[teampractices] Code review before writing new code

[James Douglas]

It might unnecessarily complicate matters to draw this kind of distinction
between community-written code and organization-written code.

We have the capacity to make new features available to the user, whether
through code we write ourselves, code that comes in from the community, or
code that results from a collaboration of both.

Through a balance of cost (e.g. implementation, maintenance, support) and
benefit (i.e. utility to the user), we can come up with the relative
priority of any set of features, independently of the motivation of any
work in progress.  It's certainly possible that such motivation factors
into the weight of benefit, and we can simply adjust the priority
accordingly.

This prioritization then makes it trivial to decide between reviewing (or
fixing, testing, deploying, etc.) feature Foo vs. coding up feature Bar.

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Dan Garry <dgarry at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On 9 June 2015 at 09:44, James Douglas <jdouglas at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't that a misprioritization?
>>
>
> In a literal sense, yes. However, as the curators and owners of an open
> source project, we have a responsibility to review code contributed by our
> volunteers, and as volunteers they have the freedom to work on whatever
> they choose.
>
> I'm not sure there's a golden bullet answer to this, except that it's
> about finding the right balance between our responsibilities.
>
> Dan
>
> --
> Dan Garry
> Product Manager, Discovery
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> teampractices mailing list
> teampractices at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/teampractices/attachments/20150609/557ef178/attachment.html>