Open Stack

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:
 - James Slagle for -core
 - Arata Notsu to be removed from -core
 - Devananda van der veen to be removed 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.
James, please let me know if you're willing to be in tripleo-core.
Arata, Devananda, 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 last time, so I'll try to
frame this better :) - 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 is still fairly recent; folk from the Tuskar
project who are reviewing widely within TripleO are still low on the
mechanical stats - I think we should keep them as -core for another
month unconditionally, after which there will be three months of
history to inform us about broad activity.

90 day active-enough stats:

+--------------------------+-----------------------------------+----------------+
|         Reviewer         | Reviews   -2  -1  +1  +2    +/- % |
Disagreements* |
+--------------------------+-----------------------------------+----------------+
|       lifeless **        |     457   17 169   6 265    59.3% |    9
(  3.3%)  |
|     clint-fewbar **      |     431    2  81   1 347    80.7% |   10
(  2.9%)  |
|         cmsj **          |     361    1  28   0 332    92.0% |   14
(  4.2%)  |
|        derekh **         |     150    0  30  13 107    80.0% |    3
(  2.5%)  |
|          slagle          |      98    0  20  78   0    79.6% |   10
( 12.8%)  |

James is coming along very well. I'd like to see a little more
critical analysis in his reviews, but I think his standard is high
enough now to carry the weight of -core.

And the 90 day not-active-enough status:

|       arata776 **        |       9    0   2   0   7    77.8% |    0
(  0.0%)  |
|       devananda **       |       6    0   0   0   6   100.0% |    0
(  0.0%)  |

Both Arata and Devananda are active in OpenStack as a whole, but I
think they're not tracking the TripleO project code changes closely
enough to wearing the -core mantle. I'd be delighted if they want to
rejoin as core - perhaps even after a shorter than usual ramp up
period if they get stuck in.

Now, 30 day history - this is the heads up for folk...

Folk that are on track to retain/ be asked to be -core:

|   lifeless **    |     234   11  80   5 138    61.1% |    8 (  5.6%)  |
| clint-fewbar **  |     218    1  48   0 169    77.5% |    6 (  3.6%)  |
|     cmsj **      |     180    1   9   0 170    94.4% |    4 (  2.4%)  |
|    derekh **     |      96    0  10   1  85    89.6% |    0 (  0.0%)  |
|      slagle      |      70    0  13  57   0    81.4% |    7 ( 12.3%)  |
|    lsmola **     |      53    1  14  16  22    71.7% |    4 ( 10.5%)  |
|    rpodolyaka    |      49    0  15  34   0    69.4% |    4 ( 11.8%)  |
|       jogo       |      45    0   5  40   0    88.9% |    2 (  5.0%)  |
|    ifarkas **    |      39    0   5   4  30    87.2% |    3 (  8.8%)  |
|     jistr **     |      36    0  10   7  19    72.2% |    2 (  7.7%)  |
|   tzumainn **    |      34    0   9   2  23    73.5% |    1 (  4.0%)  |
|    ghe.rivero    |      32    0   5  27   0    84.4% |    5 ( 18.5%)  |

-core that are not keeping up...:
|   tomas-8c8 **   |      23    0   5   1  17    78.3% |    3 ( 16.7%)  |
|    pblaho **     |      19    0   2   3  14    89.5% |    1 (  5.9%)  |
|    marios **     |      14    0   1  12   1    92.9% |    1 (  7.7%)  |
|    jomara **     |      10    0   0   0  10   100.0% |    1 ( 10.0%)  |
|   arata776 **    |       9    0   2   0   7    77.8% |    0 (  0.0%)  |
|   jtomasek **    |       7    0   0   0   7   100.0% |    0 (  0.0%)  |
|   devananda **   |       5    0   0   0   5   100.0% |    0 (  0.0%)  |
|   jprovazn **    |       3    0   0   3   0   100.0% |    1 ( 33.3%)  |

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

-- 
Robert Collins <rbtcollins at hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud