I totally agree that such review comments are kind of on the edge and can be seen as shaming and bullying. As a person whom lived over 3 different continent and worked with peoples from various culture, i find out (the hard way) that humor is always subjective to culture and context interpretation, thus i try to be carful before joking especially over offline comments.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 8:58 AM Aman Sinha <[email protected]> wrote: > My 2 cents: > I hope Vladimir realizes that there is a small community of developers who > understand query optimizers and are willing to contribute to it. > Its a complex area and he cannot do it alone. His constructive comments > are welcome but not the arrogance/mockery in the code review. > Those will absolutely have a negative effect on the health of the project. > We need contributors like Zoltan ! In the PR Jesus suggested to file > a follow-up JIRA and move on. I don't understand why that's not acceptable > to Vladimir. > > thanks, > Aman > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 4:07 AM Zoltan Haindrich <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 10/19/18 3:27 AM, Albert wrote: > > > maybe Zoltan could share his feel on that review, and Vladimir could > act > > > correspondingly. > > > > During the review process Vladimir had some good points; I tried to focus > > on those - and tried to overlook he's style - it kinda worked well to > just > > see the value in his > > comments - although he never acknowledge any of my concerns - I was not > > against those modifications. > > At the end of that process I was adding assertion messages - I thinked > the > > core part of the patch have made it thru the review :) > > A day have passed without any comments... after it got in that > > conversation on the "commit" started...I tried to give my best > explanations > > - but when that comment came > > about thumblr: that blow the fuse out...I've written some long message > > about why are we here - but eventually I've cleared most of it; except > the > > last few words. > > > > I'm not sure what Vladimir's goal with he's behaviour, but this thing > > kinda take away my willingness to file another ticket... > > > > regards, > > Zoltan > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 8:23 AM Ashutosh Chauhan <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> I have not contributed to Calcite in a while but I keep up with whats > > going > > >> in project and actively follow mailing list and jiras of interest. > > >> I concur with Josh that it is public shaming and bullying. This is not > > >> acceptable. Also, this is not an exception but pattern which tells me > > that > > >> it will continue in future too. > > >> This is not in line with ASF code of conduct and respectful dialog > > expected > > >> in community. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Ashutosh > > >> > > >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 4:24 PM Michael Mior <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > >>> 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. > > >>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Michael Mior > > >>> [email protected] > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Le jeu. 18 oct. 2018 à 15:37, Julian Hyde <[email protected]> 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 [1] 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. > > >>>> > > >>>> Julian > > >>>> > > >>>> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html < > > >>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> On Oct 18, 2018, at 11:35 AM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez < > > >>>> [email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Is it OK for a PMC member of this community to engage with a new > > >>>> contributor to the project in this way? > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > https://github.com/apache/calcite/commit/b470a0cd4572c9f6c4c0e9b51926b97c5af58d3f#r30950660 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 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 > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- B-Slim _______/\/\/\_______/\/\/\_______/\/\/\_______/\/\/\_______/\/\/\_______
