I am not speaking for Scott, but I want to clarify something here.
Many times these discussions imply that there is some kind of hierarchy in the community - with the PMC being in charge. As has been stated before, the PMC has very little authority, and the hierarchy that is implied in these discussions goes against the spirit of this community - where we are all peers.
So, the PMC does not "allow" things, nor does it "prohibit" things. At most, the PMC will advise - and that advice carries with it the collective experience of its members. But, like any advice, it can be ignored.
I know there are some in the community who would like to see the PMC take on a statist role and exercise more control over the community, but that is not going to happen.
Regarding commit review: There are no metrics for commit review other than the messages on the dev mailing list. When you see a reply to a commit message, that reply is a de-facto commit review. Looking through the dev mailing list history will give you a good sense of the review activity. Even then, the metric is not accurate because commits might be reviewed without generating a reply.
Personally, I try to review framework commits. My free time is very limited, so I need to prioritize what I review. From my perspective, a regression introduced in an application (where it affects only one application) is not as serious as a regression introduced in the framework (where it affects ALL applications).
This is my review strategy based on my preference - it has nothing to do with the PMC. The PMC does not tell me what to review and how much to review.
So, when you say things like: "the PMC allows major extensions (improvements) to be committed without prior review" - you are misunderstanding how this community works. The PMC does not "allow" or "prohibit" commits.
If there is a concern about a commit, the PMC will offer advice about that commit. That advice can be ignored. If anyone strongly objects to the commit, then the commit can be vetoed by a PMC member - in which case the commit SHOULD be reverted (this depends on the cooperation of the committer).
There was one case of a committer who refused to revert a vetoed commit, and threatened a commit war if anyone else tried to revert it. That resulted in a year-long discussion, and eventually the committer grudgingly agreed to let someone else revert the commit. That episode resulted in hurt feelings and it seriously undermined the cooperation in the community. I mention it because I want to stress the importance of mutual cooperation - without it, the community breaks down. It also illustrates the self-imposed limitations the PMC has - the PMC did not "kick out" the uncooperative committer, but instead continued to plead for common sense and cooperation.
So, that is how this community works. We are all volunteers, we are all members of a minarchist community, and we all need to compromise and get along with each other for the benefit of the common good.
Adrian Crum Sandglass Software www.sandglass-software.com On 10/22/2014 2:27 AM, Pierre Smits 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
