Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Feedback-ID: i58a146ae:Fastmail
Date:   Thu, 22 Jun 2023 08:48:12 +1000 (AEST)
From:   Finn Thain <fthain@linux-m68k.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
cc:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        tech-board-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] Documentation: Linux Contribution
 Maturity Model and the wider community
In-Reply-To: <20230621100845.12588f48@gandalf.local.home>
Message-ID: <1c3b8e4f-ac8f-1c79-387d-7b68b64ca645@linux-m68k.org>
References: <20230620212502.GI286961@mit.edu> <5490402b-8b9f-f52d-3896-41090e639e51@linux-m68k.org> <20230621100845.12588f48@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> 
> > 
> >   Making the maintainer role more lucrative will provide a 
> >   disincentive for more automation (with or without level 5 
> >   performance reviews) unless remuneration is tied to metrics that 
> >   reflect maintainer effectiveness.
> 
> I'm not sure I totally understand your point above. I do not think that 
> making the maintainer role more lucrative provides a disincentive for 
> more automation. 

You're right -- it's a moot point (whether paying people more will reward 
underperformers) since it all depends on the performance metric. I was 
assuming a metric that reflects my own bias.