On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Not a new idea, but I think we should require all patch submitters to do
> one review per submission. There needs to be a balance between time
> spent on review and time spent on dev. The only real way this happens in
> any community is by peer review.
>
> All patch submitters need to know that they must also take their turn as
> patch reviewers. If it is a hard rule, then patch *sponsors* would be
> forced to accept that they must *also* pay for review time. It is the
> sponsors that need to be forced to accept that reality, though we can
> only "get at them" through controlling developer behaviour. So, I
> propose that we simply ignore patches from developers until they have
> done sufficient review to be allowed to develop again.
I agree. I would quibble only with the details. I think we should
require patch authors to act as a reviewer for any CommitFest for
which they have submitted patches. We don't need every patch author
to review as many patches as they submit, because some people will
review extras, and some non-patch-authors will review. If they review
one patch each, that's probably more than enough. It's also easier
for bookkeeping purposes.
...Robert
