On Jun 4, 2006, at 1:43 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
The trouble is there does not seem to be a clear gain in your
punishment system. At best it may just discourage people.
In a commercial organization, that might be a good system. For a free
project like GCC, it is not obvious where the long-term benefits for
the project are, given its "unconventional" way of "hiring" people.
Which is why in my previous message, I proposed in giving rewards to
ones which stick around and maintain. Do we want positive or negative
reenforcement?
People get inactive for some period of time for various reasons, some
of whichg are not subject of public debate.
My system said nothing about inactive people, only the active ones.
The way I consider a person active maintainer is approving patches/
creating
patches. If a person cannot follow up on the approval and/or creation,
then why should we take the contribution if it causes problems?
2 months after the regression was found seems like a good time frame for
figuring if the maintainer could handle the work load. Maybe we
should have
a time limit on how far after the patch went in, we should consider
the regression
significant to worry to give a punishment out.
-- Pinski
