[9.4 CF 1] The Commitfest Slacker List

On 06/24/2013 12:41 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:

Folks,

For 9.2, we adopted it as policy that anyone submitting a patch to a
commitfest is expected to review at least one patch submitted by someone
else. And that failure to do so would affect the attention your patches
received in the future. For that reason, I'm publishing the list below
of people who submitted patches and have not yet claimed any patch in
the commitfest to review.

For those of you who are contributing patches for your company, please
let your boss know that reviewing is part of contributing, and that if
you don't do the one you may not be able to do the other.

The two lists below, idle submitters and committers, constitutes 26
people. This *outnumbers* the list of contributors who are busy
reviewing patches -- some of them four or more patches. If each of
these people took just *one* patch to review, it would almost entirely
clear the list of patches which do not have a reviewer. If these folks
continue not to do reviews, this commitfest will drag on for at least 2
weeks past its closure date.

Andrew Geirth
Nick White
Peter Eisentrout
Alexander Korotkov
Etsuro Fujita
Hari Babu
Jameison Martin
Jon Nelson
Oleg Bartunov
Chris Farmiloe
Samrat Revagade
Alexander Lakhin
Mark Kirkwood
Liming Hu
Maciej Gajewski
Josh Kuperschmidt
Mark Wong
Gurjeet Singh
Robins Tharakan
Tatsuo Ishii
Karl O Pinc

Additionally, the following committers are not listed as reviewers on
any patch. Note that I have no way to search which ones might be
*committers* on a patch, so these folks are not necessarily slackers
(although with Bruce, we know for sure):

Bruce Momjian (momjian)
Michael Meskes (meskes)
Teodor Sigaev (teodor)
Andrew Dunstan (adunstan)
Magnus Hagander (mha)
Itagaki Takahiro (itagaki)

I think we maybe need to be a bit more careful about a name and shame
policy, or it will be ignored. I actually reviewed Peter's emacs config
patch just yesterday, although I didn't note that on the Commitfest app.
(Incidentally, based on Tom's later comments I think we should probably
mark that one as rejected.)

Anyway, I have claimed the VPATH patches for review, and will look at
them today.

cheers

andrew

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:

I think we maybe need to be a bit more careful about a name and shame
policy, or it will be ignored.

I very much don't like that idea of publishing a list of names either.
Editing the reviewer field and sending personal notices is fine by me,
but name and shame is walking the line…

Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Maybe this policy should be mentioned on the Wiki, so newbies like myself
(who wouldn't even dare reviewing patches submitted be seasoned hackers)
are not surprised by seeing own name on a shame wall?

M

On 06/24/2013 05:40 PM, Maciej Gajewski wrote:

Maybe this policy should be mentioned on the Wiki, so newbies like
myself (who wouldn't even dare reviewing patches submitted be seasoned
hackers) are not surprised by seeing own name on a shame wall?

I personally would prefer if the email was sent to those who should be
reminded instead to the list. My personal experience is that personal
reminders are more effective than public naming and shaming.

--
Andreas Karlsson

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 06/24/2013 08:40 AM, Maciej Gajewski wrote:

Maybe this policy should be mentioned on the Wiki, so newbies like
myself (who wouldn't even dare reviewing patches submitted be seasoned
hackers) are not surprised by seeing own name on a shame wall?

It is mentioned. Of course now I can't find it but it is there.

However, I believe you are taking the wrong perspective on this. This is
not a shame wall. It is a transparent reminder of the policy and those
who have not assisted in reviewing a patch but have submitted a patch
themselves.

In short, leave the ego at the door.

Sincerely,

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 509-416-6579
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc
For my dreams of your image that blossoms
a rose in the deeps of my heart. - W.B. Yeats

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:

In short, leave the ego at the door.

That's not the problem. Let's welcome those who are able to contribute
their time and skills without making it harder for them. Motivation here
shoulnd't be how to avoid getting enlisted on the shame wall.

My opinion is that if we play the game that way, we will only achieve to
push contributors out of the community and review process. Please kindly
reconsider and don't publish any such backward list again.

Instead, I don't know, fetch some SPI money to offer a special poster or
unique one-time-edition only hoodie or a signed mug or whatever to extra
proficient contributors and turn that into a game people want to win.

--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 06/24/2013 05:54 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

On 06/24/2013 08:40 AM, Maciej Gajewski wrote:

Maybe this policy should be mentioned on the Wiki, so newbies like
myself (who wouldn't even dare reviewing patches submitted be seasoned
hackers) are not surprised by seeing own name on a shame wall?

It is mentioned. Of course now I can't find it but it is there.

However, I believe you are taking the wrong perspective on this. This
is not a shame wall. It is a transparent reminder of the policy and
those who have not assisted in reviewing a patch but have submitted a
patch themselves.

In short, leave the ego at the door.

Would be much easier to do if you did not post this to the list :)

I guess you can also extract the e-mails and post only to the "slackers".

