----- Original Message ----
> From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schae...@yahoo.com>
> To: thrift-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 10:54:44 PM
> Subject: Re: sharing knowledge means sharing control
>
> ----- 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.
I got involved with this project last year because of the
challenge it presented, and it continues to be a challenge
largely because I feel like my efforts are being wasted on
a project that really doesn't want to be at Apache (notwithstanding
the opinions of the Facebook devs who really do seem to want it to
be here). Teaching people that aren't receptive to my message
isn't something I find rewarding, and the fact that my suggestion
regarding the NOTICE file continues to go unaddressed is more of
the same. At the very least the courtesy of a reply would be nice,
and I'd like to see one or two of these -1 votes actually be
discussed, preferably by someone whose name isn't Mark or David.
Nobody can force the devs here to adopt the "community
over code" mantra, but if there isn't a serious collective effort
at treating patch submitters with respect and encouragement
this project simply won't graduate. It's not what cassandra
is about (and is precisely why it's been a success at Apache),
and it shouldn't be what thrift is about either.
