On 06/24/2013 08:01 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >> I think we maybe need to be a bit more careful about a name and shame >> policy, or it will be ignored. > > I very much don't like that idea of publishing a list of names either. > Editing the reviewer field and sending personal notices is fine by me, > but name and shame is walking the line…
Actually, every submitter on that list -- including Maciej -- was sent a personal, private email a week ago. A few (3) chose to take the opportunity to review things, or promised to do so, including a brand new Chinese contributor who needed help with English to review his patch. The vast majority chose not to respond to my email to them at all. When private email fails, the next step is public email. Maciej is correct that this policy also belongs on the "how to submit a patch" wiki page. I will remedy that. Doing the patch counts yesterday, it became clear to me that the reason for the patch review pileups was that many people were submitting patches but not participating in the review process at all. That is, we have 100 to 150 people a year submitting patches, but relying entirely on the committers and a few heroic uber-reviewers to do 90% of the patch review. This is the commitfest problem in a nutshell. The purpose of the list was to make it completely apparent where the problem in clearing the patch queue lies, and to get some of our submitters to do patch review. Per both of my emails yesterday, I am trying to make sure that this CF finishes on time. Following the rules passed at the developer meetings for how CFs are to be run, I am doing so. If the result is unsatisfactory, I can always resign as CFM. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
