Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]
This has been actioned. Welcome! -Rob On 8 April 2014 11:50, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote: tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose: bnemec greghaynes jdon On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote: Hi +1 for your proposed -core changes. Re your question about whether we should retroactively apply the 3-a-day rule to the 3 month review stats, my suggestion would be a qualified no. I think we've established an agile approach to the member list of -core, so if there are a one or two people who we would have added to -core before the goalposts moved, I'd say look at their review quality. If they're showing the right stuff, let's get them in and helping. If they don't feel our new goalposts are achievable with their workload, they'll fall out again naturally before long. So I've actioned the prior vote. I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews already, but... So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews: 60 days: |greghaynes | 1210 22 99 0 081.8% | 14 ( 11.6%) | | bnemec | 1160 38 78 0 067.2% | 10 ( 8.6%) | | jdob | 870 15 72 0 082.8% | 4 ( 4.6%) | 90 days: | bnemec | 1450 40 105 0 072.4% | 17 ( 11.7%) | |greghaynes | 1420 23 119 0 083.8% | 22 ( 15.5%) | | jdob | 1060 17 89 0 084.0% | 7 ( 6.6%) | Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'. I'm delighted to support him for core now. Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for core too. Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another definite +1 from me. -Rob -- Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud -- Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]
On 08/04/14 01:50, Robert Collins wrote: tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose: bnemec greghaynes jdon -1, there's a typo in jdob's nick ;-) In all seriousness, I support all of them being added to core. On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote: Hi +1 for your proposed -core changes. Re your question about whether we should retroactively apply the 3-a-day rule to the 3 month review stats, my suggestion would be a qualified no. I think we've established an agile approach to the member list of -core, so if there are a one or two people who we would have added to -core before the goalposts moved, I'd say look at their review quality. If they're showing the right stuff, let's get them in and helping. If they don't feel our new goalposts are achievable with their workload, they'll fall out again naturally before long. So I've actioned the prior vote. I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews already, but... So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews: 60 days: |greghaynes | 1210 22 99 0 081.8% | 14 ( 11.6%) | | bnemec | 1160 38 78 0 067.2% | 10 ( 8.6%) | | jdob | 870 15 72 0 082.8% | 4 ( 4.6%) | 90 days: | bnemec | 1450 40 105 0 072.4% | 17 ( 11.7%) | |greghaynes | 1420 23 119 0 083.8% | 22 ( 15.5%) | | jdob | 1060 17 89 0 084.0% | 7 ( 6.6%) | Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'. I'm delighted to support him for core now. Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for core too. Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another definite +1 from me. -Rob ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]
+1 for the -core changes jdon sounds like a pretty cool Mafia name, +1 for Don Jay On 04/08/2014 09:10 AM, Tomas Sedovic wrote: On 08/04/14 01:50, Robert Collins wrote: tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose: bnemec greghaynes jdon -1, there's a typo in jdob's nick ;-) In all seriousness, I support all of them being added to core. On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote: Hi +1 for your proposed -core changes. Re your question about whether we should retroactively apply the 3-a-day rule to the 3 month review stats, my suggestion would be a qualified no. I think we've established an agile approach to the member list of -core, so if there are a one or two people who we would have added to -core before the goalposts moved, I'd say look at their review quality. If they're showing the right stuff, let's get them in and helping. If they don't feel our new goalposts are achievable with their workload, they'll fall out again naturally before long. So I've actioned the prior vote. I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews already, but... So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews: 60 days: |greghaynes | 1210 22 99 0 081.8% | 14 ( 11.6%) | | bnemec | 1160 38 78 0 067.2% | 10 ( 8.6%) | | jdob | 870 15 72 0 082.8% | 4 ( 4.6%) | 90 days: | bnemec | 1450 40 105 0 072.4% | 17 ( 11.7%) | |greghaynes | 1420 23 119 0 083.8% | 22 ( 15.5%) | | jdob | 1060 17 89 0 084.0% | 7 ( 6.6%) | Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'. I'm delighted to support him for core now. Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for core too. Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another definite +1 from me. -Rob ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]
