Contributors

• Re: Reciprocity in PR opening vs reviews; banning contributors

  On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 11:42 PM Graeme Gellatly <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:

  This might sound like a crazy way to handle, but how about solving by setting a PR limit per repo. So a PSC can set a policy of say, at any given time, only 10 open PR's are allowed, and no PR can be older than say 4 months. Once limit is hit, no new PR can be accepted until limits resolved. 

  
  

  This is basically kanban? I'd be willing to participate in a trial of this on any of the repositories that I follow.

  ---

  by Adam Heinz - 02:00 - 27 Jan 2026

• Re: Reciprocity in PR opening vs reviews; banning contributors

  > Holger, what do you make of this inverted carrot approach rather than a
  
  > stick?
  
  seeing it fail for 10+ years
  
  
  -- 
  Your partner for the hard Odoo problems
  https://hunki-enterprises.com

  ---

  by Holger Brunn - 09:50 - 27 Jan 2026

  1 attachments 1 attachments

  signature.asc

• Re: Reciprocity in PR opening vs reviews; banning contributors

  On 1/27/26 9:37 AM, Enric Tobella Alomar wrote:
  
  > So if we decide to use this data, I think it should be for promotion 
  
  > and visibility, not for banning contributors.
  ...but what about for kindly, politely and lovingly ranking/labeling 
  PR's? Also rather not?
  

  ---

  by Tom Blauwendraat - 09:50 - 27 Jan 2026

• Re: Reciprocity in PR opening vs reviews; banning contributors

  Hello!

  
  

  I like the idea of using statistics to show the path we expect contributors to follow. However, I don’t think we should ban or limit users who don’t follow that path.

  
  

  In my experience, newcomers rarely meet these expectations at the beginning. It often takes around a year before people start collaborating the way we would like (doing reviews, participating in discussions, etc.). Some people get there faster, others slower, but we shouldn’t limit them because of that.

  
  

  Obviously, we can enforce rules like a 2 reviews : 1 PR ratio for PSCs or maintainers (and IMO, we should), but not for everyone.

  
  

  Collaboration data is very interesting, but relying only on data can be counterproductive and, in some cases, unfair. Reviews and contributions are hard to evaluate properly. Should we ban someone who does 3 high-quality reviews (with thoughtful comments and valuable points) and 10 fix PRs (including migrations), while promoting someone who does 10 reviews with no comments and 1 PR that creates a lot of extra work for others due to their way of working?

  
  

  This kind of data can be useful when looking at large numbers and trends, but with smaller samples, it’s easy to draw the wrong conclusions. IMO, using it can be a double-edged sword.

  
  

  So if we decide to use this data, I think it should be for promotion and visibility, not for banning contributors.

  
  

  My 2 cents.

  
  

  El mar, 27 ene 2026 a las 9:12, Tom Blauwendraat (<notifications@odoo-community.org>) escribió:
  

  On 1/27/26 8:57 AM, Jairo Llopis wrote:
  
  
  > IMHO statistics should be used as a prize, not as a weapon.
  
  Agreed! And it still could achieve the same: if a PR or contributor is 
  valued very highly, his/her PR's float to the top of the 
  sorting/filtering of reviewers anyway. And also the message to the 
  contributors is clear: *this* is how you can get a higher ranking. So it 
  still might achieve the same.
  
  Holger, what do you make of this inverted carrot approach rather than a 
  stick?
  
  

  _______________________________________________
  Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
  Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
  Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
  

  
  

  
  

  --
  

  Enric Tobella Alomar

  CEO & Founder
  

  
  

  www.dixmit.com

  ---

  by Enric Tobella Alomar - 09:35 - 27 Jan 2026

• Re: Reciprocity in PR opening vs reviews; banning contributors

  On 1/27/26 8:57 AM, Jairo Llopis wrote:
  
  > IMHO statistics should be used as a prize, not as a weapon.
  
  Agreed! And it still could achieve the same: if a PR or contributor is 
  valued very highly, his/her PR's float to the top of the 
  sorting/filtering of reviewers anyway. And also the message to the 
  contributors is clear: *this* is how you can get a higher ranking. So it 
  still might achieve the same.
  
  Holger, what do you make of this inverted carrot approach rather than a 
  stick?
  
  

  ---

  by Tom Blauwendraat - 09:11 - 27 Jan 2026

8 more replies