[openstack-dev] [heat] Core criteria, review stats vs reality
Clint Byrum
clint at fewbar.com
Mon Dec 9 19:03:47 UTC 2013
Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2013-12-09 09:52:25 -0800:
> On 09/12/13 06:31, Steven Hardy wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > So I've been getting concerned about $subject recently, and based on some
> > recent discussions so have some other heat-core folks, so I wanted to start
> > a discussion where we can agree and communicate our expectations related to
> > nomination for heat-core membership (becuase we do need more core
> > reviewers):
> >
> > 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.
>
> +1
>
> Fun fact: due to the quirks of how Gerrit produces the JSON data dump,
> it's not actually possible for the reviewstats tools to count +0
> reviews. So, for example, one can juice one's review stats by actively
> obstructing someone else's work (voting -1) when a friendly comment
> would have sufficed. This is one of many ways in which metrics offer
> perverse incentives.
>
> Statistics can be useful. They can be particularly useful *in the
> aggregate*. But as soon as you add a closed feedback loop you're no
> longer measuring what you originally thought - mostly you're just
> measuring the gain of the feedback loop.
>
I think I understand the psychology of stats and incentives, and I know
that this _may_ happen.
However, can we please be more careful about how this is referenced?
Your message above is suggesting the absolute _worst_ behavior from our
community. That is not what I expect, and I think anybody who was doing
that would be dealt with _swiftly_.
More information about the OpenStack-dev
mailing list