Re: RLS feature has been committed

Robert Haas wrote
> It's difficult to imagine a more flagrant violation of process than
> committing a patch without any warning and without even *commenting*
> on the fact that clear objections to commit were made on a public
> mailing list. If that is allowed to stand, what can we assume other
> than that Stephen, at least, has a blank check to change anything he
> wants, any time he wants, with no veto possible from anyone else?

I'm of a mind to agree that this shouldn't have been committed...but I'm not
seeing where Stephen has done sufficient wrong to justify crucifixion.
Especially since everything is being done publicly and you are one of the
many people in the position to flex a veto by reverting the patch.

I see this like a black swan event[1]: needs to be addressed, is thought
provoking, but ultimately shouldn't be treated as something to overreact to
until it happens more frequently. There are enough checks-and-balances when
it comes to committed code - which in this case is during pre-beta
development - that one should simply allow for a certain level human fallacy
to creep in and need periodic addressing/correcting.

At this point my hindsight says a strictly declaratory statement of "reasons
this is not ready" combined with reverting the patch would have been
sufficient; or even just a "I am going to revert this for these reasons"
post. The difference between building support for a revert and gathering a
mob is a pretty thin line.

Subsequent, possibly private, discussion between you and Stephen could then
occur before making any conclusions you form public so that others can learn
from the experience and ponder whether anything could be changed to mitigate
such situations in the future.

Though I guess if you indeed feel that his actions were truly heinous you
should also then put forth the proposal that his ability to commit be
revoked. If your not willing to go to that extent then, unless you know
Stephen personally, I'd not assume that public flogging is the best way to
get him to not mess up in the future; but the honest and cordial dialog
about cause/effect is likely to be more productive and less
self-destructing. Though, to each their own style.

As a committer you have a responsibility to work not only with code but with
those who write the code; and while I myself am not a particularly strong
(or experienced) manager I have enough life experience to give opinions on
leadership. I won't fault you for being yourself but simply put forth my
own impressions and some ideas to provoke thought.

I'm also not the one whose efforts were marginalized so don't have the same
emotional attachment to the situation as you do - an attachment that needs
to be recognized because, as I do know from experience, even when you are
right and justified an overreaction makes you come off unfavorably and
doesn't materially improve the situation beyond what it could have been
otherwise.

David J.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/RLS-feature-has-been-committed-tp5819983p5820020.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.