[DISCUSS] Where do we draw the line?

[Jesus Camacho Rodriguez <jc...@hortonworks.com>]

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

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

[Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>]

Let's not mince words about what this was: it was public shaming and 
bullying.

Looking at that thread you linked: Zoltan was trying to describe why he 
thought this was not a big problem. I can't say well enough whether he 
is right or not (that's beside the point). It was completely 
inappropriate for Vladimir to bully him. Furthermore, this seems to be 
completely one-sided (although, if it were two-sided, that doesn't 
justify either side in acting this way).

This kind of crap is against the ASF code of conduct[1], and, having 
watched multiple email threads call attention to similar situation, I'm 
starting to think that this is the "norm" and not the exception from 
Vladimir which the PMC should consider taking action to correct.

[1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/policies/conduct.html

On 10/18/18 2:35 PM, Jesus Camacho Rodriguez 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
> 

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

[Slim Bouguerra <sl...@gmail.com>]

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 <am...@apache.org> 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 <ki...@rxd.hu> 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@apache.org
> >
> > > 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 <mm...@apache.org>
> 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@apache.org
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Le jeu. 18 oct. 2018 à 15:37, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> 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@hortonworks.com> 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
_______/\/\/\_______/\/\/\_______/\/\/\_______/\/\/\_______/\/\/\_______

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

[Aman Sinha <am...@apache.org>]

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 <ki...@rxd.hu> 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 <ha...@apache.org>
> > 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 <mm...@apache.org> 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@apache.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Le jeu. 18 oct. 2018 à 15:37, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> 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@hortonworks.com> 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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>

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

[Zoltan Haindrich <ki...@rxd.hu>]

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 <ha...@apache.org>
> 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 <mm...@apache.org> 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@apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>> Le jeu. 18 oct. 2018 à 15:37, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> 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@hortonworks.com> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 

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

[Albert <zi...@gmail.com>]

haven't contributed a while.
I mostly agree with Julian's comment. I'm not a native English speaker and
I think that line of comment could be interpreted as `humorous` or may be
at least intended to.
if I was contributing that feature, I would care more if there are comments
to help push my contribution into the project. so consensus matters, things
needs to be done.

maybe Zoltan could share his feel on that review, and Vladimir could act
correspondingly.



On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 8:23 AM Ashutosh Chauhan <ha...@apache.org>
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 <mm...@apache.org> 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@apache.org
> >
> >
> > Le jeu. 18 oct. 2018 à 15:37, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> 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@hortonworks.com> 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
> > >
> > >
> >
>


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
no mistakes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

[Ashutosh Chauhan <ha...@apache.org>]

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 <mm...@apache.org> 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@apache.org
>
>
> Le jeu. 18 oct. 2018 à 15:37, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> 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@hortonworks.com> 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
> >
> >
>

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

[Michael Mior <mm...@apache.org>]

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@apache.org


Le jeu. 18 oct. 2018 à 15:37, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> 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@hortonworks.com> 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
>
>

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

[Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org>]

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 <jc...@hortonworks.com> 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