24    0   9   0  15   9    62.5% |    0 (  0.0%)  |
> |   tomas-8c8 **  |      22    0   0   1  21  15   100.0% |    1 (  4.5%)  |
> |   tzumainn **   |      14    0   0  12   2   1   100.0% |    2 ( 14.3%)  |
> |   jprovazn **   |      12    0   4   3   5   1    66.7% |    0 (  0.0%)  |
> |    jomara **    |       9    0   2   3   4   1    77.8% |    1 ( 11.1%)  |
> |   jtomasek **   |       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, particularly in the lead up to the summit!
>
> I'm using the fairly simple metric of 'average at least one review a
> day' as a proxy for 'sees enough of the code and enough discussion of
> the code to be an effective reviewer'. The one review a day thing I
> derive thusly:
>   - reading a single patch a day is a low commitment to ask for
>   - if you don't have time to do that, you will get stale quickly -
> you'll only see
>     about 20% of the code changes going on (we're doing about 5 commits
>     a day and hopefully not slowing down!)
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>
>