Re: [DISCUSS] Where do we draw the line?
You can see that I already responded to the comment and I don't really have
many further thoughts. I do agree though that it's true that this could
have been intended humorously and my reaction didn't acknowledge that. That
said, it's of course worth considering with comments intended to be
humorous how they will be perceived.
Le jeu. 18 oct. 2018 à 15:37, Julian Hyde <jhyde@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> I’m not too concerned about the "Do you aim to get an entry in
> accidentallyquadratic?” comment — it could be interpreted humorously, if it
> were not at a end of a long, contentious review thread.
> I am more concerned that it was a long contentious review thread. The
> problem is that Vladimir is dogmatic. He makes a point, that point is
> acknowledged by the other party, but he absolutely refuses to give ground.
> This occurs on the issue of messages for assert statements, and on the
> issue of the O(n ^ 2) performance of the algorithm.
> There is no path to consensus, other than yielding to Vladimir.
> I have experienced this behavior also. I had fixed a bug — the expression
> “TRUE IS FALSE” was being simplified to TRUE — and Vladimir vetoed my fix
> on the “technical grounds” that I had added tests without sufficient error
> messages. The veto left me absolutely furious, and I seriously considered
> leaving the community. I surmise that other people who are on the receiving
> end of his criticism may feel the same way.
> I appreciate Vladimir’s efforts reviewing code, and I appreciate his high
> standards, but he needs to change his communication style.
> Perhaps it would be useful if we discuss under what circumstances a
> committer can veto a change. ASF policy  says the following:
> > Votes on code modifications follow a different model. In
> > this scenario, a negative vote constitutes a veto, which
> > cannot be overridden.
> > If the R-T-C policy is in effect, a positive vote carries the
> > very strong implied message, 'I have tested this patch
> > myself, and found it good.' Similarly, a negative vote
> > usually means that the patch was tested and found to
> > be not -good, although the veto (for such it is in this
> > case) may be based on other technical grounds.
> I think we need to clarify what “technical grounds" means. Introducing a
> security hole would certainly qualify. As would introducing a bug in
> user-visible functionality (if the same change were not removing a more
> serious bug). But in less clear-cut cases, where the purported “technical
> grounds” are disputed or subjective, I think a consensus of other
> committers should override a veto.
> To be clear, the “technical grounds” veto is very important. But if the
> threat of it is preventing consensus building, we need to look at it
> carefully. Removing the veto threat forces reviewers build consensus, to
> persuade rather than cajole; it reduces the power of committers over
> non-committers, and encourages us to treat each other as equals.
> The commit veto is the “nuclear option” and I, for one, hope that it is
> never used again in this project.
>  https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html <
> > On Oct 18, 2018, at 11:35 AM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
> jcamachorodriguez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Is it OK for a PMC member of this community to engage with a new
> contributor to the project in this way?
> > I wanted to bring everyone´s attention to the issue because I do not
> believe this behavior contributes to the health of the project, welcoming
> new contributions, etc. The same could have been said in a very different
> way, and I do not think Zoltan was engaging disrespectfully.
> > I am not sure whether I am overreacting, I would like to hear others
> opinion. Does anyone else in the PMC find this disturbing? Does the ASF
> provide clear guidelines about how members of a community should engage
> with each other?
> > Thanks,
> > Jesús