On 2014/08/04 01:50, Robert Collins wrote: tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose: bnemec greghaynes jdon jdon - jdob +1 for all the folks. -- Jarda On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote: Hi +1 for your proposed -core changes. Re your question about whether we should retroactively apply the 3-a-day rule to the 3 month review stats, my suggestion would be a qualified no. I think we've established an agile approach to the member list of -core, so if there are a one or two people who we would have added to -core before the goalposts moved, I'd say look at their review quality. If they're showing the right stuff, let's get them in and helping. If they don't feel our new goalposts are achievable with their workload, they'll fall out again naturally before long. So I've actioned the prior vote. I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews already, but... So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews: 60 days: |greghaynes | 1210 22 99 0 081.8% | 14 ( 11.6%) | | bnemec | 1160 38 78 0 067.2% | 10 ( 8.6%) | | jdob | 870 15 72 0 082.8% | 4 ( 4.6%) | 90 days: | bnemec | 1450 40 105 0 072.4% | 17 ( 11.7%) | |greghaynes | 1420 23 119 0 083.8% | 22 ( 15.5%) | | jdob | 1060 17 89 0 084.0% | 7 ( 6.6%) | Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'. I'm delighted to support him for core now. Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for core too. Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another definite +1 from me. -Rob ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march
On 2014/03/04 13:02, Robert Collins wrote: Getting back in the swing of things... 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: - Dan Prince for -core - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core +1 Not involved much in TripleO code. Existing -core members are eligible to vote - please indicate your opinion on each of the three changes above in reply to this email. +1 to all changes [snip] -- Jarda ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]
Hi +1 Cheers, -- Chris Jones On 8 Apr 2014, at 00:50, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote: tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose: bnemec greghaynes jdon On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote: Hi +1 for your proposed -core changes. Re your question about whether we should retroactively apply the 3-a-day rule to the 3 month review stats, my suggestion would be a qualified no. I think we've established an agile approach to the member list of -core, so if there are a one or two people who we would have added to -core before the goalposts moved, I'd say look at their review quality. If they're showing the right stuff, let's get them in and helping. If they don't feel our new goalposts are achievable with their workload, they'll fall out again naturally before long. So I've actioned the prior vote. I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews already, but... So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews: 60 days: |greghaynes | 1210 22 99 0 081.8% | 14 ( 11.6%) | | bnemec | 1160 38 78 0 067.2% | 10 ( 8.6%) | | jdob | 870 15 72 0 082.8% | 4 ( 4.6%) | 90 days: | bnemec | 1450 40 105 0 072.4% | 17 ( 11.7%) | |greghaynes | 1420 23 119 0 083.8% | 22 ( 15.5%) | | jdob | 1060 17 89 0 084.0% | 7 ( 6.6%) | Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'. I'm delighted to support him for core now. Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for core too. Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another definite +1 from me. -Rob -- Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]
On 04/08/2014 01:50 AM, Robert Collins wrote: tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose: bnemec greghaynes jdon +1 Imre ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]
