On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 13:31 +1300, Robert Collins wrote: > We have a bit of a bug in OpenStack today, IMO, in that there is more > focus on being -core than on being a good effective reviewer. IMO > that's backwards: the magic switch that lets you set +2 and -2 is a > responsibility, and that has some impact on the weight your comments > in reviews have on other people - both other core and non-core, but > the contribution we make by reviewing doesn't suddenly get > significantly better by virtue of being -core. There is an element of > trust and faith in personality etc - you don't want destructive > behaviour in code review, but you don't want that from anyone - it's > not a new requirement place on -core.
FWIW, I see the this "focus on being -core" as an often healthy desire to be recognized as a good effective reviewer. I guess that's related to where you said something similar in the Heat thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org/msg11121.html there is a meme going around (I don't know if it's true or not) that some people are assessed - performance review stuff within vendor organisations - on becoming core reviewers. For example, if managers in these organizations said to people "I want to spend a significant proportion of your time contributing good and effective upstream reviews" that would be a good thing, right? One way that such well intentioned managers could know whether the reviewing is good and effective is whether the reviewers are getting added to the -core teams. That also seems mostly positive. Certainly better than looking at reviewer stats? Mark. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
