jd@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") writes:
> On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 11:31 -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
>
>> Ah, but the thing is, what was proposed wasn't "totally evilly
>> draconian."
>>
>> There's a difference between:
>>
>> "You haven't reviewed any patches - we'll ignore you forever!"
>>
>> and
>>
>> "Since you haven't reviewed any patches, we are compelled to defer
>> your patches until the next CommitFest."
>>
>> It's enough pain to make people think, but it's not *totally*
>> punitive.
>
> It is important to remember we are all volunteers here. Any increase to
> the barrier of contribution is a bad one.
But this *isn't* a barrier to contribution, at least not notably more
than the already existant issue that a paucity of reviewers is a barrier
to contribution.
It represents a policy for triaging review efforts with a bias in favor
of those that *are* contributing to the reviewers' list.
I don't think it's unjust for those that contribute to the review
process to get more favorable scheduling of reviews to their patches.
If we get so many reviewers that such triaging becomes unnecessary, then
it may automatically *not* be a problem.
--
(format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "acm.org")
http://linuxfinances.info/info/slony.html
"Bother," said Pooh, as he deleted his root directory.