Well said Mark, that is exactly the design of the Apache model, and I agree in general it's healthy: it means only conservative-ish changes happen in a project.
Mike McCandless http://blog.mikemccandless.com On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Mark Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > Apache is not designed to handle accusations of a history of behavior of > poor opinions when driving code forward in any meaningful way. > > Instead we have technical discussions per issue and the power of the veto. > The threat that we should just to work together rather than attacking one > another. > > Some people may want to plow forward in any given area at any given time. > And it's great when progress happens. But we have given dozens of people the > power of veto, and that's pretty much the rules. If it acts as a brake > sometimes, IMO, that is exactly the design. A lot of people here like to > think they know what should happen despite opposing views. I think our > system is designed with the understanding the truth is often in the middle. > > Discussion and veto power are not attached to activity either. If someone > wants to participate on a JIRA issue, they are in the club, regardless of > how they choose to develop. > > It's like a political system. Choose deadlock or consensus, and stop > worrying about opposing conspiracy theories. True or not means little in how > things are decided. > > I can nitpick on a lot of the choices and motivations of a lot of people > here. But it would be useless for forward progress (detrimental even) and > perpetuate what has been a huge culture decline in these projects. > > - Mark > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 6:22 PM Yonik Seeley <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> (splitting this off) >> >> > Your threat to veto the original addition of Uwe's NumericFields to >> > Lucene's core stands out in my (long) memory as another. >> >> ??? I seriously question that long memory. Or perhaps just the color >> of the glasses you're viewing the world through. >> >> I fee like I helped develop NumericField (although Uwe was the primary >> author)! IIRC, I wrote the first draft of the code that enabled >> variable precision steps. >> >> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1470?focusedCommentId=12671495&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-12671495 >> >> http://markmail.org/message/vcwwxwciwf7ztrfg >> >> And this is the JIRA issue to actually move it to core... all I >> remember is an honest technical opinion about if it should be baked >> into the index format (and certainly no vetoes or even opinions >> against it being in "core"): >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1673 >> >> >> Luckily, I'm in good company... I'm not the only person to be accused >> of nefariously obstructing Lucene and only participating in Lucene >> issues to slow it down or make it harder to use. >> If one looks hard enough for something, they will start seeing it. >> >> -Yonik >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> > -- > - Mark > about.me/markrmiller --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
