Thanks, Roman. For the record, I don’t plan to contribute to Impala or Kudu, and I don’t like strict commit policies such as RTC. But I wanted to stand up for “states' rights”, the right of podlings and projects to determine their own processes and cultures.
Julian > On Dec 2, 2015, at 6:42 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote: >> “No explicit commit policy” means that only committers can commit. >> It is each committer’s discretion whether they ask for others to review >> the change before they commit it, whether they check in code that doesn’t >> build, whether they run the test suite before committing. >> >> This policy is the bare constitutional minimum. We would all hope and expect >> that the community would quickly agree on some policies, but that is up the >> community. >> They are not stupid, they want to produce high-quality software, and they >> want to grow >> their community, and they will figure out a policy that achieves these goals. > > If that's the expectation that is internalized by the podling community than > I guess my concerns are somewhat taken care of to a point where I'd > be comfortable giving the proposal a +0. > > Let me explain why it is a +0 instead of +1. This will also be an opportunity > for me to clarify my seemingly inconsistent position with Kudu proposal (which > I deliberately +1ed). > > It all comes back to trust and inclusiveness. I thought that Greg was super > convincing at articulating that CTR policy is an indication, a proxy if you > will > for those qualities. If CTR is there -- I know that the community is > trusting and > inclusive. My -1 for Impala was based on their strong resistance to CTR as > a proxy measure of how ready they are to accept the "Apache Way". Them > fighting the idea of CTR gave me a strong indication that they are resisting > to being trusting and inclusive. > > Now, of course, as any astute student of logic will know, necessity > and sufficiency > is not the same thing. While a presence of CTR policy is a strong indication > of > the community getting the "Apache Way" the lack of it is not necessarily an > indication of them not getting it. Impala community, however has one extra > strike against it that wasn't allowing me to give it the same benefit > of the doubt > that Kudu community got (hence +1 for Kudu despite their instance on RTC). > > Impala and its existing community are *not* new to Open Source. They've been > out on GitHub since late 2012 and they have operated under a very explicit > BDFL model. Based on their past attitude towards external contributions > (personalized via statement of the project lead) I have strong > reasons to believe > that they are going to have really tough time adjusting to the Apache > governance > model AND when I saw that strong resistance to CTR that was it for me. > > That said, this thread and the expectations articulated by Tom and others > make me more comfortable. However, the lack of *actionable* suggestion > for how they are going to integrate with Apache governance model > makes it +0 and not +1. > > Thanks, > Roman. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
