This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: glibc development and conflicts of interest


On 07/22/2015 05:56 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> I have seen some comments in some recent glibc discussions that could be 
> interpreted as people giving preference to their colleagues rather than to 
> the public, collaborative discussion in the glibc community as a whole.
> 
> I think it's important to avoid that appearance in glibc development.  (I 
> am not asserting that in fact such preference has been given, simply that 
> the appearance of it should also be avoided.)  Where there could be 
> conflicts of interest, I think the following should be considered good 
> practice:
> 
> Err on the side of being *more* critical of your co-workers because they 
> are your co-workers, not less - hold them up to higher standards in public 
> patch review than unconnected patch contributors.  Err on the side of 
> deferring *more* to the community on patches where such a conflict of 
> interest could arise, not less - when you have good arguments, they will 
> still reach consensus in the community.  If other contributors to the 
> discussion are making irrelevant comments (e.g. suggestions that are not 
> application on your architecture), stick to objective facts in response, 
> and maybe let other people read the consensus to see that your comments 
> are relevant where the other ones are not.
> 
> If you have been involved in internal discussion or design of a patch, 
> take extra care to ensure that review is based only on what is public and 
> that sufficient rationale for the patch is included in the submission, 
> including answers to any questions raised internally that might also be of 
> relevance to the public discussion; avoid citing internal discussion, or a 
> contributor's connection to you, as justification for a patch.  Take extra 
> care to ensure that your patch review in such cases is in accord with 
> community consensus.

I agree completely. I would also suggest that if you see such behaviour that
you call it out immediately. It serves the community to have such behaviour
pointed out immediately such that we can discuss specific examples of it
rather than abstract principles. In many cases I expect the authors of such
conflicts of interest had not considered how it appeared to the public.

In some ways the size of our community makes it difficult to appear completely
impartial. We have a finite number of resources from a variety of of large
companies paying to support upstream. Though I agree with all of the principles
you stated.

Cheers,
Carlos. 
 


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]