On 08/04/14 00:50, Robert Collins wrote: tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose: bnemec greghaynes jdon +1 for all On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote: Hi +1 for your proposed -core changes. Re your question about whether we should retroactively apply the 3-a-day rule to the 3 month review stats, my suggestion would be a qualified no. I think we've established an agile approach to the member list of -core, so if there are a one or two people who we would have added to -core before the goalposts moved, I'd say look at their review quality. If they're showing the right stuff, let's get them in and helping. If they don't feel our new goalposts are achievable with their workload, they'll fall out again naturally before long. So I've actioned the prior vote. I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews already, but... So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews: 60 days: |greghaynes | 1210 22 99 0 081.8% | 14 ( 11.6%) | | bnemec | 1160 38 78 0 067.2% | 10 ( 8.6%) | | jdob | 870 15 72 0 082.8% | 4 ( 4.6%) | 90 days: | bnemec | 1450 40 105 0 072.4% | 17 ( 11.7%) | |greghaynes | 1420 23 119 0 083.8% | 22 ( 15.5%) | | jdob | 1060 17 89 0 084.0% | 7 ( 6.6%) | Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'. I'm delighted to support him for core now. Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for core too. Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another definite +1 from me. -Rob ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote: tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose: bnemec greghaynes jdob +1 to all. I've valued the feedback from these individuals as both fellow reviewers and on my submitted patches. -- -- James Slagle -- ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]
On 04/08/2014 01:50 AM, Robert Collins wrote: tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose: bnemec greghaynes jdon +1 to all Jan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]
On 04/07/2014 07:50 PM, Robert Collins wrote: tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose: bnemec greghaynes jdon I'm comfortable with committing to at least 3 reviews a day and promise to wield the awesome power of +2 responsibly. I appreciate being nominated :) On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote: Hi +1 for your proposed -core changes. Re your question about whether we should retroactively apply the 3-a-day rule to the 3 month review stats, my suggestion would be a qualified no. I think we've established an agile approach to the member list of -core, so if there are a one or two people who we would have added to -core before the goalposts moved, I'd say look at their review quality. If they're showing the right stuff, let's get them in and helping. If they don't feel our new goalposts are achievable with their workload, they'll fall out again naturally before long. So I've actioned the prior vote. I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews already, but... So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews: 60 days: |greghaynes | 1210 22 99 0 081.8% | 14 ( 11.6%) | | bnemec | 1160 38 78 0 067.2% | 10 ( 8.6%) | | jdob | 870 15 72 0 082.8% | 4 ( 4.6%) | 90 days: | bnemec | 1450 40 105 0 072.4% | 17 ( 11.7%) | |greghaynes | 1420 23 119 0 083.8% | 22 ( 15.5%) | | jdob | 1060 17 89 0 084.0% | 7 ( 6.6%) | Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'. I'm delighted to support him for core now. Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for core too. Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another definite +1 from me. -Rob ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Jay Dobies wrote: On 04/07/2014 07:50 PM, Robert Collins wrote: tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose: bnemec greghaynes jdon I'm comfortable with committing to at least 3 reviews a day and promise to wield the awesome power of +2 responsibly. I appreciate being nominated :) I am also comfortable with performing at least 3 reviews daily and would only use my new found powers responsibly. Thanks! On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote: Hi +1 for your proposed -core changes. Re your question about whether we should retroactively apply the 3-a-day rule to the 3 month review stats, my suggestion would be a qualified no. I think we've established an agile approach to the member list of -core, so if there are a one or two people who we would have added to -core before the goalposts moved, I'd say look at their review quality. If they're showing the right stuff, let's get them in and helping. If they don't feel our new goalposts are achievable with their workload, they'll fall out again naturally before long. So I've actioned the prior vote. I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews already, but... So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews: 60 days: |greghaynes | 1210 22 99 0 081.8% | 14 ( 11.6%) | | bnemec | 1160 38 78 0 067.2% | 10 ( 8.6%) | | jdob | 870 15 72 0 082.8% | 4 ( 4.6%) | 90 days: | bnemec | 1450 40 105 0 072.4% | 17 ( 11.7%) | |greghaynes | 1420 23 119 0 083.8% | 22 ( 15.5%) | | jdob | 1060 17 89 0 084.0% | 7 ( 6.6%) | Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'. I'm delighted to support him for core now. Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for core too. Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another definite +1 from me. -Rob ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]
