andrew@dunslane.net (Andrew Dunstan) writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I am personally quite tired of reviewing patches for people who don't
>> in turn review mine (or someone's). It makes me feel like not
>> working on this project. If we can solve that problem without
>> implementing a policy of this type, that is good. I would much
>> prefer to run by the honor system rather than having to threaten to
>> drop patches, but only if the honor system actually works.
>
> Organizing contributors on a project like this is like herding
> cats. Threats and penalties are unlikely to be effective. This is
> essentially a charity where people give in ways that work for them,
> and you take whatever they have to give. I'm extremely uncomfortable
> with the idea of a prescriptive system. I've proposed them myself in
> the past, but I have since come to the realization that it will simply
> drive people away.
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.
--
"I really only meant to point out how nice InterOp was for someone who
doesn't have the weight of the Pentagon behind him. I really don't
imagine that the Air Force will ever be able to operate like a small,
competitive enterprise like GM or IBM." -- Kent England
