On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 12:10 AM Michael Meskes <mes...@postgresql.org> wrote: > How do you know I didn't spend 15 minutes looking at the patch and the > whole email thread? I surely did and it was more than 15 minutes, but > not enough to give a meaningful comment. If you can do it in 15 > minutes, great for you, I cannot.
That was just an example of a token response. I don't know anything about ecpg. > Besides, I have not ignored the RMT. I don't know why you keep > insisting on something that is simply not true. My email of July 30 was itself pretty strongly worded, but went unanswered for a full week. Not even a token response. If that doesn't count as "ignoring the RMT", then what does? How much time has to pass before radio silence begins to count as "ignoring the RMT", in your view of things? A month? More? > At the risk of repeating myself, my concern is *only* the rude and > disrespectful way of addressing me in the third person while talking to > me directly. Again, I though I made that clear in my first email about > the topic and every one that followed. Okay, I understand that now. > I was *never* asked for *any* response in *any* email, save the > original technical discussion, which I did answer with telling people > that I'm lacking time but will eventually get to it. Just to be > precise, your email from July 30 told me and everyone how this will be > handled. A reasonable procedure, albeit not one we'd like to see > happen. But why should I answer and what? It's not that you bring this > up as a discussion point, but as a fact. As Andrew pointed out, there is a general expectation that committers take care of their own open items. That doesn't mean that they are obligated to personally fix bugs. Just that the final responsibility to make sure that the issue is resolved rests with the committer. This is one of the few hard rules that we have. As I've said before, RMT-driven revert is something that I see as an option of last resort. The RMT charter doesn't go quite that far, but I'd argue that my interpretation is quite natural given how committer responsibility works in general. In other words, I personally believe that our bottom-up approach is on balance a good one, and should be preserved. Maybe the issue is muddied by the fact that we each have different views of the community process, at a high level (I'm unsure). Unlike you, I don't believe that RMT-driven revert is "a reasonable procedure". I myself see the RMT's power to resolve open items in this way as a necessary evil. Something to be avoided at all costs. Why should people that don't know anything about ecpg make decisions about ecpg? In general they should not. -- Peter Geoghegan
