From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 94E95B68 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 07:37:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C1212D for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 07:37:13 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1436341028.2136.14.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: James Bottomley To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 08:37:08 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1481488.5WJFbB0Dlm@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <201507080121.41463.PeterHuewe@gmx.de> <1481488.5WJFbB0Dlm@vostro.rjw.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jason Cooper , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Recruitment (Reviewers, Testers, Maintainers, Hobbyists) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 03:29 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Wednesday, July 08, 2015 01:21:40 AM Peter Huewe wrote: > > Hi, > > > > In order to continue our traditions I would like to propose again the topic of > > recruitment, but this time not only limiting to the hobbyists market. > > > > We are definitely short on reviewers and thus have mostly overloaded > > maintainers. > > For testers it's usually even worse - how many patches are actually tested? > > Judging from what I read on LKML not that many. > > > > So we should definitely discuss: > > - how can we encourage hobbyists to become regular contributors > > -- how to keep people interested, the drop-out rates are huge. > > - encourage regular contributors to become reviewers and testers > > - reviewers to become co-maintainers and finally maintainers (once the > > original maintainer is used up or moves up/on) > > Good topic. > > Unfortunately, there are not too many incentives for people to become > code reviewers or testers, or at least to spend more time reviewing patches. We can alter that somewhat. We used to run a Maintainers lottery for the kernel summit ... we could instead offer places based on the number of Reviewed-by: tags ... we have all the machinery to calculate that. I know an invitation to the kernel summit isn't a huge incentive, but it's a useful one. > Most of the time there's a little to no recognition for doing that work and, > quite frankly, writing code is more rewarding than that for the majority of > people anyway. > > The only way to address this problem I can see is to recognize reviewers > *much* more than we tend to do and not just "encourage" them, because that's > way insufficient. What other incentives or recognition mechanisms would you propose? James