> For starters there isn't even an objectively established definition of value.
That's doesn't mean that one cannot come up with a definition . I believe that for a long time there wasn't a proper definition for energy.
> You can't objectively measure something that only has subjective definitions.
But it's your claim that it can only be subjective. Somehow you don't seem able to demonstrate it, nor even show an example of a patch - or a patch set - for which no meaningful objective quality measurement could be done.
Anyway, this might very well be a red herring: it doesn't matter if it's objective or not, as long as those involved agree with it. Apparently, the current measure is this KPI thing (which by the way, is very objective, since it doesn't involve the judgement of anyone), and this mail we're discussing seems to indicate its inadequacy (because it doesn't measure the right thing).
Now, whether having such measure is a good thing or not is of course a different matter, and perhaps it should be discussed first.
That's doesn't mean that one cannot come up with a definition . I believe that for a long time there wasn't a proper definition for energy.
> You can't objectively measure something that only has subjective definitions.
But it's your claim that it can only be subjective. Somehow you don't seem able to demonstrate it, nor even show an example of a patch - or a patch set - for which no meaningful objective quality measurement could be done.
Anyway, this might very well be a red herring: it doesn't matter if it's objective or not, as long as those involved agree with it. Apparently, the current measure is this KPI thing (which by the way, is very objective, since it doesn't involve the judgement of anyone), and this mail we're discussing seems to indicate its inadequacy (because it doesn't measure the right thing).
Now, whether having such measure is a good thing or not is of course a different matter, and perhaps it should be discussed first.