I have not contributed to Calcite in a while but I keep up with whats going
in project and actively follow mailing list and jiras of interest.
I concur with Josh that it is public shaming and bullying. This is not
acceptable. Also, this is not an exception but pattern which tells me that
it will continue in future too.
This is not in line with ASF code of conduct and respectful dialog expected
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 4:24 PM Michael Mior <mmior@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You can see that I already responded to the comment and I don't really
many further thoughts. I do agree though that it's true that this could
have been intended humorously and my reaction didn't acknowledge that.
said, it's of course worth considering with comments intended to be
humorous how they will be perceived.
Le jeu. 18 oct. 2018 à 15:37, Julian Hyde <jhyde@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
I’m not too concerned about the "Do you aim to get an entry in
accidentallyquadratic?” comment — it could be interpreted humorously,
were not at a end of a long, contentious review thread.
I am more concerned that it was a long contentious review thread. The
problem is that Vladimir is dogmatic. He makes a point, that point is
acknowledged by the other party, but he absolutely refuses to give
This occurs on the issue of messages for assert statements, and on the
issue of the O(n ^ 2) performance of the algorithm.
There is no path to consensus, other than yielding to Vladimir.
I have experienced this behavior also. I had fixed a bug — the
“TRUE IS FALSE” was being simplified to TRUE — and Vladimir vetoed my
on the “technical grounds” that I had added tests without sufficient
messages. The veto left me absolutely furious, and I seriously
leaving the community. I surmise that other people who are on the
end of his criticism may feel the same way.
I appreciate Vladimir’s efforts reviewing code, and I appreciate his
standards, but he needs to change his communication style.
Perhaps it would be useful if we discuss under what circumstances a
committer can veto a change. ASF policy  says the following:
Votes on code modifications follow a different model. In
this scenario, a negative vote constitutes a veto, which
cannot be overridden.
If the R-T-C policy is in effect, a positive vote carries the
very strong implied message, 'I have tested this patch
myself, and found it good.' Similarly, a negative vote
usually means that the patch was tested and found to
be not -good, although the veto (for such it is in this
case) may be based on other technical grounds.
I think we need to clarify what “technical grounds" means. Introducing
security hole would certainly qualify. As would introducing a bug in
user-visible functionality (if the same change were not removing a more
serious bug). But in less clear-cut cases, where the purported
grounds” are disputed or subjective, I think a consensus of other
committers should override a veto.
To be clear, the “technical grounds” veto is very important. But if the
threat of it is preventing consensus building, we need to look at it
carefully. Removing the veto threat forces reviewers build consensus,
persuade rather than cajole; it reduces the power of committers over
non-committers, and encourages us to treat each other as equals.
The commit veto is the “nuclear option” and I, for one, hope that it is
never used again in this project.
 https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html <
On Oct 18, 2018, at 11:35 AM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
Is it OK for a PMC member of this community to engage with a new
contributor to the project in this way?
I wanted to bring everyone´s attention to the issue because I do not
believe this behavior contributes to the health of the project,
new contributions, etc. The same could have been said in a very
way, and I do not think Zoltan was engaging disrespectfully.
I am not sure whether I am overreacting, I would like to hear others
opinion. Does anyone else in the PMC find this disturbing? Does the ASF
provide clear guidelines about how members of a community should engage
with each other?