Open Stack

On 2017-09-26 08:25:41 +0800 (+0800), Zhipeng Huang wrote:
> I think Doug has answered most of the answers brilliantly and I
> will just cut some of the cases that are important from my own
> perspective.
> 
> @Jeremy :
> The purpose of the SIG is try to solve a much bigger problem than
> the small fixes/padding/trolling whatever names we call them.

Well, as Doug explained, the proposal should just stop talking about
those. Instead it comes across as a reactionary vendetta.

> But let me once again double down on the padding issue one last
> time coz it disheartens me very much that some of the tone in that
> thread somehow treat us as the agitators who vile people.

I'd rather not rehash the thread (almost flamewar) from the -dev ML
about this. It may simply be a difference in our personal outlooks
but I'd prefer not to ascribe malice to actions which could be
explained by mere ignorance. In this case I believe the authors are
simply ignorant to what constitutes a valuable contribution and
would prefer to be valued rather than vilified. They're also
probably ignorant of the fact that they're wasting their own time as
well as that of the reviewers.

> I could categorically and unequivocally say it is not one of the
> motivations, but the sole motivation behind what Matt raised in
> that thread. Evidence ? Check out the screen capture I did on the
> abandoned patches right after we warn the local group to stop
> this[0]. The image is in low res but anyone could see how many
> small patches were proposed to how many projects. I have counted
> more than 300 this kind of small patches abandoned in a mass
> exodus that day.
[...]

I don't see where this is evidence of intentional stats padding; we
can't know what was going through the authors' minds even though
it's clear they got the message in that particular case that the
proposed changes were unwanted by reviewers.

> If the governance body of the community, be it TC or Board or
> others, continue to fail to adopt an effective method on this
> issue, two outcomes will most likely happen: (1) good quality devs
> will be driven away by the Gresham's Law[4] and (2) things will
> start to get worse, the community will be bogged down with more
> costly trolling activities than [1].

I get that the modern cryptocurrency craze has made everyone try to
apply economic theory to every conceivable situation (when you have
a hammer, every problem looks like a nail?), but Gresham's Law
assumes legal tender legislation enforcing equal face value for
currency. If your analogy is that merged changes are a currency
within the OpenStack community, then the presence of code reviewers
deciding what changes are worthy (and typically ignoring,
blocking/rejecting or abandoning low-quality changes like the ones
your witch hunt is targeting) would seem to make the situation
more akin to Thier's Law, right?

> The First Contact SIG proposed by Doug and Ildiko is most
> reasonable and actionable solution I could envision so far.
[...]

I support Doug and Ildiko's take on it, yes, but the First Contact
SIG was proposed by you and it's that specific proposal with which I
have concerns because I worry its intent is misdirected:

http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-sigs/2017-September/000074.html

-- 
Jeremy Stanley
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 949 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-sigs/attachments/20170926/39e26c54/attachment.sig>