As a part of rolling out review culture, I’d like to start a regular practice of reviewing our weekly Cred scores. A key takeaway from our recent weight change discussion was that we should focus our attention not on the people earning cred, but on how we’re valuing contributions themselves.
To that end, I put together a cred analysis notebook which shows which lists every contribution that received at least 1 cred in the past week. I figure we can use this as a starting point to assess whether the Cred scores actually align with our values. You can open that notebook here.
I think the scores are pretty interesting. Some of it makes sense–for example the “Changing the CredSperiment Weights” thread shows up quite a bit, which makes sense, as it was an important discussion. Also, it identifies that this post was among the most valuable on the “GitHub PR labels” thread, which I agree with.
It was interesting that this old PR got the most cred. I can sort of see why – it was referenced by two recent PRs, #1534 and #1535. But those two pulls only have ~12 cred in total. So how did they flow over 23 cred to the old PR?
Personally, I think one of my most valuable contributions last week was kicking off the docs repo with the review culture guide but that only got about 6 cred–about a third of the cred of this github comment. I think this shows the need for boosting and/or the initiatives plugin. However, since the guide landed near the end of the week, most of the activity (reviews, comments, etc) didn’t come until after the week ended. So we’ll have to see how much cred it gets next week.
Finally, many important contributions (e.g. @LB booking the airbnbs for CredCon) simply don’t show up in the graph at all.
In future reviews, I’d like us to collaboratively improve the cred, e.g. by collectively adding initiatives and manually recorded contributions. We don’t quite have those tools ready yet. So for this week, please just share what your thoughts are, and what kinds of improvements you’d like to see us focus on.