On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 7:49 AM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > > With both what has occurred with the Julia project and what may > possibly be occurring (what appears to me to be occurring) with these > Rust overhaul projects, is that the communities expectations with > regards to Openness aren't being followed. > > If a change is significant and will affect other developers in the > community, such as a large refactor or a large PR that will interfere > with development in some portion of the codebase (example, I wrote a > large and disruptive C++ PR last may that affected all of our compute > kernels), then it needs to be discussed in a public place as soon as > you are aware of it. The Openness tenet is about an obligation that > individuals have to communicate with their fellow collaborators.
For the record, the reason I'm making a fuss about this is that a contributor proposed a contribution moratorium in the Apache project as the result of work happening outside the community "would like to raise the idea of temporarily suspending major PRs against Rust Arrow/DataFusion until the work to incorporate the two big changes for Rust/DataFusion: 1. Jorge's major refactor/rewrite of the core Rust Arrow code. ... " I'm not trying to make things difficult for you all, but this looks like the kind of thing we would like to avoid. > Jorge has said that "that [the community] is unwilling to change some > of its processes" — if changes would involve allowing development to > happen in private or outside the community (as what has occurred with > Julia), it is simply not possible to accept these changes. We have > said repeatedly that we would accommodate Julia's needs with respect > to releasing. > > The discussions that we have had recently have centered around > communication questions. > > * Mailing list discussions serve to raise awareness around matters of > importance to individuals in the community > * Issues serve to raise awareness around prospective or in progress > projects, and to help document the community's labors > > Every PMC member has an obligation to ensure that communications in > the project remain healthy and in concordance with the Apache Way so > that we do not devolve into a small cabal of developers who understand > what is going on, while anyone outside the cabal can't understand just > by reading our public communication. Other open source projects do > that, but we don't do it here. > > If the Rust developers collectively want to move everything to a > different GitHub repository and use GitHub issues, let's go ahead and > do it and live with the consequences. But these principles above > simply must be followed. > > On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 2:32 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 00:26:57 -0700 > > Julian Hyde <jhyde.apa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Antoine, > > > > > > I need to correct your assertion > > > > > > > we develop on the side every day when we submit PRs from forks; > > > > it's just a matter of how much complexity is being submitted at once > > > > > > Intuitively, there seems to be a continuum between a PR developed within > > > a project to a major feature/codebase developed outside of it. But the > > > ASF treats these contributions differently, and requires the latter kind > > > have to go through the IP clearance process. > > > > > > You might wonder where the line lies. The policy [1] defines it as > > > follows: > > > > > > > a substantial contribution that was not developed within the > > > > ASF's source control system and on our public mailing lists > > > > Well, a PR developed in a fork was not developed within the ASF's > > source control system. > > > > (and most PRs to Arrow constitute substantial contributions in my > > experience) > > > > Regards > > > > Antoine. > > > >
