Open Stack

Getting back in the swing of things...

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:
 - Dan Prince for -core
 - Jordan O'Mara 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 keeping
the boilerplate :) - 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.

90 day active-enough stats:

+-------------------------+---------------------------------------+----------------+
|         Reviewer        | Reviews   -2  -1  +1  +2  +A    +/- % |
Disagreements* |
+-------------------------+---------------------------------------+----------------+
|        slagle **        |     655    0 145   7 503 154    77.9% |
36 (  5.5%)  |
|     clint-fewbar **     |     549    4 120  11 414 115    77.4% |
32 (  5.8%)  |
|       lifeless **       |     518   34 203   2 279 113    54.2% |
21 (  4.1%)  |
|          rbrady         |     453    0  14 439   0   0    96.9% |
60 ( 13.2%)  |
|         cmsj **         |     322    0  24   1 297 136    92.5% |
22 (  6.8%)  |
|        derekh **        |     261    0  50   1 210  90    80.8% |
12 (  4.6%)  |
|        dan-prince       |     257    0  67 157  33  16    73.9% |
15 (  5.8%)  |
|       jprovazn **       |     190    0  21   2 167  43    88.9% |
13 (  6.8%)  |
|        ifarkas **       |     186    0  28  18 140  82    84.9% |
6 (  3.2%)  |
===========================================================
|         jistr **        |     177    0  31  16 130  28    82.5% |
4 (  2.3%)  |
|      ghe.rivero **      |     176    1  21  25 129  55    87.5% |
7 (  4.0%)  |
|        lsmola **        |     172    2  12  55 103  63    91.9% |
21 ( 12.2%)  |
|           jdob          |     166    0  31 135   0   0    81.3% |
9 (  5.4%)  |
|          bnemec         |     138    0  38 100   0   0    72.5% |
17 ( 12.3%)  |
|        greghaynes       |     126    0  21 105   0   0    83.3% |
22 ( 17.5%)  |
|          dougal         |     125    0  26  99   0   0    79.2% |
13 ( 10.4%)  |
|       tzumainn **       |     119    0  30  69  20  17    74.8% |
2 (  1.7%)  |
|        rpodolyaka       |     115    0  15 100   0   0    87.0% |
15 ( 13.0%)  |
|         ftcjeff         |     103    0   3 100   0   0    97.1% |
9 (  8.7%)  |
|         thesheep        |      93    0  26  31  36  21    72.0% |
3 (  3.2%)  |
|        pblaho **        |      88    1   8  37  42  22    89.8% |
3 (  3.4%)  |
|     jonpaul-sullivan    |      80    0  33  47   0   0    58.8% |
17 ( 21.2%)  |
|       tomas-8c8 **      |      78    0  15   4  59  27    80.8% |
4 (  5.1%)  |
|        marios **        |      75    0   7  53  15  10    90.7% |
14 ( 18.7%)  |
|         stevenk         |      75    0  15  60   0   0    80.0% |
9 ( 12.0%)  |
|           rwsu          |      74    0   3  71   0   0    95.9% |
11 ( 14.9%)  |
|         mkerrin         |      70    0  14  56   0   0    80.0% |
14 ( 20.0%)  |

The ==== line is set at the just voted on minimum expected of core: 3
reviews per work day, 60 work days in a 90 day period (64 - fudge for
holidays), 180 reviews.
I cut the full report out at the point we had been previously - with
the commitment to 3 reviews per day, next months report will have a
much higher minimum. In future reviews, we'll set the bar up around
where the === is - but of course, human judgement will always apply
:).


rbrady is a very active review - which is fantastic. However I'd like
to see deeper thought - when I reviewed his reviews there were often
things missed (which the disagreements % above does capture to a bit,
but since its per-patch, I'm not sure the metric is sufficient - but
thats a different discussion.

Dan has got much deeper in in his reviews and I now would be delighted
to have him in core.

Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews already, but
since we've now set a commitment for cores - I'm not sure if we should
offer core to folk who aren't up at the 180 line - core. What do folk
think? I'd certainly have been nominating at least one more person if
we hadn't recently moved the goalposts...


And the 90 day not-active-enough status:

|       jtomasek **       |      24    0   2  15   7   3    91.7% |
0 (  0.0%)  |
|        jomara **        |      22    0   5   8   9  11    77.3% |
0 (  0.0%)  |
|        jcoufal **       |      12    0   3   6   3   3    75.0% |
2 ( 16.7%)  |

As we discussed last time - I propose we remove these folk from core -
they are still contributing, but core is primarily a responsibility -
and folk can step back up as core very quickly if they want to.

Now, 30 day history - this is the heads up for folk to avoid surprises
in April. For this, I've used the new commitment of 3 per day - or 60
per 30 day window (same math as above).

Folk that are on track to retain/ be asked to be -core (on volume, not
quality- thats looked in detail later):

|        slagle **        |     205    0  46   5 154  40    77.6% |
9 (  4.4%)  |
|       lifeless **       |     204   13  98   0  93  42    45.6% |
4 (  2.0%)  |
|     clint-fewbar **     |     197    4  55   6 132  31    70.1% |
10 (  5.1%)  |
|          rbrady         |     147    0   7 140   0   0    95.2% |
20 ( 13.6%)  |
|        derekh **        |     111    0  26   0  85  33    76.6% |
5 (  4.5%)  |
|         cmsj **         |      91    0   9   0  82  39    90.1% |
4 (  4.4%)  |
|        dan-prince       |      89    0  30  46  13   6    66.3% |
6 (  6.7%)  |
|        greghaynes       |      84    0  18  66   0   0    78.6% |
9 ( 10.7%)  |
|        rpodolyaka       |      80    0  12  68   0   0    85.0% |
11 ( 13.8%)  |
|     jonpaul-sullivan    |      77    0  31  46   0   0    59.7% |
17 ( 22.1%)  |
|          bnemec         |      72    0  23  49   0   0    68.1% |
7 (  9.7%)  |
|       jprovazn **       |      65    0  13   0  52   9    80.0% |
9 ( 13.8%)  |
|        lsmola **        |      65    0   6  14  45  23    90.8% |
6 (  9.2%)  |
|      ghe.rivero **      |      63    1  11  10  41  20    81.0% |
3 (  4.8%)  |
|         mkerrin         |      60    0  10  50   0   0    83.3% |
12 ( 20.0%)  |
|        ifarkas **       |      60    0   7   1  52  30    88.3% |
1 (  1.7%)  |
|         jistr **        |      58    0   5   7  46  13    91.4% |
1 (  1.7%)  |


-core that are not keeping up recently... :

|       tomas-8c8 **      |      31    0   4   2  25   8    87.1% |
1 (  3.2%)  |
|        marios **        |      27    0   1  17   9   7    96.3% |
3 ( 11.1%)  |
|       tzumainn **       |      27    0   3  23   1   4    88.9% |
0 (  0.0%)  |
|        pblaho **        |      17    0   0   4  13   4   100.0% |
1 (  5.9%)  |
|        jomara **        |       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, on an ongoing basis :)

I'm using the fairly simple metric we agreed on - 'average at least
three reviews a
day' as a proxy for 'sees enough of the code and enough discussion of
the code to be an effective reviewer'. The three review a day thing we
derived based
on the need for consistent volume of reviews to handle current
contributors - we may
lower that once we're ahead (which may happen quickly if we get more cores... :)
But even so:
 - reading three patches a day is a pretty low commitment to ask for
 - if you don't have time to do that, you will get stale quickly -
you'll only see under
   33% of the code changes going on (we're doing about 10 commits
   a day - twice as many since december - and hopefully not slowing down!)

Cheers,
Rob


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