incubator-cassandra-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthieu Riou <>
Subject Re: working together
Date Wed, 08 Apr 2009 15:50:18 GMT
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Torsten Curdt <> wrote:

> >> Unfortunately no one noticed that the
> >> actual authors bringing the code were NOT on the private list where
> >> the vote was held. So we got a new committer without the consent
> >> and/or feedback of the original authors. A big surprise.
> >
> >
> > I disagree here, I was fully aware that we hadn't formed the PPMC from
> the
> > committership yet (read PPMC = mentors) and at least on my side it was by
> > design. I should probably have pointed it out at the time just in case
> > though, my bad.
> Well, I feel tricked into a vote now. That is NOT right. The vote
> should come from the community - not the mentors. Whether you like it
> or not.

Tricked into a vote? What are you accusing me of, scheming in your back? I
was just mentioning what I thought to be everybody's opinion at that point
and I regret you didn't know (that was the "my bad" part). But tell me, how
could I have known you didn't know? Read your mind?

Now I have mentored quite a few podlings so far, some coming from
confronting codebases or others with very heavy political backgrounds.
Sometimes, votes coming from the community just lead to project suicide
whether you like it or not.

> > Avinash and Prashant are two very nice fellows but the Cassandra
> community
> > has to be larger than FB employees and actually was already, given the
> > different forks that were developed here and there. Waiting to form the
> > until it's more balanced in this case seems like a reasonable thing to
> do.
> "OK, now childs play together" .. it doesn't work that way.

Oh really? So how does it work then, enlighten me.


> >> 1. We elected a committer without real community consensus. The
> >> barrier of entry was unnatural low on this one. On the other hand we
> >> need non-FB committers for the graduation. The more the better. (No
> >> reason for low entry barrier though!)
> >>
> >
> > If what you mean is that it was low because there was less direct peer
> > review, I would agree
> That is what I meant.
> >> 3. Is trunk considered "stable"? Or aren't we missing a stable branch
> >> for the required stability? Once we have the separation between stable
> >> and trunk: Will patches really find it's way from trunk into stable?
> >> Is Facebook OK with that approach. Will everyone cope with the
> >> additional work of merging? Would it be useful ...or overkill to use
> >> merge tracking?
> >>
> >
> > A very useful tool here is what in Apache lingo is called "lazy
> consensus".
> > Anybody can build a proposition and submit it in the open. If nobody
> objects
> > in a reasonable amount of time (usually 72 hours), then it's considered
> > adopted.
> >
> > So I've read a couple of propositions from Jonathan on these points, why
> not
> > formalizing that?
> That's the way forward I think.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message