[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