On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 06:46 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > Having said that, > I'm not capable of single-handedly effecting an on-time release
You're bloody good and the task needs to fit our capability anyway. So, yes, you are. > We need larger, more robust pools of > committers, reviewers, commitfest managers, etc. We're living in a desert. We just need to remember it. Plan hard, focus on the important and be real. Move at a smooth pace to save resources. Don't give up when the going gets tough, just rest up and then continue. Not a new idea, but I think we should require all patch submitters to do one review per submission. There needs to be a balance between time spent on review and time spent on dev. The only real way this happens in any community is by peer review. All patch submitters need to know that they must also take their turn as patch reviewers. If it is a hard rule, then patch *sponsors* would be forced to accept that they must *also* pay for review time. It is the sponsors that need to be forced to accept that reality, though we can only "get at them" through controlling developer behaviour. So, I propose that we simply ignore patches from developers until they have done sufficient review to be allowed to develop again. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
