Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TOPIC] Encouraging more reviewers

[mark gross <markgross@thegnar.org>]

On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 08:41:37AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 05/24/2014 09:57 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> >On Sat, 2014-05-24 at 12:18 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>>
> >>>The thing I'd like to see way more in the Linux ecosystem:
> >>>
> >>>Paid reviewers/maintainers (selected people, no hiring offers). The
> >>>number of developers increases faster than the number of quality
> >>>keepers. So, the latter should be given the chance to focus on it, if
> >>>they want to.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Problem with that is that in most company hierarchies code reviewers
> >>get little  if no credit for their work.
> >
> >I could see this in start up type companies.  Older companies learned
> >long ago that customers value quality over features so they tend to have
> >elaborate review processes. (As an aside, customers say they value
> >features, but if you deliver one with a regression, it's the regression
> >you'll hear about the whole time).
> >
> 
> I am not sure if all those companies learned the lesson. Agreed, many
> of them do, but I have seen the opposite. But that is not really
> the point here.
> 
> You can actually take the Linux kernel at a case in point: Let's assume
> someone wants to hire a kernel engineer and looks up kernel commits for
> reference. What do you think that person will look for ? Patch authors
> or  "Reviewed-by" tags ? I would argue it is going to be patch authors.
> 
> Really, again, the point (or question) here is how much credit an engineer
> gets for doing code reviews (or fixing bugs, for that matter) vs. for
> writing code. I would argue that there is very little incentive for
> senior engineers (ie those who are best suited to do code reviews)
> to actually _do_ code reviews more or less for a living, or at least
> for a substantial amount of their time.
>
I got a significant promotion at intel this year largely because I do a lot of
internal code reviews.  I think you are looking at things in a short sited
manner.

Doing a lot of reviews and getting pretty good at it will make one a leader in
setting the priorities and quality metrics for the code written by everyone else.
This is a significant power over any organization.  It sets you apart as a leader
and mentor, how could you not be recognized for it.  If you keep it up long
enough to pay off.  Which is a challenge.

A solid code reviewer has project global sway over how things get designed and
implemented and over time grows trust and confidence between the reviewer and the
organization.  From a world dominion point of view this is vector I would
recommend to anyone wanting to be important.

Further I find arguments like the above to be pathetic and distasteful.  Profit
motives are getting out of control IMO.  (yeah, I know its too easy for me to say
while getting well paid)  But, still if that is your motive you are still doing
it wrong if you ignore reviewer value.  Its easier to get money through having
authority than any other way.

--mark