git.net

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DISCUSS] Where do we draw the line?


I totally agree that such review comments are kind of on the edge and can
be seen as shaming and
bullying.
As a person whom lived over 3 different continent and worked with peoples
from various culture, i find out (the hard way) that humor is always
subjective to culture and context interpretation, thus i try to be carful
before joking especially over offline comments.


On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 8:58 AM Aman Sinha <amansinha@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> My 2 cents:
> I hope Vladimir realizes that there is a small community of developers who
> understand query optimizers and are willing to contribute to it.
> Its a complex area and he cannot do it alone.  His constructive comments
> are welcome but not the arrogance/mockery in the code review.
> Those will absolutely have a negative effect on the health of the project.
> We need contributors like Zoltan !   In the PR Jesus suggested to file
> a follow-up JIRA and move on.  I don't understand why that's not acceptable
> to Vladimir.
>
> thanks,
> Aman
>
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 4:07 AM Zoltan Haindrich <kirk@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 10/19/18 3:27 AM, Albert wrote:
> > > maybe Zoltan could share his feel on that review, and Vladimir could
> act
> > > correspondingly.
> >
> > During the review process Vladimir had some good points; I tried to focus
> > on those - and tried to overlook he's style - it kinda worked well to
> just
> > see the value in his
> > comments - although he never acknowledge any of my concerns - I was not
> > against those modifications.
> > At the end of that process I was adding assertion messages - I thinked
> the
> > core part of the patch have made it thru the review :)
> > A day have passed without any comments... after it got in that
> > conversation on the "commit" started...I tried to give my best
> explanations
> > - but when that comment came
> > about thumblr: that blow the fuse out...I've written some long message
> > about why are we here - but eventually I've cleared most of it; except
> the
> > last few words.
> >
> > I'm not sure what Vladimir's goal with he's behaviour, but this thing
> > kinda take away my willingness to file another ticket...
> >
> > regards,
> > Zoltan
> >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 8:23 AM Ashutosh Chauhan <hashutosh@xxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> 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
> > >> in community.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Ashutosh
> > >>
> > >> 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
> > >> have
> > >>> 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.
> > >> That
> > >>> said, it's of course worth considering with comments intended to be
> > >>> humorous how they will be perceived.
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Michael Mior
> > >>> mmior@xxxxxxxxxx
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> 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,
> > >> if
> > >>> it
> > >>>> 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
> > >>> ground.
> > >>>> 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
> > >> expression
> > >>>> “TRUE IS FALSE” was being simplified to TRUE — and Vladimir vetoed
> my
> > >> fix
> > >>>> on the “technical grounds” that I had added tests without sufficient
> > >>> error
> > >>>> messages. The veto left me absolutely furious, and I seriously
> > >> considered
> > >>>> leaving the community. I surmise that other people who are on the
> > >>> receiving
> > >>>> end of his criticism may feel the same way.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I appreciate Vladimir’s efforts reviewing code, and I appreciate his
> > >> high
> > >>>> 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 [1] 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
> > >> a
> > >>>> 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
> > >> “technical
> > >>>> 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,
> > >> to
> > >>>> 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.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Julian
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html <
> > >>>> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Oct 18, 2018, at 11:35 AM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <
> > >>>> jcamachorodriguez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Is it OK for a PMC member of this community to engage with a new
> > >>>> contributor to the project in this way?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/apache/calcite/commit/b470a0cd4572c9f6c4c0e9b51926b97c5af58d3f#r30950660
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I wanted to bring everyone´s attention to the issue because I do
> not
> > >>>> believe this behavior contributes to the health of the project,
> > >> welcoming
> > >>>> new contributions, etc. The same could have been said in a very
> > >> different
> > >>>> 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?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>> Jesús
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>


-- 

B-Slim
_______/\/\/\_______/\/\/\_______/\/\/\_______/\/\/\_______/\/\/\_______