--
Hannu Krosing
PostgreSQL Consultant
Performance, Scalability and High Availability
2ndQuadrant Nordic O�

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 06/24/2013 08:01 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:

I think we maybe need to be a bit more careful about a name and shame
policy, or it will be ignored.

I very much don't like that idea of publishing a list of names either.
Editing the reviewer field and sending personal notices is fine by me,
but name and shame is walking the line…

Actually, every submitter on that list -- including Maciej -- was sent a
personal, private email a week ago. A few (3) chose to take the
opportunity to review things, or promised to do so, including a brand
new Chinese contributor who needed help with English to review his
patch. The vast majority chose not to respond to my email to them at
all. When private email fails, the next step is public email.

Maciej is correct that this policy also belongs on the "how to submit a
patch" wiki page. I will remedy that.

Doing the patch counts yesterday, it became clear to me that the reason
for the patch review pileups was that many people were submitting
patches but not participating in the review process at all. That is, we
have 100 to 150 people a year submitting patches, but relying entirely
on the committers and a few heroic uber-reviewers to do 90% of the patch
review. This is the commitfest problem in a nutshell.

The purpose of the list was to make it completely apparent where the
problem in clearing the patch queue lies, and to get some of our
submitters to do patch review.

Per both of my emails yesterday, I am trying to make sure that this CF
finishes on time. Following the rules passed at the developer meetings
for how CFs are to be run, I am doing so. If the result is
unsatisfactory, I can always resign as CFM.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:

patch. The vast majority chose not to respond to my email to them at
all. When private email fails, the next step is public email.

The only problem I have here is that I don't remember about deciding to
publish a list of failures by public email at all. I hope it's not my
memory failing me here, because then I would have to remember why I
didn't speak up against that idea at the time.

Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 06/24/2013 10:02 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:

patch. The vast majority chose not to respond to my email to them at
all. When private email fails, the next step is public email.

The only problem I have here is that I don't remember about deciding to
publish a list of failures by public email at all. I hope it's not my
memory failing me here, because then I would have to remember why I
didn't speak up against that idea at the time.

You didn't decide anything. As the CFM, I did. My job for this month
is to make sure that 100% of patches in that queue get reviewed and
either committed or bounced by July 15th. I'm doing my job.

I will be more than happy to resign as CFM and turn it over to someone
else if people have a problem with it.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 2013-06-24 10:10:11 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:

On 06/24/2013 10:02 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:

patch. The vast majority chose not to respond to my email to them at
all. When private email fails, the next step is public email.

The only problem I have here is that I don't remember about deciding to
publish a list of failures by public email at all. I hope it's not my
memory failing me here, because then I would have to remember why I
didn't speak up against that idea at the time.

You didn't decide anything. As the CFM, I did. My job for this month
is to make sure that 100% of patches in that queue get reviewed and
either committed or bounced by July 15th. I'm doing my job.

I will be more than happy to resign as CFM and turn it over to someone
else if people have a problem with it.

Heck, Josh. People have to be allowed to critize *a small part* of your
work without you understanding it as a fundamental request to step back
from being CFM.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Instead, I don't know, fetch some SPI money to offer a special poster or
unique one-time-edition only hoodie or a signed mug or whatever to extra
proficient contributors and turn that into a game people want to win.

I like that idea too. Provided that we allocate enough funding that I
can have a paid admin handle the shipping etc. Frankly, I'd be up for
the idea that patch reviewers get a special t-shirt for each PostgresQL
release, for reviewing even *one* patch.

Mind you, we wouldn't be able to reward a few reviewers, because they
live in countries to which it's impossible to ship from abroad.

I have previously proposed that all of the reviewers of a given
PostgreSQL release be honored in the release notes as a positive
incentive, and was denied on this from doing so. Not coincidentally, we
don't seem to have any reviewers-at-large anymore.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 06/24/2013 10:10 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:

On 06/24/2013 10:02 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:

Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:

patch. The vast majority chose not to respond to my email to them at
all. When private email fails, the next step is public email.

The only problem I have here is that I don't remember about deciding to
publish a list of failures by public email at all. I hope it's not my
memory failing me here, because then I would have to remember why I
didn't speak up against that idea at the time.

You didn't decide anything. As the CFM, I did. My job for this month
is to make sure that 100% of patches in that queue get reviewed and
either committed or bounced by July 15th. I'm doing my job.

I will be more than happy to resign as CFM and turn it over to someone
else if people have a problem with it.

Let's not be hasty :)

I think JoshB is spot on in this. He sent previous private emails, and a
week later opened up the transparency so that everyone understood what
was going on.

What I find unfortunate is people are spending a bunch of time on this
argument which has been clearl thought out by Josh instead of reviewing
patches.

I repeat:

Leave your ego at the door. Josh is doing what could be considered one
of the most thankless (public) jobs in this project. How about we
support him in getting these patches taken care of instead of whining
about the fact that he called us out for not doing our jobs (reviewing
patches) in the first place.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drkae

--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 509-416-6579
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc
For my dreams of your image that blossoms
a rose in the deeps of my heart. - W.B. Yeats

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

I will be more than happy to resign as CFM and turn it over to someone
else if people have a problem with it.