On 04/08/2014 02:47 PM, Gregory Haynes wrote: On Tue, Apr 8, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Jay Dobies wrote: On 04/07/2014 07:50 PM, Robert Collins wrote: tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose: bnemec greghaynes jdon I'm comfortable with committing to at least 3 reviews a day and promise to wield the awesome power of +2 responsibly. I appreciate being nominated :) I am also comfortable with performing at least 3 reviews daily and would only use my new found powers responsibly. Thanks! +1 to all the above sentiments. :-) On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote: Hi +1 for your proposed -core changes. Re your question about whether we should retroactively apply the 3-a-day rule to the 3 month review stats, my suggestion would be a qualified no. I think we've established an agile approach to the member list of -core, so if there are a one or two people who we would have added to -core before the goalposts moved, I'd say look at their review quality. If they're showing the right stuff, let's get them in and helping. If they don't feel our new goalposts are achievable with their workload, they'll fall out again naturally before long. So I've actioned the prior vote. I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews already, but... So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews: 60 days: |greghaynes | 1210 22 99 0 081.8% | 14 ( 11.6%) | | bnemec | 1160 38 78 0 067.2% | 10 ( 8.6%) | | jdob | 870 15 72 0 082.8% | 4 ( 4.6%) | 90 days: | bnemec | 1450 40 105 0 072.4% | 17 ( 11.7%) | |greghaynes | 1420 23 119 0 083.8% | 22 ( 15.5%) | | jdob | 1060 17 89 0 084.0% | 7 ( 6.6%) | Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'. I'm delighted to support him for core now. Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for core too. Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another definite +1 from me. -Rob ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]
- Original Message - From: Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Sent: Monday, April 7, 2014 7:50:57 PM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores] tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose: bnemec greghaynes jdon +1 On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote: Hi +1 for your proposed -core changes. Re your question about whether we should retroactively apply the 3-a-day rule to the 3 month review stats, my suggestion would be a qualified no. I think we've established an agile approach to the member list of -core, so if there are a one or two people who we would have added to -core before the goalposts moved, I'd say look at their review quality. If they're showing the right stuff, let's get them in and helping. If they don't feel our new goalposts are achievable with their workload, they'll fall out again naturally before long. So I've actioned the prior vote. I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews already, but... So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews: 60 days: |greghaynes | 1210 22 99 0 081.8% | 14 ( 11.6%) | | bnemec | 1160 38 78 0 067.2% | 10 ( 8.6%) | | jdob | 870 15 72 0 082.8% | 4 ( 4.6%) | 90 days: | bnemec | 1450 40 105 0 072.4% | 17 ( 11.7%) | |greghaynes | 1420 23 119 0 083.8% | 22 ( 15.5%) | | jdob | 1060 17 89 0 084.0% | 7 ( 6.6%) | Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'. I'm delighted to support him for core now. Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for core too. Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another definite +1 from me. -Rob -- Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]
On 08/04/14 02:50, Robert Collins wrote: tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose: bnemec greghaynes jdon +1 On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote: Hi +1 for your proposed -core changes. Re your question about whether we should retroactively apply the 3-a-day rule to the 3 month review stats, my suggestion would be a qualified no. I think we've established an agile approach to the member list of -core, so if there are a one or two people who we would have added to -core before the goalposts moved, I'd say look at their review quality. If they're showing the right stuff, let's get them in and helping. If they don't feel our new goalposts are achievable with their workload, they'll fall out again naturally before long. So I've actioned the prior vote. I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews already, but... So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews: 60 days: |greghaynes | 1210 22 99 0 081.8% | 14 ( 11.6%) | | bnemec | 1160 38 78 0 067.2% | 10 ( 8.6%) | | jdob | 870 15 72 0 082.8% | 4 ( 4.6%) | 90 days: | bnemec | 1450 40 105 0 072.4% | 17 ( 11.7%) | |greghaynes | 1420 23 119 0 083.8% | 22 ( 15.5%) | | jdob | 1060 17 89 0 084.0% | 7 ( 6.6%) | Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'. I'm delighted to support him for core now. Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for core too. Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another definite +1 from me. -Rob ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]
tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose: bnemec greghaynes jdon On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote: Hi +1 for your proposed -core changes. Re your question about whether we should retroactively apply the 3-a-day rule to the 3 month review stats, my suggestion would be a qualified no. I think we've established an agile approach to the member list of -core, so if there are a one or two people who we would have added to -core before the goalposts moved, I'd say look at their review quality. If they're showing the right stuff, let's get them in and helping. If they don't feel our new goalposts are achievable with their workload, they'll fall out again naturally before long. So I've actioned the prior vote. I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews already, but... So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews: 60 days: |greghaynes | 1210 22 99 0 081.8% | 14 ( 11.6%) | | bnemec | 1160 38 78 0 067.2% | 10 ( 8.6%) | | jdob | 870 15 72 0 082.8% | 4 ( 4.6%) | 90 days: | bnemec | 1450 40 105 0 072.4% | 17 ( 11.7%) | |greghaynes | 1420 23 119 0 083.8% | 22 ( 15.5%) | | jdob | 1060 17 89 0 084.0% | 7 ( 6.6%) | Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'. I'm delighted to support him for core now. Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for core too. Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another definite +1 from me. -Rob -- Robert Collins rbtcoll...@hp.com Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march [additional cores]
+1 for the -core changes On 04/08/2014 01:50 AM, Robert Collins wrote: tl;dr: 3 more core members to propose: bnemec greghaynes jdon On 4 April 2014 08:55, Chris Jones c...@tenshu.net wrote: Hi +1 for your proposed -core changes. Re your question about whether we should retroactively apply the 3-a-day rule to the 3 month review stats, my suggestion would be a qualified no. I think we've established an agile approach to the member list of -core, so if there are a one or two people who we would have added to -core before the goalposts moved, I'd say look at their review quality. If they're showing the right stuff, let's get them in and helping. If they don't feel our new goalposts are achievable with their workload, they'll fall out again naturally before long. So I've actioned the prior vote. I said: Bnemec, jdob, greg etc - good stuff, I value your reviews already, but... So... looking at a few things - long period of reviews: 60 days: |greghaynes | 1210 22 99 0 081.8% | 14 ( 11.6%) | | bnemec | 1160 38 78 0 067.2% | 10 ( 8.6%) | | jdob | 870 15 72 0 082.8% | 4 ( 4.6%) | 90 days: | bnemec | 1450 40 105 0 072.4% | 17 ( 11.7%) | |greghaynes | 1420 23 119 0 083.8% | 22 ( 15.5%) | | jdob | 1060 17 89 0 084.0% | 7 ( 6.6%) | Ben's reviews are thorough, he reviews across all contributors, he shows good depth of knowledge and awareness across tripleo, and is sensitive to the pragmatic balance between 'right' and 'good enough'. I'm delighted to support him for core now. Greg is very active, reviewing across all contributors with pretty good knowledge and awareness. I'd like to see a little more contextual awareness though - theres a few (but not many) reviews where looking at how the big picture of things fitting together more would have been beneficial. *however*, I think that's a room-to-improve issue vs not-good-enough-for-core - to me it makes sense to propose him for core too. Jay's reviews are also very good and consistent, somewhere between Greg and Ben in terms of bigger-context awareness - so another definite +1 from me. -Rob ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march
+1 On 04/03/2014 01:02 PM, Robert Collins wrote: Getting back in the swing of things... 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: - Dan Prince for -core - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core Existing -core members are eligible to vote - please indicate your opinion on each of the three changes above in reply to this email. Ghe, please let me know if you're willing to be in tripleo-core. Jan, Jordan, Martyn, Jiri Jaromir, 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 a while back, so I'm keeping the boilerplate :) - 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. 