> On Mar 6, 2024, at 10:01 PM, Kalwit S <skalwit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Also, Pulsar may have > numbers of non-SM PMC’s and committers, but if you look at the numbers over > the last 2-3 years, you’ll see that 99% are from SM.
If you are saying that this is the proportion of new committers and PMC members in the last 2-3 years then 99% implies not a single non-SN committer and/or PMC member added. This statement is categorically incorrect and completely wrong. A number of individuals involved who are committers and PMC members have changed jobs during the course of their involvement. A surprising number have continued their involvement during their work transitions. > I can even cite a few examples from recent times from different users > (PIP-337, PIP-338, PIP-332, PIP-310, etc) to illustrate how some > improvements are simply ignored without discussion, some are without any > conclusion, and some are not given the opportunity to be implemented, which > could have allowed other companies to implement a customized implementation > for their need based on plugged-in approach. You were asked to provide an example. You need to pick one PIP, take the time to research the conversations, gather references (links) to emails, and explain how you think it is a problem. Be technical about just one. I promised to help investigate, but I won’t help if you won’t do anything to help us all understand. > There are many examples > (PIP-321) where it was developed by SN contributors, and while there is no > consensus, they will still be a part of the system. Other PR examples show > the same pattern, ignoring the needs of other companies, and merging the PR > of SN contributors on an immediate basis. You have not shown any pattern, you have merely asserted it is there. Your “unit test” is flawed. Do the work to factually prove your point. Thanks, Dave
