----- Original Message ----
> From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
> To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 9:54:53 PM
> Subject: Re: sharing knowledge means sharing control
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>
> > From: Todd Lipcon <t...@cloudera.com>
> > To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 9:45:24 PM
> > Subject: Re: sharing knowledge means sharing control
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Joe Schaefer
><joe_schae...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> >
> > > THRIFT-819 to me is a pattern of dialog I'd like
> > > to see improved. Too often I see issues filed
> > > in Thrift's jira that get turned down by Facebook
> > > folks without any input from non-Facebook committers.
> > > That tends to institutionalize the idea Facebook
> > > retains tight control over all architectural decisions
> > > for this project.
> > >
> > > One way to resolve this is for the Facebook employees
> > > to continue to comment on these issues but to ask for
> > > input from other committers before closing the issue.
> > > Another approach is to recognize the pattern and return
> > > to the dev list with some educational posts about the
> > > goals of Thrift and its design. Those suggestions
> > > are not mutually exclusive.
> > >
> > >
> > Isn't "lazy consensus" a core Apache principle?
> > I looked at the JIRA, saw that David had already commented,
> > and I agreed with his response. Piling on
> > just to say "I agree with David" seemed like a waste of time, no?
>
> Not quite. First off I'm talking about a pattern,
> not a single issue. And second off, that issue was
> opened a month ago, which was ample time for ANY
> interested committer to weigh in prior to David's
> response from yesterday. What's happenened here
> is that there are "territories" within the code that
> people accept (limited) responsibility for, and there
> needs to be more of a "swarm" effort to break down
> those walls. This isn't something Facebook folks
> can assist with other than to encourage others to
> step up and show some initiative.
Lemme give you an illustration of how an Apache-style community
would've handled THRIFT-819. First off, someone would've noticed
that a patch had been uploaded and that patch would've been examined
within a day or so. Then someone would've commented on the patch:
"Thanks for the patch, we're looking it over now. If you are interested
in a real-time discussion please join us on our IRC channel..."
After some group discussion had happened, or perhaps after someone
researched the patch themselves and drew their own conclusion,
someone would have made a decision (up or down or ask for mods)
about the patch and provided that feedback on the issue.
That process from submission to decision should take 2-3 days
to a week for something like this. Other folks could then
weigh in with supporting statements or conflicting ones, in
which case the issue should be brought back here for debate.
It should be the Facebook people deploying lazy concensus
whenever design decisions are made, not the other way round.
The other way round is just an expression of apathy or groupthink,
not informed decision-making.
