Open Stack

+1 from me also,

I also use +0 for question asking and the like, because IMHO that's not 
what -1 are for. As for myself losing stackalytics stats when *I* do 
this (ie using +0 instead of -1), meh, I got better things in my life to 
think/care about :-P

-Josh

Nikhil Komawar wrote:
> Thanks Amrith!
>
> I am a big supporter on including +0s.
>
> On 4/9/16 6:31 PM, Amrith Kumar wrote:
>> Thanks to Dims and Steve for bringing this up.
>>
>> 	It has long been my opinion that +0's are invaluable for the question asking, and for getting to understand software, and unfortunately +0's are lost in the noise. So a while ago, I posted to the ML [1] asking about making +0's more visible. I signed up to submit a request on gerrit upstream (and promptly forgot to do that). This mail thread has reminded me of that. I have now posted a request for the upstream gerrit folks to fix [2].
>>
>> 	I believe that people don't use +0's enough because they often get ignored. I know that one can be cynical and say it is because it gives one no credit in stackalytics; I choose not to be that person.
>>
>> 	I post +0's a lot. But, I find that they are often ignored. If you agree with me that +0's are useful, and could be highlighted better in the gerrit review screen, please post a comment on [2].
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -amrith
>>
>> [1] http://openstack.markmail.org/thread/nj4onttaibjmfxew
>> [2] https://code.google.com/p/gerrit/issues/detail?id=4050
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Matt Riedemann [mailto:mriedem at linux.vnet.ibm.com]
>>> Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2016 9:43 AM
>>> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stackalytics] Gaming the Stackalytics
>>> stats
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/8/2016 5:54 PM, Jay Faulkner wrote:
>>>> I know a lot of folks explicitly avoid a +0 vote with a comment
>>>> because you don't get "credit" for it in statistics. Whether or not
>>>> that should matter is another discussion, but there is a significant
>>>> disincentive to no-voting right now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>> Jay Faulkner
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --
>>>> *From:* Dolph Mathews<dolph.mathews at gmail.com>
>>>> *Sent:* Friday, April 8, 2016 1:54 PM
>>>> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [all][stackalytics] Gaming the
>>>> Stackalytics stats
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, April 8, 2016, John Dickinson<me at not.mn
>>>> <mailto:me at not.mn>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      On 8 Apr 2016, at 13:35, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>       >  On 2016-04-08 19:42:18 +0200 (+0200), Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>>>>       >>  There are many ways to game a simple +1 counter, such as +1'ing
>>>>      changes
>>>>       >>  that already have at least 1x +2, or which already approved, or
>>>>      which need
>>>>       >>  rechecking...
>>>>       >  [...]
>>>>       >
>>>>       >  The behavior which baffles me, and also seems to be on the rise
>>>>       >  lately, is random +1 votes on changes whose commit messages
>>> and/or
>>>>       >  status clearly indicate they should not merged and do not need to
>>> be
>>>>       >  reviewed. I suppose that's another an easy way to avoid the
>>> dreaded
>>>>       >  "disagreements" counter?
>>>>       >  --
>>>>       >  Jeremy Stanley
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      I have been told that some OpenStack on boarding teaches new members
>>>>      of the community to do reviews. And they say, effectively, "muddle
>>>>      through as you can. You won't understand it all at first, but do
>>>>      your best. When you're done, add a +1 and move to the next one"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I advocate for basically this, but instead of a +1, leave a +0 and ask
>>>> questions. The new reviewer will inevitably learn something and the
>>>> author will benefit by explaining their change (teaching is the best
>>>> way to learn).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      I've been working to correct this when I've seen it, but +1 reviews
>>>>      with no comments might not be people trying to game. It might simply
>>>>      be people trying to get involved that don't know any better yet.
>>>>
>>>>      --John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>> ____ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>> There is also disincentive in +1ing a change that you don't understand and
>>> is wrong and then a core comes along and -1s it (you get dinged for the
>>> disagreement). And there is disincentive in -1ing a change for the wrong
>>> reasons (silly nits or asking questions for understanding). I ask a lot of
>>> questions in a lot of changes and I don't vote on those because it would
>>> be inappropriate.
>>>
>>> I also notice when "newcomers" are asking good questions for understanding
>>> and not voting on them, it shows me they are trying to learn and are
>>> getting invested in the project, not just trying to pad stats. Those are
>>> the people we look to mentor into bigger roles in the project team, be
>>> that working on subteams or eventually looking at for the core reviewer
>>> team.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Matt Riedemann
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>