> On May 31, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Owen Nichols <onich...@pivotal.io> wrote:
>
> We chose to make Geode an Apache open source project for a reason. If we no
> longer wish to embrace The Apache Way
> <https://www.apache.org/theapacheway/index.html>, perhaps we should
> reconsider.
I strongly disagree with the assertion that we are not following the Apache Way
because we aren’t doing RTC. Please take a look around other ASF communities
and compare that to our approach. I think you’ll see a lot of similarities in
the way we review GitHub pull requests.
>
> If we believe that reviewing each other’s code changes is an onerous burden
> of no value, we should question why. The long-term success of Geode depends
> on sharing of knowledge, not “cowboy coders”. 3 reviews means now 3 other
> people are more familiar with that part of the code…
Yes of course: community >> code. Can you point me to cases of “cowboy
coding” in Geode? I’m not seeing it but happy to be convinced otherwise.
>
> If apathy is our thing, Apache does allows for “lazy consensus”, but you have
> to declare that you will be using it, e.g. “This PR fixes GEODE-123456; if
> no-one objects within three days, I'll assume lazy consensus and merge it.”
IMO lazy consensus does not imply apathy.
Anthony
