On the subject topic, I have to say that I don't see where Robert
hasn't met the qualifications mentioned so far on this thread as
required to promote someone to the committer level; are there some
requirements which exist but haven't been mentioned?
Regarding the specific issues below, which seem to be more about the
related topic of drawing in new contributors...
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>> That's basically just it: Assume bashing is part of the process.
>> I've heard this complaint from numerous first-time contributors,
>> and have seen several talented people walk away from our project
>> because of it. Even people who have stuck with us, such as Josh
>> Tolley, have remarked on the "hazing ritual" inherent in getting a
>> first-time contribution in.
>
> I used to feel this way, too. I'm not sure whether it's really
> worse at first, or whether it just seems worse a first until you get
> used to it.
I would say that I don't often see anything I would consider as
"bashing", but that I have seen newcomers who appeared to want to help
contribute to the project handled with less finesse than one could
perhaps expect. It seems to me that those needing assistance
(especially if they are in dire straights or are trying to convert to
PostgreSQL) are treated very gently. Someone with a question, if it
isn't something too obviously documented in the FAQ or the online
manual, is given a polite and informative response. The responses get
pretty blunt if the person offers suggestions which show that the
person has (or assumes) technical competence, when those suggestions
aren't acceptable to the community. At that point it takes a pretty
thick skin to find some other way to contribute, rather than just
walking away. Again, I wouldn't call it bashing, but a level of
bluntness which could be disconcerting if the person hasn't followed
these lists long enough to understand how it is intended.
> When someone submits a bad patch and I review it, they sometimes get
> two or three pages of feedback detailing inadequacies of various
> types.
When done in a professional manner, which is typical of this list, I
don't think there's any reasonable alternative. I don't see that as a
problem.
Well, there is one thing which must be frustrating. If I was seated
near others who read this list, I would start a pool every time a
newcomer submitted a large patch -- how long until someone tells them
to break it into smaller patches, and how long until someone else
tells them it makes no sense separated like that and should be put
back together?
>> the only possible solution is for each new contributor to have a
>> mentor who sticks with them throughout the process of getting their
>> first contribution accepted
I don't know how common it is, but I felt that Bruce did that for me
when I worked on the standard_conforming_strings TODO item for 8.2.
(Perhaps part of the reason was that it was urgently needed to address
problems we found in production after we converted a critical database
to PostgreSQL; but whatever the reason, I was grateful for the help.)
Having gone through that experience, I feel confident that such
assistance for first-time contributors can make a difference both in
the success of their efforts (which will then, presumably, benefit the
community in general) and in their willingness to contribute in other
ways.
>> It would also help if people on this list *in general*, were to be
>> a bit more consistent about phrasing criticism as constructive
>> criticism. I've seen far too much "how stupid are you?" on this
>> list for the good health of our developer community.
>
> I don't see very much of this at all, so maybe this is another area
> where it boils down to perspective.
I don't see much of that either, although describing another's
statement as "nonsense" or something similar isn't unheard of. It's
not usually an unfair characterization, but some could take such
bluntness as hostility.
-Kevin