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 <rbtcoll...@hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