90 day active-enough stats: +-+---++ | Reviewer| Reviews -2 -1 +1 +2 +A+/- % | Disagreements* | +-+---++ |slagle **| 6550 145 7 503 15477.9% | 36 ( 5.5%) | | clint-fewbar ** | 5494 120 11 414 11577.4% | 32 ( 5.8%) | | lifeless ** | 518 34 203 2 279 11354.2% | 21 ( 4.1%) | | rbrady | 4530 14 439 0 096.9% | 60 ( 13.2%) | | cmsj ** | 3220 24 1 297 13692.5% | 22 ( 6.8%) | |derekh **| 2610 50 1 210 9080.8% | 12 ( 4.6%) | |dan-prince | 2570 67 157 33 1673.9% | 15 ( 5.8%) | | jprovazn ** | 1900 21 2 167 4388.9% | 13 ( 6.8%) | |ifarkas ** | 1860 28 18 140 8284.9% | 6 ( 3.2%) | === | jistr **| 1770 31 16 130 2882.5% | 4 ( 2.3%) | | ghe.rivero ** | 1761 21 25 129 5587.5% | 7 ( 4.0%) | |lsmola **| 1722 12 55 103 6391.9% | 21 ( 12.2%) | | jdob | 1660 31 135 0 081.3% | 9 ( 5.4%) | | bnemec | 1380 38 100 0 072.5% | 17 ( 12.3%) | |greghaynes | 1260 21 105 0 083.3% | 22 ( 17.5%) | | dougal | 1250 26 99 0 079.2% | 13 ( 10.4%) | | tzumainn ** | 1190 30 69 20 1774.8% | 2 ( 1.7%) | |rpodolyaka | 1150 15 100 0 087.0% | 15 ( 13.0%) | | ftcjeff | 1030 3 100 0 097.1% | 9 ( 8.7%) | | thesheep| 930 26 31 36 2172.0% | 3 ( 3.2%) | |pblaho **| 881 8 37 42 2289.8% | 3 ( 3.4%) | | jonpaul-sullivan| 800 33 47 0 058.8% | 17 ( 21.2%) | | tomas-8c8 ** | 780 15 4 59 2780.8% | 4 ( 5.1%) | |marios **| 750 7 53 15 1090.7% | 14 ( 18.7%) | | stevenk | 750 15 60 0 080.0% | 9 ( 12.0%) | | rwsu | 740 3 71 0 095.9% | 11 ( 14.9%) | | mkerrin | 700 14 56 0 080.0% | 14 ( 20.0%) | The line is set at the just voted on minimum expected of core: 3 reviews per work day, 60 work days in a 90 day period (64 - fudge for holidays), 180 reviews. I cut the full report out at the point we had been previously - with the commitment to 3 reviews per day, next months report will have a much higher minimum. In future reviews, we'll set the
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march
On 03/04/14 14:02, Robert Collins wrote: Getting back in the swing of things... 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: - Dan Prince for -core - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core +1 Existing -core members are eligible to vote - please indicate your opinion on each of the three changes above in reply to this email. ---snip -core that are not keeping up recently... : | tomas-8c8 ** | 310 4 2 25 887.1% | 1 ( 3.2%) | |marios **| 270 1 17 9 796.3% | 3 ( 11.1%) | thanks for the heads up - after some time away, I've been keeping the '3 a day' for the last couple weeks so hopefully this will improve. However, my reviews are mainly in tripleo-heat-templates and tuskar-ui; I guess the latter no longer counts towards these statistics (under horizon?) and I'm not sure how to reconcile this ...? Should I just drop the tuskar-ui reviews altogether ( I am trying to become more active in neutron too, so something has to give somewhere)... thanks! marios | tzumainn ** | 270 3 23 1 488.9% | 0 ( 0.0%) | |pblaho **| 170 0 4 13 4 100.0% | 1 ( 5.9%) | |jomara **| 00 0 0 0 1 0.0% | 0 ( 0.0%) | 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, on an ongoing basis :) I'm using the fairly simple metric we agreed on - 'average at least three reviews a day' as a proxy for 'sees enough of the code and enough discussion of the code to be an effective reviewer'. The three review a day thing we derived based on the need for consistent volume of reviews to handle current contributors - we may lower that once we're ahead (which may happen quickly if we get more cores... :) But even so: - reading three patches a day is a pretty low commitment to ask for - if you don't have time to do that, you will get stale quickly - you'll only see under 33% of the code changes going on (we're doing about 10 commits a day - twice as many since december - 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march
On 04/03/2014 01:02 PM, Robert Collins wrote: Getting back in the swing of things... 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: - Dan Prince for -core - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core Existing -core members are eligible to vote - please indicate your opinion on each of the three changes above in reply to this email. ACK for all proposed changes. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march
On 3.4.2014 13:02, Robert Collins wrote: Getting back in the swing of things... 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: - Dan Prince for -core - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core Existing -core members are eligible to vote - please indicate your opinion on each of the three changes above in reply to this email. +1 to all. Jirka ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march
Excerpts from Robert Collins's message of 2014-04-03 04:02:20 -0700: Getting back in the swing of things... 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: - Dan Prince for -core - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core +1 for all changes. ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march
