I know I’m not trying to be disrespectful, but it’s not respectful to be biased and act like an expert during the reviews, while you’ve contributed just for documentation PRs. When I talk about experience, I’m talking about reviewers who don’t contribute to the project, they ask questions to get to know Pulsar’s internals during the PIP, and then they give judgment based on their limited understanding, which is rude. Also, Pulsar may have numbers of non-SM PMC’s and committers, but if you look at the numbers over the last 2-3 years, you’ll see that 99% are from SM. I can even cite a few examples from recent times from different users (PIP-337, PIP-338, PIP-332, PIP-310, etc) to illustrate how some improvements are simply ignored without discussion, some are without any conclusion, and some are not given the opportunity to be implemented, which could have allowed other companies to implement a customized implementation for their need based on plugged-in approach. There are many examples (PIP-321) where it was developed by SN contributors, and while there is no consensus, they will still be a part of the system. Other PR examples show the same pattern, ignoring the needs of other companies, and merging the PR of SN contributors on an immediate basis. We also had a very difficult time in finding and running a stable version of Pulsar that has no major issues and we are constantly looking for the root cause in the main branch or newer versions for possible bug fixes and that is very painful. I'm sure that many users are feeling the same way and it's only a question of time until they start to speak up about their experiences. Please don't take this as an accusation because we have also spent a couple of years evaluating this project and this frustration comes after dealing with a lot of different issues in the Pulsar project and dealing with these non-technical problems is not acceptable when you are picking Pulsar over other projects.
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 2:40 PM Matteo Merli <matteo.me...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? >
