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 390A3B68 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 19:56:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from galahad.ideasonboard.com (galahad.ideasonboard.com [185.26.127.97]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A614175 for ; Wed, 8 Jul 2015 19:56:27 +0000 (UTC) From: Laurent Pinchart To: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:56:38 +0300 Message-ID: <6295903.xabUbmnLAs@avalon> In-Reply-To: <20150708145315.29030a75@gandalf.local.home> References: <201507080121.41463.PeterHuewe@gmx.de> <20150708080032.CE89E4306F@saturn.retrosnub.co.uk> <20150708145315.29030a75@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: James Bottomley , jic23@jic23.retrosnub.co.uk, Jason Cooper Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Recruitment (Reviewers, Testers, Maintainers, Hobbyists) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wednesday 08 July 2015 14:53:15 Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 09:00:32 +0100 jic23@jic23.retrosnub.co.uk wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Sounds like a good idea to me, though it would only effect a tiny > > percentage of our reviewers. I suppose publishing a short list of the top > > n% of reviewers from which the lottery runs might give some > > recognition. > > I personally don't trust a Reviewed-by tag much, as I sometimes see > them appear without any comments. > > I was thinking of writing a perl script that would read my LKML archive > and somewhat intelligently looking at people who replied to patches, > that also has snippets of the patch in the reply, and counting them. I > think that would be a more accurate use of real reviewers than just the > Reviewed-by tag. Reviewed-by or Acked-by metrics are unfortunately very easy to game. If we could make them more robust, we could publish statistics as we do for commits authorship (http://remword.com/kps_result/ for instance) and start mentioning people's names in kernel development reports. That might not be much, but it could help reviewers feeling valued for their work. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart