[talk] FreeBSD Governance, Foundation/Project
edlinuxguru at gmail.com
Thu Jun 13 08:14:19 EDT 2019
On Thursday, June 13, 2019, Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:47 PM Edward Capriolo <edlinuxguru at gmail.com>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 6:16 PM Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:45 PM Isaac (.ike) Levy <
>>> ike at blackskyresearch.net> wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> I've just finished listening to a very long video, still digesting it
>>>> "AsiaBSDCon 2019 DevSummit: We don't see a problem. Suggestion of
>>>> Project Governance additions."
>>>> These are the slides from the presentation,
>>>> Attendees in the audience can be identified here:
>>>> Summary: Michael Dexter is presenting on a number of issues and
>>>> challenges he sees facing the FreeBSD Project, which directly relate to
>>>> influence from the FreeBSD Foundation. It's a tough but constructive
>>>> conversation, whereby MD is raising a number of important issues which I
>>>> believe are near and dear to many of us around NYC*BUG.
>>>> For almost every point, MD touches on something which has affected my
>>>> life around the FreeBSD project, (personally and professionally). MD tries
>>>> hard not to posit all the solutions, but instead sparks a really long and
>>>> valuable discussion among FreeBSD devs, core, and Foundation folks. The
>>>> talk isn't directly about code per-se, (but in the end, the issues are
>>>> deeply technical.)
>>>> With the stiff opposition in the room, and the patience, directness,
>>>> and openness MD exhibits in his presentation, I feel he deserves a
>>>> commendation from the community for raising these issues- and that this
>>>> presentation should perhaps be required viewing for any new Core/Foundation
>>>> FreeBSD folks. Criticism and introspection is always difficult for
>>>> projects we all care so deeply about, but critical to growth and survival.
>>>> For those who have watched this, (or plan to, or were in the rooom),
>>>> I'd love to openly hear people's thoughts on topics raised?
>>>> In the years since the FreeBSD Foundation emerged, what have been it's
>>>> biggest success and failures for the FreEBSD project? (Aside from the
>>>> obvious success of paying Glen Barber to stabilize RELENG :)
>>>> Do other people see value in MD's points, and even better yet, do
>>>> people have constructive ideas toward remediation for any of these issues?
>>>> Any constructive/actionable asks of the Project or the Foundation?
>>> It's hard to know what MD's points were as they were shrouded in so much
>>> passive-agressive toxicity, half-truths and outright lies.
>>> This was a horrible presentation that was painful to sit through because
>>> he belabored so many points, committed so many logical fallacies (FreeBSD
>>> core and FreeBSD foundation are two entirely different things, despite
>>> having the word FreeBSD in them, for example). In addition, a number of his
>>> points were just wrong (yes, you can impeach core, for example). It was
>>> poorly researched, poorly organized and poorly presented. I had dozens of
>>> private messages from other people in the room commenting on just how
>>> painful it was to sit through in person.
>>> But then again, I'm the guy doing the table flipping on the phone
>>> because he was telling bald-faced lies about me and when I tried to
>>> correct the context, he persisted in those lies.
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk at lists.nycbug.org
>> Just a note: The presentation references this code here:
>> Random observation.
>> "here's no way that nstr won't be terminated in the first 80 characters
>> because the snprintf 3 lines above guarantees it. so strnlen() is kinda
>> useless here."
> This I said. It's fair criticism that it's not my most articulate work.
> However, one uses strnlen when one has a potentially unbounded string.
> snprintf ensures the strings are bounded, so strnlen was actually useless
> there. I should have state that more directly.
>> Why not write a unit test? I think this has a way of engaging people
>> more, instead of saying "it is cosmetic" or "dont worry i got this". It
>> says, "I have considered these scenarios. Please provide some other ones
>> if you want to discuss a different imp."
> I said none of those things. And you are quoting them out of context (the
> first is a paraphrase of something araujo said, the second wasn't said in
> the review). In addition, a test case here would just be asking the
> contributor to do work I knew couldn't possibly be done. Asking for a test
> case for a change that static analysis says is useless seems counter
> productive. Providing feedback that a change is incorrect is what the
> review process is all about.
> But what does that have to do with project governance? Sure, I can see
> that it's a criticism of how we try to recruit and retain people, but even
> then it's a bad example of that. It's as relevant to the stated goals of
> this talk as this spelling examples. At least the impeachment example was
> on topic, even if it was so poorly researched as to get corrected
> immediately after being put up by those in the room. So what action plan
> came out of the discussion? Or was it just a bitch session designed to
> stoke anger w/o presenting any actionable suggestions?
Its governance to say. No code without tests. No code without peer review.
No self merges.
The later 2 things force you to get more buy in.
Sorry this was sent from mobile. Will do less grammar and spell check than
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk