Look, what you're saying here is basically "we know better and you're
stupid, so don't touch our code and don't ask questions, we can't provide
answers anyway". I'm hoping that's not the way you meant it (emails do that)
but that's the essence of what came across. You just can't run an open
source project by saying this on its development list.
My understanding is that they do know better. That does not necessarily
imply the rest of us are stupid but the settings in which Cassandra runs
are so complicated the design of such a system can be an extremely
difficult task. Obviously, it is important that it runs correctly and
efficiently.
In all aspects, there needs to be an approach that strives for a balance
between openness towards new participants and contributions, and the
need for control, with the acknowledgment that this balance might shift
over time.
> There are two reasons I refactor. One is, I always try to leave the
> code better than I found it. [...] Two is, if I am going to introduce
> a new feature I will try to refactor first without changing behavior
> in such away that the feature becomes easier to add. [...] So there
> is a method to my madness.
At this point, this is risky. It is risky because code changes that
introduce incompatibilities are very expensive. This may lead to a
coexisting trunk inside FB which also means we might remain unaware of
the existence of a major problem beyond the stage at which it can be
contained and corrected. Like it or not, using the same or a
close-enough version of the code as FB, was appealing to most of us.
I understand that some of us may feel that the original authors are not
interacting with the community the same way grassroot hackers do but,
these are the same people who brought over the code. I kind of agree
with Avinash in relation to etiquette. First, you go along and then you
come along.
> The recent issues have to do with Facebook developers having
> expectations that differ from open source standard practices.
The recent issues have more to do with meritocracy than other open
source practices. Facebook developers would be happy to have new people
coming in and help, and like other projects filter the people they
believe committed enough for the task and match the human attitudes
required to work well with others, especially in disagreement.
Now, I'm not too familiar with the ASF processes but the following
http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html
suggests that the PMC is comprised from developers or commiters that
were elected due to merit for the evolution of the project and
demonstration of commitment. Having said that, it is not difficult to
see why Facebook developers could be frustrated by recent events.
I do not mean to be disrespectful to Jonathan. I probably know him
longer than most people in this group and I think he deserves to be a
commiter in the same way that I think Avinash or Prashant should be the
project leaders and in the same way that they deserve more credit and
respect for their contributions (and releasing Cassandra as Open Source
in the first place).
- Neophytos
