How is it that you are able to extract so many paragraphs out of the few sentences I wrote?
What are you trying to achieve here? As far as I can tell you're the only one who has questions about how a contributor becomes a committer. How much detail is required for something that requires a nomination and then a vote? It's a pretty straightforward process. I'll try and respond quickly to sentences posed at questions but I'd really rather not continue to this spiral into deeper and deeper discussion. > I wonder: is this low commit:review ratio you're talking of supported by > any kind of numbers? it isn't but it's historically been the case and I haven't noticed it change. Feel free to look up some numbers if you like. > And is this complaint/concern you're expressing not > the result of the code of conduct for committers, or lack thereof? No, it's a community issue, code review is an important part of open-source and it doesn't require any special access to perform. > Why is > this now - while we are discussing how to get more committers - a reason > for concern? It always been a concern of mine, nothing new in it. I didn't know we were discussing how to get more committers, the thread started out with you querying some of Jacopo's wording. > And is this a concern of all PMC Members? I have no idea, we don't hold secret meetings to discuss such things. > Isn't it so that > committers review code patches by contributors? Of course the committer that intends to commit the patch reviews it. But who reviews the committer? > But we also know that committers review > committed bugfixes by other committers seldomly. But we trust committers to > do the right thing when committing changes, don't we? It's not about doing the "right thing", it's about reviewing each others work to ensure quality. Reviews are not about catching a committer intentionally doing something wrong, that's a silly idea. > Are you now saying that the PMC is regarding this as something to be > concerned about? No, I'm saying it is something I'm concerned about. > And that all within this community should be concerned > about this? I guess so. > That current committers don't apply due diligence when it comes > to committing changes? You're stretching a long bow on that one and I never said anything like that. This is one of the frustrating parts of discussing anything with you, you like to take small statements and make outrageous claims based on them. No one commits perfect code and code review is an important part of open source. > And that we must have some kind of super-committer > policing the committers? Not at all, anyone can review a commit, there is no hierarchy in this community dictating that one must somehow be superior to another in order to question them. Surely this thread is proof of that? > With as a result of not having enough > super-committers, the entire PMC feels that we must accept that not more > eligible contributors are invited to be a committer? The bow stretches further and further. I have no idea how the entire PMC feels. I was merely stating that I think it is a bigger problem than a lack of committers. > I wonder, given that you say that you don't speak for any of the other PMC > Members - except Jacopo, can each of the other PMC members share her or his > viewpoint on this? I've quite clearly stated a few times in this thread that I don't speak for Jacopo. That statement feels like you're trying to troll me when I'm taking time out to discuss your questions with you and I don't appreciate it. > The other controversy I can think of is that, while you are trying to > explain at great lengths how cautionary the PMC is with respect to inviting > new committers (and new PMC members), a contributor with only 178 postings > in the user ml, 114 in the dev ml, and about 11 patches submitted and 2 > publications in a period of 6 years makes it to become both committer and > PMC member within the last 3 months of those 6 years.. You've obviously spent some time doing some serious counting there. To what end? Do you have some issue with the outcome of those votes? Keep in mind however that a few numbers don't in themselves mean anything. The value of a contribution can't be measured by how many emails were sent. On 22/10/2014, at 2:27 pm, Pierre Smits <[email protected]> wrote: > Scott, > > I thank you for your patience and eloquence to explain your viewpoint as a > PMC Member regarding the subject to every participant in this community. > > For sure, the willingness of every participant in this community to discuss > contentious or controversial issues with an open mind (and with the best > interest of the project at heart) is something that will have the consensus > of all within this community. > > We understand that you are expressing only your viewpoint and concerns as > only one member of the PMC. > > I wonder: is this low commit:review ratio you're talking of supported by > any kind of numbers? And is this complaint/concern you're expressing not > the result of the code of conduct for committers, or lack thereof? Why is > this now - while we are discussing how to get more committers - a reason > for concern? And is this a concern of all PMC Members? > > We have had very little complaints about such code commits up to now. And > if there were any, these issues were resolved quite fast. Isn't it so that > committers review code patches by contributors? And that it is part of the > responsibilities of committers. But we also know that committers review > committed bugfixes by other committers seldomly. But we trust committers to > do the right thing when committing changes, don't we? > > Are you now saying that the PMC is regarding this as something to be > concerned about? And that all within this community should be concerned > about this? That current committers don't apply due diligence when it comes > to committing changes? And that we must have some kind of super-committer > policing the committers? With as a result of not having enough > super-committers, the entire PMC feels that we must accept that not more > eligible contributors are invited to be a committer? > > I wonder, given that you say that you don't speak for any of the other PMC > Members - except Jacopo, can each of the other PMC members share her or his > viewpoint on this? > > The controversy regarding commits I can think of (at the top of my head) is > that the PMC allows major extensions (improvements) to be committed without > prior review. > > The other controversy I can think of is that, while you are trying to > explain at great lengths how cautionary the PMC is with respect to inviting > new committers (and new PMC members), a contributor with only 178 postings > in the user ml, 114 in the dev ml, and about 11 patches submitted and 2 > publications in a period of 6 years makes it to become both committer and > PMC member within the last 3 months of those 6 years.. > > Though welcome the addition is, this contradicts anything of the concerns > you expressed. > > Again, I understand and accept that you are expressing only your viewpoint. > So again, I invite every other PMC Member to share her or his viewpoint as > well. So that the entire community can learn how this issue, this > controversy is regarded in the entire PMC. > > As always, and discussing with an open mind, > > Best regards, > > > Pierre Smits > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > Based Manufacturing, Professional > Services and Retail & Trade > http://www.orrtiz.com
