On 30/10/13 09:06, Robert Collins wrote: > 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: > - James Slagle for -core +1, James will be a good addition to the team.
> - Arata Notsu to be removed from -core > - Devananda van der veen to be removed from -core Both removals look reasonable to me, +1 > > Existing -core members are eligible to vote - please indicate your > opinion on each of the three changes above in reply to this email. > James, please let me know if you're willing to be in tripleo-core. > Arata, Devananda, 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 last time, so I'll try to > frame this better :) - 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. > > Our merger with Tuskar is still fairly recent; folk from the Tuskar > project who are reviewing widely within TripleO are still low on the > mechanical stats - I think we should keep them as -core for another > month unconditionally, after which there will be three months of > history to inform us about broad activity. > > 90 day active-enough stats: > > +--------------------------+-----------------------------------+----------------+ > | Reviewer | Reviews -2 -1 +1 +2 +/- % | > Disagreements* | > +--------------------------+-----------------------------------+----------------+ > | lifeless ** | 457 17 169 6 265 59.3% | 9 > ( 3.3%) | > | clint-fewbar ** | 431 2 81 1 347 80.7% | 10 > ( 2.9%) | > | cmsj ** | 361 1 28 0 332 92.0% | 14 > ( 4.2%) | > | derekh ** | 150 0 30 13 107 80.0% | 3 > ( 2.5%) | > | slagle | 98 0 20 78 0 79.6% | 10 > ( 12.8%) | > > James is coming along very well. I'd like to see a little more > critical analysis in his reviews, but I think his standard is high > enough now to carry the weight of -core. > > And the 90 day not-active-enough status: > > | arata776 ** | 9 0 2 0 7 77.8% | 0 > ( 0.0%) | > | devananda ** | 6 0 0 0 6 100.0% | 0 > ( 0.0%) | > > Both Arata and Devananda are active in OpenStack as a whole, but I > think they're not tracking the TripleO project code changes closely > enough to wearing the -core mantle. I'd be delighted if they want to > rejoin as core - perhaps even after a shorter than usual ramp up > period if they get stuck in. > > Now, 30 day history - this is the heads up for folk... > > Folk that are on track to retain/ be asked to be -core: > > | lifeless ** | 234 11 80 5 138 61.1% | 8 ( 5.6%) | > | clint-fewbar ** | 218 1 48 0 169 77.5% | 6 ( 3.6%) | > | cmsj ** | 180 1 9 0 170 94.4% | 4 ( 2.4%) | > | derekh ** | 96 0 10 1 85 89.6% | 0 ( 0.0%) | > | slagle | 70 0 13 57 0 81.4% | 7 ( 12.3%) | > | lsmola ** | 53 1 14 16 22 71.7% | 4 ( 10.5%) | > | rpodolyaka | 49 0 15 34 0 69.4% | 4 ( 11.8%) | > | jogo | 45 0 5 40 0 88.9% | 2 ( 5.0%) | > | ifarkas ** | 39 0 5 4 30 87.2% | 3 ( 8.8%) | > | jistr ** | 36 0 10 7 19 72.2% | 2 ( 7.7%) | > | tzumainn ** | 34 0 9 2 23 73.5% | 1 ( 4.0%) | > | ghe.rivero | 32 0 5 27 0 84.4% | 5 ( 18.5%) | > > -core that are not keeping up...: > | tomas-8c8 ** | 23 0 5 1 17 78.3% | 3 ( 16.7%) | > | pblaho ** | 19 0 2 3 14 89.5% | 1 ( 5.9%) | > | marios ** | 14 0 1 12 1 92.9% | 1 ( 7.7%) | > | jomara ** | 10 0 0 0 10 100.0% | 1 ( 10.0%) | > | arata776 ** | 9 0 2 0 7 77.8% | 0 ( 0.0%) | > | jtomasek ** | 7 0 0 0 7 100.0% | 0 ( 0.0%) | > | devananda ** | 5 0 0 0 5 100.0% | 0 ( 0.0%) | > | jprovazn ** | 3 0 0 3 0 100.0% | 1 ( 33.3%) | > > 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, particularly in the lead up to the summit! > > I'm using the fairly simple metric of 'average at least one review a > day' as a proxy for 'sees enough of the code and enough discussion of > the code to be an effective reviewer'. The one review a day thing I > derive thusly: > - reading a single patch a day is a low commitment to ask for > - if you don't have time to do that, you will get stale quickly - > you'll only see > about 20% of the code changes going on (we're doing about 5 commits > a day and hopefully not slowing down!) > > Cheers, > Rob > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev