> Let me know if the above doesn't make any sense, though! To be honest, it doesn’t. The email feels accusatory, unfairly blaming the Hive community for wrongdoing while portraying the Iceberg folks as "worse" and insinuating misconduct on their part. This kind of tone does nothing to foster consensus in an open-source community.
In the past, when issues arose, we discussed them, highlighted the problems, proposed solutions, reached agreements, and moved forward. Now, there’s another problem, and once again, some folks, acting in good faith, have shown their willingness to negotiate and find a solution that works for both Hive and Iceberg. This is how meaningful collaboration happens and how consensus is built—at least according to my limited experience with the Apache opensource community. Anyone genuinely invested in resolving these challenges should work towards solutions that are practical and acceptable to both sides, as we—the Hive contributors—already did. If someone prefers to use this thread to express individual frustrations instead of contributing constructively, that’s their prerogative, but it should be clearly stated as such, maybe better to have a separate thread for that with a clear note, that this isn’t “our” opinion but their individual opinions. All of the current Hive-Iceberg developers have already participated in this thread. It’s now up to the Iceberg community to consider the points raised. As always, we remain available to collaborate and assist in finding workable solutions. -Ayush On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 at 20:15, Ayush Saxena <ayush...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Let me know if the above doesn't make any sense, though! > > To be honest, it doesn’t. The email feels accusatory, unfairly blaming > the Hive community for wrongdoing while portraying the Iceberg folks > as "worse" and insinuating misconduct on their part. This kind of tone > does nothing to foster consensus in an open-source community. > > In the past, when issues arose, we discussed them, highlighted the > problems, proposed solutions, reached agreements, and moved forward. > Now, there’s another problem, and once again, some folks, acting in > good faith, have shown their willingness to negotiate and find a > solution that works for both Hive and Iceberg. This is how meaningful > collaboration happens and how consensus is built—at least according to > my limited experience with the Apache opensource community. > > Anyone genuinely invested in resolving these challenges should work > towards solutions that are practical and acceptable to both sides, as > we—the Hive contributors—already did. If someone prefers to use this > thread to express individual frustrations instead of contributing > constructively, that’s their prerogative, but it should be clearly > stated as such, maybe better to have a separate thread for that with a > clear note, that this isn’t “our” opinion but their individual > opinions. > > All of the current Hive-Iceberg developers have already participated > in this thread. It’s now up to the Iceberg community to consider the > points raised. As always, we remain available to collaborate and > assist in finding workable solutions. > > -Ayush > > On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 at 19:38, Denys Kuzmenko <dkuzme...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Gabor, > > > > It's a bit odd to get the following feedback from the Impala folks: > > "I'd like to understand the motivation why this whole replication of code > > happened between Iceberg and Hive." > > when you know exactly why. > > > > FYI, we've raised our concerns multiple times to the iceberg community, for > > example: > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/kb543hmpxllgq16zgh0zwf03q4w78yop > > > > Regards, > > Denys
