I fully agree on what you write.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
About peer review:
I think it may work, but it requires that people are willing to do peer review, even on parts they don't fully understand. There are parts that only one or a couple of people fully understand and if peer review would require full knowledge, development of these parts would be almost impossible.
But if we all are allowed to do peer review even if we don't fully understands the code, I think it may work. And if I'm uncertain, I can wait a day or two to see if someone else do a peer review, and if not, I can do it.
If we all can do peer reviews, and nobody can veto a PR, we can get around the harshest voice. If you create a PR and I disagree with it and do a bad review, but Paul Bender does his review and approves it, the PR can be merged.
I think it's important that nobody has the right to veto a PR for this to work.
2020-07-19 23:44 skrev Steve Todd:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 07:43 PM, Paul Bender wrote:
1) Bob is really the center of this project for most of us, and we'd This is a good list, I agree completely with all points, except #3.
like to keep it that way
2) We want to find ways we can reduce Bob's load.
3) Reviews on pull requests are good, but people are indifferent
about requiring them.
4) Testing is good, lets keep doing that, but let's work on the
5) Most of us just want to continue making good contributions to
6) Perhaps we need to work on our team communication skills.
On #3, "indifferent" doesn't describe my take.
I DO completely agree with the need for some sort of "peer review",
but I'm very concerned how that will work, given some of the
"communication issues" and "lack of empathy" mentioned.
This seems to be a critical change, much-needed to keep BobJ from
shouldering all of the burden, but simply spreading the same
disagreements around to more people is not a solution.
Without structure, I fear the harshest voices will "win" and the
project will "lose", every time.
The reality is that JMRI is an extremely complex entity, and very few
of us have the ability (or the time) to grasp more than an isolated
segment at a time.
Somehow, we need to be more accepting of "good, but not perfect"
changes which help contributors feel valued. A little grace goes a
And #1 should be bolded, large font, emphasized, whatever, to make it
clear how important BobJ is to the past, present and future of this
project. He's the only reason I'm still involved, and I doubt I'm the
only person who feels that way.