On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:49:36 -0500, Paul wrote:
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 06:31:26PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> I don't know if it was what Michael wanted to say, but there are reviews
> that are very easy and reviews that are quite hard, counting these the
> same may be misleading. However taking that into account requires a
> rating of the submission which is not obvious.
> Another issue is that in some cases commentators may do more work
> in the review than the one approving the review request. This is also
> not something that is easily measured, though...
> In any case, as long as those numbers are not misrepresented as
> the amount of work done through reviews or the like, but only plainly
> as review requests accepted, everything is fine.
Precisely. This is not about rewarding people for the most work done,
simply for a number of package reviews. One very detailed package
review might be a lot of work for an experienced package reviewer.
Similarly, one simple package review might just as easily be a lot of
work for an enthusiastic but inexperienced package reviewer. Both may
be completed equally successfully.
I don't see a way of equitably treating the amount of work done, and
therefore this reward is not based on that measurement. And the fact
that amounts of work may differ should not stop us from saying thank
you to contributors doing work.
Which is what Brian's OP has done. It has listed _all_ the people who've
contributed package reviews in 2008, sorted by number of reviews. Why is
that not enough? Why do you want to apply a system where the two reviewers
from your example above won't see any official "thank you"?
I think concerns of people gaming the system are completely out of
proportion on a risk vs. reward basis.
Still: somebody, who [unintentionally] hunts down dozens of tiny Perl
module packages, would enter the Top 10 more likely [and possibly
unintentionally] than somebody who fights a 20K spec file for a pkg
that requires lots of work.