Open Stack

On 15 January 2015 at 10:07, Clint Byrum <clint at fewbar.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from James Polley's message of 2015-01-14 12:46:37 -0800:
>> Thanks for the nomination Clint (and +1s from people who have already
>> responded)
>>
>> At this stage, I believe we've traditionally[1] asked[2] the potential new
>> Core Reviewer to commit to 3 reviews per work-day.
>>
>> I don't feel that that's a commitment I can make at this point. It's not
>> something I've been able to achieve in the past - I've come close over the
>> last 30 days, but the 90 day report shows me barely above 2 per day. I
>> think my current throughput is something I can commit to maintaining, and
>> I'd like to think that it can grow over time; but I don't think I can
>> commit to doing anything more than I've already been able to do.
>>
>> If the rest of the core reviewers think I'm still making a valuable
>> contribution, I'm more than happy to accept this nomination.
>>
>
> IMO we need to re-evaluate that requirement. None of us has done a great
> job at sustaining it, however as a team we've managed to at least get
> enough reviews done to keep the tubes flowing. I know that at one point
> we got really backed up, but what solved that was a combination of a few
> less patches getting submitted (probably because of the long wait time)
> and a few more reviewers being added. So having more good reviewers like
> yourself seems more important than having more perfect reviewers.

I agree. The point of making a commitment is a social mechanism for
'this is a marathon, not a sprint'.

> Also the main reason for wanting people to do 3 per day is to maintain
> familiarity with the code. I think you've been able to remain familiar
> with your traditional rate just fine.

3 was an arbitrary number pulled out of the air. If folk can and do
remain familiar with a lower review rate, thats fine IMO. Nothing
should be considered permanent or set in stone.

-Rob

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