2011/6/27 Philip Brown <[email protected]>: > 2011/6/27 Maciej Bliziński <[email protected]>: >> 2011/6/27 Philip Brown <[email protected]>: >>> 2011/6/26 Maciej Bliziński <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> The non-inclusion of reviews as a gating factor in the proposal is >>>> intentional. It might of course change - but so far, it has been >>>> group's intention not to involve a human controlling package releases. >>>> >>>> Peer reviews are an excellent mechanism to improve quality. My >>>> intention is to create an environment in which maintainers want their >>>> packages reviewed. >>> >>> providing some kind of positive motivation is nice. Its a great >>> management strategy. >>> but what could be used as sufficient motivation? >> >> My first thought is: giving helpful reviews! This does of course mean >> pointing out issues, but also giving explanations why the issues in >> question are important, and suggestions how to tackle them. > > > Errr... not sure how that is motivational there. maybe I'm not > understanding what you're saying.
The motivation can flow from the helpfulness of reviews. It's the "thank goodness my package was reviewed" feeling. It's when a maintainer is glad and grateful for the feedback which allowed them to make their package better. > On the other side of the field, I have a thought on motivation for > the people doing the actual reviewing: > > Those who participate and do... (? x amount of package reviews per > month/week, and also file 'y' amount of feedback/whatever?) could get > to be recognized as being on "the review team" ? Yes, sounds like a good idea. Reviewing takes time and skill. Only having packages for review doesn't get them reviewed if there are no reviewers around. Recognition for doing reviews would definitely help. Maciej _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
