On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 06:31:26PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > I don't know if it was what Michael wanted to say, but there are reviews > that are very easy and reviews that are quite hard, counting these the > same may be misleading. However taking that into account requires a > rating of the submission which is not obvious. > > Another issue is that in some cases commentators may do more work > in the review than the one approving the review request. This is also > not something that is easily measured, though... > > In any case, as long as those numbers are not misrepresented as > the amount of work done through reviews or the like, but only plainly > as review requests accepted, everything is fine. Precisely. This is not about rewarding people for the most work done, simply for a number of package reviews. One very detailed package review might be a lot of work for an experienced package reviewer. Similarly, one simple package review might just as easily be a lot of work for an enthusiastic but inexperienced package reviewer. Both may be completed equally successfully. I don't see a way of equitably treating the amount of work done, and therefore this reward is not based on that measurement. And the fact that amounts of work may differ should not stop us from saying thank you to contributors doing work. I think concerns of people gaming the system are completely out of proportion on a risk vs. reward basis. And if anyone's involved in Fedora processes purely out of an interest in being materially rewarded, I would say that person's priorities are somewhat askew! -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
Attachment:
pgps5FUTXF0fJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
