On 12/16/2014 4:32 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 15 December 2014 at 19:52, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> On 12/15/2014 11:27 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I feel like we used to be better at encouraging people to participate
>>> in the CF even if they were not experts, and to do the best they can
>>> based on what they did know. That was a helpful dynamic. Sure, the
>>> reviews weren't perfect, but more people helped, and reviewing some of
>>> the patch well and some of it in a more cursory manner is way better
>>> than reviewing none of it at all.
>>
>> Well, it was strongly expressed to me by a number of senior contributors
>> on this list and at the developer meeting that inexpert reviews were not
>> really wanted, needed or helpful. As such, I stopped recruiting new
>> reviewers (and, for that matter, doing them myself). I don't know if
>> the same goes for anyone else.
>
> I don't remember saying that, hearing it or agreeing with it and I
> don't agree with it now.
>
As a reviewer from long long ago, I can tell you that I wasn't sure I
was even helpful.
Things got busy at work, and I may not have been useful, and I annoyed
some people on pg-general, so I walked away for a while.
I have no knowledge of community-building so this might be a bad idea:
Perhaps levels (or titles) of reviewer's would be helpful. A freshman
reviewer is not expected to do anything useful, is expected to make
mistakes, and is there to learn.
The community votes and promotes them to junior (or whatever). They
know they are on the right track. A junior review is useful but maybe
not as complete as a senior reviewer. Maybe I'll aspire to work harder,
and maybe not, but at least I know what I'm doing is useful. If I never
get promoted, then I know, as well.
Freshmen know its ok to make mistakes. They know who they can contact
for help.
I think I like belts better (yellow, green, red, black).
I think this gives me two things: 1) permission to mess up 2) ability to measure myself
-Andy
