On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:49 PM Kalwit S <skalwit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your reply. But I wasn’t going to go after a specific person. I > Though that's precisely what your message was doing, in a very rude way. (1) How many reviewers (less than 1) have been involved in PIP review > outside of the streamnative provider and how many of them have experience > with Pulsar for more than 2 years (less than 1 or 2)? > You are clearly stating many accusations that are completely false and uninformed. The PIP process is structured in a way that all community members are encouraged to contribute reviews and opinions and PMC members have a binding vote to ratify the acceptance of a proposal. You can check the PMC composition here: https://pulsar.apache.org/community/#section-community There are a total of 82 between PMC members and committers in Pulsar. Out of 41 PMC members, only 9 are StreamNative employees. Of the additional 41 committers, 13 are StreamNative employees. I don't know what you wanted to prove exactly, though, since you are asking, I can tell you that every single one of the SN employees who is a committer, has > 2 years of experience with Pulsar and participation in the Pulsar community. If we are looking at SN employees who are PMC members, that number of years of experience definitely goes way up. If you check the votes and the participation in discussion of PIPs it is *always* involving contributions of >3 different companies. will wait forever for 3 approvals to merge your enhancements. Streamnative > provider isn’t motivated to review all the enhancements, but they have set > a limit for you to get certain approvals and block every small > feature required by other companies. > That is some very bold accusation here. As others have been repeatedly asking: can you share any specific examples of it?
