Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...>, David Newall <davidn@...>, Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@...>, <sverre@...>, <git@...>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...>, James Morris <jmorris@...>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...>, Willy Tarreau <w@...>, <david@...>, Stephen Clark <sclark46@...>, Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@...>, Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...>, <Valdis.Kletnieks@...>, Mark Lord <lkml@...>, David Miller <davem@...>, <yoshfuji@...>, <jeff@...>, <netdev@...>
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 12:35:12PM -0700, Ray Lee wrote:
There already is one: reputation with people working on the tree,
be it actively modifying/reviewing/bug hunting/etc. _We_ _already_ _know_;
generally one gets a decent idea of what to expect pretty soon.
And frankly, that's the only thing that matters anyway; I suspect
I'd do rather well by proposed criteria, but you know what? I don't give
a flying f*ck through the rolling doughnut for self-appointed PHBs and
their idea of performance reviews.
Think of it as a modified Turing test: convince me that you are
not a script piped through an Eng.Lit. wanker or an MBA, then I might care
for your opinion.
Al, who never had problems with pointing fingers and laughing, but
likes an informed human brain to be the source of it...
--
