> On Dec 3, 2018, at 9:09 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I found a pro-RTC message I did in another community. Here it is below
> just barely updated for here:
Good stuff! Comments in-line.
> ---
> 1) Number One With A Bullet: It puts committers and
> non-committer-contributors on closer to equal footing. If I'm participating
> in the project and I haven't been blessed with a commit bit, what am I
> supposed to do after my [lazy consensus period] of having my patch sit around?
The same thing you’d have to do in an RTC world: ask for a review and a
commit.
> 2) Community interaction. [...] having the communal norm of
> reviews means that folks are more likely to see more of the code.
Is this actually true though? It definitely feels like the larger the
code base, the more people start to specialize. Granted, I haven’t been
involved with that community that much in about a year (I’m only subbed to
security@ presently), but Hadoop definitely has more code flowing into
sub-projects than the main one that really should have been targeted for the
main project. (e.g., anything to do with metrics gathering, core pom changes,
etc)
.. and yes, I realize Hadoop is a severely broken “community," but I
think it’s still an important lesson in where RTC completely breaks down:
Perfectly valid code written by committers is regularly ignored because
the rest of the committers are too focused on vendor-driven goals. Since those
vendor driven goals are the only patches getting in and getting reviewed,
coworkers get commit and PMC bits at a rate significantly faster than
non-coworkers. In the end, only the vendors survive and what was a diverse
community dies. [.. and to put an ASF spin on it: it feels sanctioned by the
ASF board who really doesn’t understand what is happening because they just see
new faces being added to the rolls, not being told that ~90% of these people
work for 2-3 companies. Since no one goes emeritus, the numbers/diversity
looks more impressive than it really is: it’s not unusual for not-coworkers to
basically disappear after getting PMC or even committer.]
> 3) Everyone has a bad day. I totally identify with committership being a
> sign of "I trust you" to project participants. But everyone has one of
> those days where you're in a rush either because of work or life. Having
> even a cursory additional set of eyes on things markedly increases the
> quality of the overall code base over a long enough time line (at least in
> my experience contributing to open source projects). So for me, the trust
> is largely "to follow the rules" and "to provide feedback in reviews”.
Definitely agree here. I think that’s why I’m favoring Lazy Consensus
over CTR as well.
> That said, if I'm going to give CTR another try anywhere I'd rather it
> be here in Apache Yetus. So please consider my -0 changed to +1.
Thanks Sean!
