Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2016-04-08 14:04:15 +0000 (+0000), gordon chung wrote:
[...]
understandably it's more difficult to manage a large group of
cores, but it does seem strange that all the projects have roughly
the same core team size even though some projects have a
contributor base that is significantly larger than others.
That may be a sign that something like Dunbar's number is at work
limiting group sizes. Crunching Gerrit approver group membership
counts across 566 official Git repos (those belonging to a TC
recognized project team), 90% have 17 or fewer accounts capable of
approving changes. Below that there's a pretty varied spread (with
23% of repos having only 1 approver). This is a pretty raw analysis
though, so something taking into account how many of those reviewers
regularly exercised their approval access may yield different
insights entirely.
Yes, there is a limit here, and it's got to do with trust. To grow a
core reviewer group efficiently you need to trust that everyone in the
group would still review and approve with the same rules you would
apply. It's just difficult to know 20 people enough to trust them to do
just that. That is the reason why core reviewers groups rarely grow past
17-18 people, and that is the reason why you need to split larger bodies
of codes into smaller review areas handled by separate groups.
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
