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 ESMTP id D74FB98F for ; Mon, 26 May 2014 12:52:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pokefinder.org (sauhun.de [89.238.76.85]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FF751FA1F for ; Mon, 26 May 2014 12:52:22 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 14:52:16 +0200 From: Wolfram Sang To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Message-ID: <20140526125216.GA2656@katana> References: <1400925225.6956.25.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com> <5380F092.3070600@roeck-us.net> <20140525085909.GA2702@katana> <1529835.H0O99ObTAN@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="DocE+STaALJfprDB" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1529835.H0O99ObTAN@vostro.rjw.lan> Cc: James Bottomley , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --DocE+STaALJfprDB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 02:23:50PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, May 25, 2014 10:59:09 AM Wolfram Sang wrote: > >=20 > > > Problem with that is that in most company hierarchies code reviewers > > > get little if no credit for their work. > >=20 > > I was more aiming for upstream reviewers being paid for upstream review. > > And not so much aiming for work on company level. Without knowing > > details, GregKH being hired by the Linux Foundation looks like a good > > example to me. There are so many $$$ around in the Linux market, there > > should be some left to keep (and better: improve) the quality we all > > appreciate. >=20 > There is one more angle to that. Namely, it would be good if at least so= me > reviewers were seen as independent of any particular company. Agreed. This would be easiest, without friction. However, with enough credibility, this becomes less important IMO. I'd name akpm here, for example. --DocE+STaALJfprDB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTgzkAAAoJEBQN5MwUoCm28DsQAJurrOrx5Gi/y2TT7ojRaYDq q3oWwdKxrmipSMgsqxfjh47i2A2Abf2ob+HO0WVoDAtKCYa0RZyf7SzZkgycszNz iUoeOrUZuOuOGCL++wfJxWzTJCYNFaCkkaQXJsvoFj90lCUuNd+/1VE6OfsL9IVa RCYrwjgucL4vg+J1s/6QAY0R0fmtU3NpizwkWmfqYmE+ZTUf/gvVHGJzZvF6une7 1c3S0kiXmqTFJdQRfCWSO0nqRyI/cgL0U8zcwBANDIuLA1Q6kKAZ7C1WqXFyYLU9 ZZcm6tZk4yMtVCd6n9PxWxXXLjDOJHNe7BIU8XeRxroWeqrCruZebLW3SmnRhBEU Lznl/f8tPBfHu4CL1UR5DbTZ+FrhAVxltePDW0iEA/VwG/sZev1XH0Ll3UKIvbH/ sZAOCBY6my2MPojBorZxZWYYSmeH2Zv62wEqNbDyFOAUnfMduh0SuXSNODZDVH3l Qy3mk3h4g9Qvhc3Pj84LzKSD9mjltIehvWg7YfHZWLEO0fE9x0bPEWS+ZQctMsfF oERMo9BkS3WUMHv/IjB+ttOZK4JslI1/Nul300oRHNvctySoQ85J6p4+QUW1FEw5 taqXRLRJUbr/aBnW4/5fA2MbB6E8X/RGkpn1Q6bAurOLohvpQJLx4EV15BZT7BwV ubXr5zUznGpFI08jl+Ps =h1gx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --DocE+STaALJfprDB--