On 04/03/2014 01:02 PM, Robert Collins wrote: Getting back in the swing of things... 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: - Dan Prince for -core - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core +1 to all Jan ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
[openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march
Getting back in the swing of things... 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: - Dan Prince for -core - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core Existing -core members are eligible to vote - please indicate your opinion on each of the three changes above in reply to this email. Ghe, please let me know if you're willing to be in tripleo-core. Jan, Jordan, Martyn, Jiri Jaromir, 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 a while back, so I'm keeping the boilerplate :) - 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. 90 day active-enough stats: +-+---++ | Reviewer| Reviews -2 -1 +1 +2 +A+/- % | Disagreements* | +-+---++ |slagle **| 6550 145 7 503 15477.9% | 36 ( 5.5%) | | clint-fewbar ** | 5494 120 11 414 11577.4% | 32 ( 5.8%) | | lifeless ** | 518 34 203 2 279 11354.2% | 21 ( 4.1%) | | rbrady | 4530 14 439 0 096.9% | 60 ( 13.2%) | | cmsj ** | 3220 24 1 297 13692.5% | 22 ( 6.8%) | |derekh **| 2610 50 1 210 9080.8% | 12 ( 4.6%) | |dan-prince | 2570 67 157 33 1673.9% | 15 ( 5.8%) | | jprovazn ** | 1900 21 2 167 4388.9% | 13 ( 6.8%) | |ifarkas ** | 1860 28 18 140 8284.9% | 6 ( 3.2%) | === | jistr **| 1770 31 16 130 2882.5% | 4 ( 2.3%) | | ghe.rivero ** | 1761 21 25 129 5587.5% | 7 ( 4.0%) | |lsmola **| 1722 12 55 103 6391.9% | 21 ( 12.2%) | | jdob | 1660 31 135 0 081.3% | 9 ( 5.4%) | | bnemec | 1380 38 100 0 072.5% | 17 ( 12.3%) | |greghaynes | 1260 21 105 0 083.3% | 22 ( 17.5%) | | dougal | 1250 26 99 0 079.2% | 13 ( 10.4%) | | tzumainn ** | 1190 30 69 20 1774.8% | 2 ( 1.7%) | |rpodolyaka | 1150 15 100 0 087.0% | 15 ( 13.0%) | | ftcjeff | 1030 3 100 0 097.1% | 9 ( 8.7%) | | thesheep| 930 26 31 36 2172.0% | 3 ( 3.2%) | |pblaho **| 881 8 37 42 2289.8% | 3 ( 3.4%) | | jonpaul-sullivan| 800 33 47 0 058.8% | 17 ( 21.2%) | | tomas-8c8 ** | 780 15 4 59 2780.8% | 4 ( 5.1%) | |marios **| 750 7 53 15 1090.7% | 14 ( 18.7%) | | stevenk | 750 15 60 0 080.0% | 9 ( 12.0%) | | rwsu | 740 3 71 0 095.9% | 11 ( 14.9%) | | mkerrin | 700 14 56 0 080.0% | 14 ( 20.0%) | The line is set at the just voted on minimum expected of core: 3 reviews per work day, 60 work days in a 90 day period (64 - fudge for holidays), 180 reviews. I cut the full report out at the point we had been previously - with the commitment to 3 reviews per day, next months report will have a much higher minimum. In future reviews, we'll set the bar up around where the === is - but of course, human
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march
On 04/04/14 00:02 +1300, Robert Collins wrote: Getting back in the swing of things... 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: - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core +1 : focused on horizon/tuskar-ui features now -- Jordan O'Mara jomara at redhat.com Red Hat Engineering, Raleigh pgpmywKzp7CMb.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march
On 03/04/14 13:02, Robert Collins wrote: Getting back in the swing of things... 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: - Dan Prince for -core - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core Existing -core members are eligible to vote - please indicate your opinion on each of the three changes above in reply to this email. +1 snip -core that are not keeping up recently... : | tomas-8c8 ** | 310 4 2 25 887.1% | Duly noted. I've picked up the daily pace again in the last couple of weeks and will continue doing so. 1 ( 3.2%) | |marios **| 270 1 17 9 796.3% | 3 ( 11.1%) | | tzumainn ** | 270 3 23 1 488.9% | 0 ( 0.0%) | |pblaho **| 170 0 4 13 4 100.0% | 1 ( 5.9%) | |jomara **| 00 0 0 0 1 0.0% | 0 ( 0.0%) | 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, on an ongoing basis :) I'm using the fairly simple metric we agreed on - 'average at least three reviews a day' as a proxy for 'sees enough of the code and enough discussion of the code to be an effective reviewer'. The three review a day thing we derived based on the need for consistent volume of reviews to handle current contributors - we may lower that once we're ahead (which may happen quickly if we get more cores... :) But even so: - reading three patches a day is a pretty low commitment to ask for - if you don't have time to do that, you will get stale quickly - you'll only see under 33% of the code changes going on (we're doing about 10 commits a day - twice as many since december - 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march
Hi +1 for your proposed -core changes. Re your question about whether we should retroactively apply the 3-a-day rule to the 3 month review stats, my suggestion would be a qualified no. I think we've established an agile approach to the member list of -core, so if there are a one or two people who we would have added to -core before the goalposts moved, I'd say look at their review quality. If they're showing the right stuff, let's get them in and helping. If they don't feel our new goalposts are achievable with their workload, they'll fall out again naturally before long. Cheers, Chris On 3 April 2014 12:02, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote: Getting back in the swing of things... 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: - Dan Prince for -core - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core Existing -core members are eligible to vote - please indicate your opinion on each of the three changes above in reply to this email. Ghe, please let me know if you're willing to be in tripleo-core. Jan, Jordan, Martyn, Jiri Jaromir, 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 a while back, so I'm keeping the boilerplate :) - 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. 90 day active-enough stats: +-+---++ | Reviewer| Reviews -2 -1 +1 +2 +A+/- % | Disagreements* | +-+---++ |slagle **| 6550 145 7 503 15477.9% | 36 ( 5.5%) | | clint-fewbar ** | 5494 120 11 414 11577.4% | 32 ( 5.8%) | | lifeless ** | 518 34 203 2 279 11354.2% | 21 ( 4.1%) | | rbrady | 4530 14 439 0 096.9% | 60 ( 13.2%) | | cmsj ** | 3220 24 1 297 13692.5% | 22 ( 6.8%) | |derekh **| 2610 50 1 210 9080.8% | 12 ( 4.6%) | |dan-prince | 2570 67 157 33 1673.9% | 15 ( 5.8%) | | jprovazn ** | 1900 21 2 167 4388.9% | 13 ( 6.8%) | |ifarkas ** | 1860 28 18 140 8284.9% | 6 ( 3.2%) | === | jistr **| 1770 31 16 130 2882.5% | 4 ( 2.3%) | | ghe.rivero ** | 1761 21 25 129 5587.5% | 7 ( 4.0%) | |lsmola **| 1722 12 55 103 6391.9% | 21 ( 12.2%) | | jdob | 1660 31 135 0 081.3% | 9 ( 5.4%) | | bnemec | 1380 38 100 0 072.5% | 17 ( 12.3%) | |greghaynes | 1260 21 105 0 083.3% | 22 ( 17.5%) | | dougal | 1250 26 99 0 079.2% | 13 ( 10.4%) | | tzumainn ** | 1190 30 69 20 1774.8% | 2 ( 1.7%) | |rpodolyaka | 1150 15 100 0 087.0% | 15 ( 13.0%) | | ftcjeff | 1030 3 100 0 097.1% | 9 ( 8.7%) | | thesheep| 930 26 31 36 2172.0% | 3 ( 3.2%) | |pblaho **| 881 8 37 42 2289.8% | 3 ( 3.4%) | | jonpaul-sullivan| 800 33 47 0 058.8% | 17 ( 21.2%) | | tomas-8c8 ** | 780 15 4 59 27
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] reviewer update march
On 03/04/14 12:02, Robert Collins wrote: Getting back in the swing of things... 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: - Dan Prince for -core +1, will be good to have Dan on board - Jordan O'Mara for removal from -core - Jiri Tomasek for removal from -core - Jamomir Coufal for removal from -core +1, all seems reasonable to me. Existing -core members are eligible to vote - please indicate your opinion on each of the three changes above in reply to this email. Ghe, please let me know if you're willing to be in tripleo-core. Jan, Jordan, Martyn, Jiri Jaromir, 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 a while back, so I'm keeping the boilerplate :) - 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. 90 day active-enough stats: +-+---++ | Reviewer| Reviews -2 -1 +1 +2 +A+/- % | Disagreements* | +-+---++ |slagle **| 6550 145 7 503 15477.9% | 36 ( 5.5%) | | clint-fewbar ** | 5494 120 11 414 11577.4% | 32 ( 5.8%) | | lifeless ** | 518 34 203 2 279 11354.2% | 21 ( 4.1%) | | rbrady | 4530 14 439 0 096.9% | 60 ( 13.2%) | | cmsj ** | 3220 24 1 297 13692.5% | 22 ( 6.8%) | |derekh **| 2610 50 1 210 9080.8% | 12 ( 4.6%) | |dan-prince | 2570 67 157 33 1673.9% | 15 ( 5.8%) | | jprovazn ** | 1900 21 2 167 4388.9% | 13 ( 6.8%) | |ifarkas ** | 1860 28 18 140 8284.9% | 6 ( 3.2%) | === | jistr **| 1770 31 16 130 2882.5% | 4 ( 2.3%) | | ghe.rivero ** | 1761 21 25 129 5587.5% | 7 ( 4.0%) | |lsmola **| 1722 12 55 103 6391.9% | 21 ( 12.2%) | | jdob | 1660 31 135 0 081.3% | 9 ( 5.4%) | | bnemec | 1380 38 100 0 072.5% | 17 ( 12.3%) | |greghaynes | 1260 21 105 0 083.3% | 22 ( 17.5%) | | dougal | 1250 26 99 0 079.2% | 13 ( 10.4%) | | tzumainn ** | 1190 30 69 20 1774.8% | 2 ( 1.7%) | |rpodolyaka | 1150 15 100 0 087.0% | 15 ( 13.0%) | | ftcjeff | 1030 3 100 0 097.1% | 9 ( 8.7%) | | thesheep| 930 26 31 36 2172.0% | 3 ( 3.2%) | |pblaho **| 881 8 37 42 2289.8% | 3 ( 3.4%) | | jonpaul-sullivan| 800 33 47 0 058.8% | 17 ( 21.2%) | | tomas-8c8 ** | 780 15 4 59 2780.8% | 4 ( 5.1%) | |marios **| 750 7 53 15 1090.7% | 14 ( 18.7%) | | stevenk | 750 15 60 0 080.0% | 9 ( 12.0%) | | rwsu | 740 3 71 0 095.9% | 11 ( 14.9%) | | mkerrin | 700 14 56 0 080.0% | 14 ( 20.0%) | The line is set at the just voted on minimum expected of core: 3 reviews per work day, 60 work days in a 90 day period (64 - fudge for holidays), 180 reviews. I cut the full
