Open Stack

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.

-- 
Russell Bryant