On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 12:42 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 11:31 -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
> >
> >> Ah, but the thing is, what was proposed wasn't "totally evilly
> >> draconian."
> >>
> >> There's a difference between:
> >>
> >> "You haven't reviewed any patches - we'll ignore you forever!"
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> "Since you haven't reviewed any patches, we are compelled to defer your
> >> patches until the next CommitFest."
> >>
> >> It's enough pain to make people think, but it's not *totally* punitive.
> >
> > It is important to remember we are all volunteers here. Any increase to
> > the barrier of contribution is a bad one.
>
> True. But "not enough reviewers to review all the patches we get" is
> also a barrier to contribution.
No. It is a barrier of contribution not to contribution.
The types of current structure that are being considered are punitive
regardless of the softness of wording.
This is certainly not an easy problem to solve and I am not saying I
have a better solution (although something more personal and direct such
as the way Selena helps user groups seems more appropriate).
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> ...Robert
>
--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
If the world pushes look it in the eye and GRR. Then push back harder. - Salamander