Re: Kudos for Reviewers -- straw poll

On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:

> How should reviewers get credited in the release notes?

Without getting into how we do this, I thought it might be helpful to
share the reasons why I believe recognizing and expressing gratitude
to reviewers is a helpful, useful and gratifying exercise for the
Postgres community.

I support crediting reviewers in a more formal way than we currently
do for a few different reasons.

First, I believe it's worth finding a way to say "Hey, you just did
something great for Postgres", publicly, to a bunch of people who
could have spent their valuable time and energy in some other way.

Second, reviewers get better at their work by reviewing multiple times
- so I'd like to encourage people to review more than once.

Third, reviewers don't always need to be expert developers, or experts
at Postgres to get started, but many people who do open source work
have no idea this is true. Public recognition helps make it clear that
we have people who give useful reviews and are relative novices.

We also have several different kinds of reviews:

* "does it compile"
* style/typo/easily seen bug passes
* in-depth discussion of design choices, use case, interface
* complex testing cases
* performance testing
* pre-commit checks for more subtle bugs or committer preferences.

All of those, except probably the very last, can be done by people who
are familiar with Postgres or its configuration, but aren't
necessarily Postgres or C experts.

Fourth, we have very few accepted ways to recognize contributions to
Postgres. Naming in Release Notes is one way this community has
consistently supported as a *public* way to say "hey, you just did
something great for Postgres". The complete list of ways I'm aware of
are:

1. Recognizing major, minor and emeritus contributors
2. Making someone a committer
3. Being part of the -core group
4. Naming authors by name in commit messages (but without consistent
metadata, making it difficult to count well)
5. Naming authors in release notes

That's pretty much it. That's great for the people who have already
secured positions through seniority, or because they're amazing C
hackers. I don't know if I need to lay out for everyone the value of
public recognition - if you want me to I can enumerate them. But the
benefits of public recognition are huge -- both in a social and a
financial sense.

Currently, the only way I know of to be recognized for work on
Postgres that is *not* seniority or code-related is #1. If you're a
reviewer, there's almost no chance you'll be recognized in that way
without some additional, very significant contribution to our
community. (Please let me know if I'm mistaken about this -- I only
know what I know!) Adding names to Release Notes (or some variant of
Release Notes) seems like a minor concession for work done that we as
a community value and want to encourage.

We are so few in terms of patch contributors - somewhere between
300-400 people contribute code to PostgreSQL each year based on the
names I try to pull out of commits. I haven't counted how many
reviewers we have who do not also contribute code.

Giving people appreciation for the review work they're doing for this
community, for free, is a good thing for everyone. Naming more names
helps describe the true scope of our community. Spreading gratitude is
good for those who thank and those who receive thanks (like, proven
scientifically!). And we increase the number of people who benefit
directly from the work that they do here, by giving them something
they can point their boss, their company and their colleagues to.

So, when we're debating *how* recognition might be done, please don't
lose sight of *why* this is important in the first place.

-selena

--
http://chesnok.com