[teampractices] Patch review culture of Wikimedia teams

[Dan Garry]

On 8 March 2016 at 11:20, Alex Monk <amonk at wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> Whilst your efforts are, of course, commendable, this situation is not
> completely ideal. I'd be wary of over-prioritising reviews too much because
> someone external (as far as the org chart goes) uploaded the patch. I also
> worry that calling out specific patches as being externally-contributed may
> also cause it to be scrutinised more deeply (by some reviewers anyway -
> certainly not all) - not necessarily a bad thing most of the time
> (depending on the experience of the contributor), but not quite the right
> thing in principle.
>

Very true. Most, if not all, of this process that I'm using works only
because there's so few reviewers and so few contributors. Ideally,
everything would be much more equal.

That would be bad. In my opinion, ideally we should look at moving towards
> a system in which it doesn't matter whether you are external to the main
> developers of a project or not, your patch would be reviewed based on it's
> merits, the priority of issues it addresses, etc.
>

Also very true.

Thanks for the thoughts.

Dan

-- 
Dan Garry
Lead Product Manager, Discovery
Wikimedia Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/teampractices/attachments/20160308/1e119e54/attachment.html>