On Fri, 30 May 2014, Jan Kara wrote: > Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 15:07:28 +0200 > From: Jan Kara > To: Lukáš Czerner > Cc: Greg KH , > James Bottomley , > "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" > > Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Reforming Acked-by (was Re: [TOPIC] Encouraging > more reviewers) > > On Fri 30-05-14 12:08:12, Lukáš Czerner wrote: > > On Thu, 29 May 2014, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 16:30:04 -0700 > > > From: Greg KH > > > To: Olof Johansson > > > Cc: James Bottomley , > > > "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Reforming Acked-by (was Re: [TOPIC] Encouraging > > > more reviewers) > > > > > > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 02:03:16PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > > > > What are we really trying to fix here? Is the current process really > > > > broken or are we trying to create more process that's not needed for > > > > some other reason? > > > > > > I think the latter. > > > > > > Somehow, we seem to be constantly increasing our rate of change, are > > > people thinking we are having problems here? If so, exactly where? > > > This thread has taken an odd turn into trying to make some new kind of > > > process for an unknown issue (i.e. the people on this list are not going > > > to recognize the reviewers more, it's up to you to educate your managers > > > / company more.) > > > > This is not only about managers / company. Reviewers does not seem > > to have much recognition in upstream community either. For example > > we do take into account s-o-b when creating preliminary list of > > people to get invited to kernel summit, but we do _not_ take into > > account reviewd-by (or has anything changed?)... > Reviewed-by *is* taken into account for KS selection. It is even > positively biased against s-o-b AFAIK. Good to know :) Thanks! -Lukas > > Honza >