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 17716BCC for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:00:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (relay4-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.196]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B58E617B for ; Fri, 10 Jul 2015 21:00:43 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 14:00:40 -0700 From: josh@joshtriplett.org To: Jason Cooper Message-ID: <20150710210040.GD10533@cloud> References: <559D8336.3040802@roeck-us.net> <1436414798.23558.3.camel@ellerman.id.au> <559EBD4C.6030502@gmail.com> <20150709190640.GC788@roeck-us.net> <20150709194734.GG9169@vmdeb7> <20150709201315.GF9417@thunk.org> <20150709205049.GB5154@roeck-us.net> <20150709214718.GG9417@thunk.org> <20150710182045.GA19854@roeck-us.net> <20150710185800.GW23515@io.lakedaemon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150710185800.GW23515@io.lakedaemon.net> Cc: James Bottomley , jic23@jic23.retrosnub.co.uk, 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 Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 06:58:00PM +0000, Jason Cooper wrote: > I've personally seen it, and I don't think I'm alone. It seems to follow > a pattern of: > > - Manager/HR thinks counting tags is a useful metric (#!@$ laziness). > - tag-count becomes an evaluation item. > - Pay raises are affected. > - patch submitters do the obvious. > - maintainers weep and die a little inside. > > The easy ones to spot are multiple-S-o-bs. I've actually been told "No, > he didn't write any code, I was just trying to help him out." On the flip side, I've submitted patches with two Signed-off-by tags specifically because both people actually wrote the code and are agreeing to the DCO (and more generally claiming responsibility/blame for the patch), and gotten complaints from maintainers that it "doesn't reflect the chain of git trees the patch went through" or similar. Which seems ridiculous. - Josh Triplett