Heck, Josh. People have to be allowed to critize *a small part* of your
work without you understanding it as a fundamental request to step back
from being CFM.

Criticize, yes. Which I'm responding to.

But if this group votes that I am not to publish a public list of
submitters who aren't reviewing again, or otherwise votes to restrict my
ability to enforce the rules which the Developer Meetings have decided
on for CFs, I will resign as CFM. The job is too hard to do with one
hand tied behind my back. That's what I'm saying.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:

I will be more than happy to resign as CFM and turn it over to someone
else if people have a problem with it.

Heck, Josh. People have to be allowed to critize *a small part* of your
work without you understanding it as a fundamental request to step back
from being CFM.

Criticize, yes. Which I'm responding to.

But if this group votes that I am not to publish a public list of
submitters who aren't reviewing again, or otherwise votes to restrict my
ability to enforce the rules which the Developer Meetings have decided
on for CFs, I will resign as CFM. The job is too hard to do with one
hand tied behind my back. That's what I'm saying.

Hi Josh,

Not sure if this is out of line, but I would be glad to help you out
in any way possible for this CF. Please let me know if I can lighten
your burden in any way.

Regards,

Atri

--
Regards,

Atri
l'apprenant

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:

I have previously proposed that all of the reviewers of a given
PostgreSQL release be honored in the release notes as a positive
incentive, and was denied on this from doing so. Not coincidentally, we
don't seem to have any reviewers-at-large anymore.

You know... that's a very good idea.

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 06/24/2013 10:22 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:

Mind you, we wouldn't be able to reward a few reviewers, because they
live in countries to which it's impossible to ship from abroad.

I have previously proposed that all of the reviewers of a given
PostgreSQL release be honored in the release notes as a positive
incentive, and was denied on this from doing so. Not coincidentally, we
don't seem to have any reviewers-at-large anymore.

I don't like idea of sending gifts. I do like the idea of public thanks.
We should put full recognition in the release notes for someone who
reviews a patch. If they didn't review the patch, the person that wrote
the patch would not have gotten the patch committed anyway. Writing the
patch is only have the battle.

Heck, think about the FKLocks patch, Alvaro wrote that patch but I know
that Noah (as well as others) put a herculean effort into helping get it
committed.

Reviewer recognition should be on the same level as the submitter.

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 509-416-6579
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc
For my dreams of your image that blossoms
a rose in the deeps of my heart. - W.B. Yeats

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

JD said:

Leave your ego at the door. Josh is doing what could be considered one
of the most thankless (public) jobs in this project. How about we
support him in getting these patches taken care of instead of whining
about the fact that he called us out for not doing our jobs (reviewing
patches) in the first place.

Actually, I think this is a very important thing for us to discuss, in
fact more important than reviewing any individual patch. 9.3 CF4 took
almost **4 months** so it's clear that the system isn't working as
designed. So let's hash this out during CF1 rather than during CF4.

We've had the policy of "submit one, review one" since the 9.2 dev
cycle. However, to my knowledge nobody has actually tried to enforce
this before, or even published stats on it. Once I did that for this
CF, it became readily apparent to me that the failure of this policy is
at least 50% of the problem with finishing commitfests -- and releases
-- on time.

The vast majority of submitters aren't reviewing other people's patches,
even ones who have the time and resources to do so. You'll notice that
most of the people on the List aren't new contributors to PostgreSQL; if
anything, the new contributors have been exemplary in responding to
private email that they need to do some review.

More, on the slacker list are 6-8 people who I happen to know are paid
by their employers to work on PostgreSQL. Those are the folks I'm
particularly targeting with the Slacker list; I want to make it
transparently clear to those folks' bosses that they have to give their
staff time for patch review if they expect to get the features *they*
want into PostgreSQL.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 2013-06-24 10:37:02 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

On 06/24/2013 10:22 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:

Mind you, we wouldn't be able to reward a few reviewers, because they
live in countries to which it's impossible to ship from abroad.

I have previously proposed that all of the reviewers of a given
PostgreSQL release be honored in the release notes as a positive
incentive, and was denied on this from doing so. Not coincidentally, we
don't seem to have any reviewers-at-large anymore.

I don't like idea of sending gifts. I do like the idea of public thanks. We
should put full recognition in the release notes for someone who reviews a
patch. If they didn't review the patch, the person that wrote the patch
would not have gotten the patch committed anyway. Writing the patch is only
have the battle.

Heck, think about the FKLocks patch, Alvaro wrote that patch but I know that
Noah (as well as others) put a herculean effort into helping get it
committed.

Reviewer recognition should be on the same level as the submitter.

The problem with that is that that HUGELY depends on the patch and the
review. There are patches where reviewers do a good percentage of the
work and others where they mostly tell that "compiles & runs".

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers