Open Stack

On Mon, 2016-02-29 at 17:48 -0500, Anita Kuno wrote:
> On 02/29/2016 05:34 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
[...]
> > While I accept there is potentially a gaming problem in all forms 
> > of Open Source (we see this in the kernel with the attempt to boost
> > patch counts with trivial changes), I'd be hesitant to characterise
> > people who only submit a single patch as gamers because there's a 
> > lot of drive by patching that goes on in the long tail of any 
> > project.  The usual reason for this is everything works great apart 
> > from one thing, which the person gets annoyed enough over to 
> > investigate and patch.  I've done it myself in a lot of Open Source 
> > projects.  Once your patch is in, you've no need to submit another 
> > because everything is now working as you wished and your goal was 
> > to fix the problem not become further involved in the development 
> > side of things.  I suspect if you look in the long tail of 
> > OpenStack you'll find a lot of user and operator patches for
> > precisely this reason.
> 
> I think you are missing the point of my explanation to the question I
> was asked.
> 
> I am interested in mutually beneficial interactions.
> 
> I am not interested in unbalanced or one sided interactions.
> 
> Sorry I was unclear earlier.

Well, now I'm confused.  I was responding specifically to this
statement:

> So some folks are doing the minimum to get a summit pass rather than 
> being part of the cohort that has their first patch to OpenStack as a 
> means of offering their second patch to OpenStack.

Is that not who you meant by "gamers"? because to me it sounds like an
an expectation that people who aren't gamers would submit more than one
patch and, indeed, become part of the developer base.  I wanted to
explain why there's a significant set of people who legitimately only
submit a single patch and who won't really ever become developers.

James