On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:48 AM, "Martin v. Löwis"
<martin@v.loewis.de> wrote:
Not sure how well 'tit for tat' schemes work - we *could* require
that people don't commit unreviewed changes, and also require that
you can't commit unless you have reviewed somebody else's changes.
I wonder if a "reputation" scheme would work better. Track and publicize patch submissions, reviews, and the review/patch ratio, but do not enforce any particular ratios. Perhaps provide a roundup query showing patches awaiting review sorted by the patch submitter's review/patch ratio? (in descending order)
Obviously there would be many non-trivial details to work out. I'm just brainstorming.