Hi Matthias,
> I'm a bit confused about your use of "consensus". True, there was no
> objection, but it looks like no patch author or reviewer was informed
> (cc-ed or directly referenced) that the patch was being discussed
> before achieving this "consensus", and the "consensus" was reached
> within 4 days, of which 2 weekend, in a thread that has (until now)
> involved only you and Peter E.
>
> Usually, you'd expect discussion about a patch to happen on the
> patch's thread before any action is taken (or at least a mention on
> that thread), but quite clearly that hasn't happened here.
> Are patch authors expected to follow any and all discussion on threads
> with "Commitfest" in the title?
> If so, shouldn't the relevant wiki pages be updated, and/or the
> -hackers community be updated by mail in a new thread about these
> policy changes?
I understand your disappointment and assure you that no one is acting
with bad intentions here. Also please note that English is a second
language for many of us which represents a challenge when it comes to
expressing thoughts on the mailing list. We have a common goal here,
to make PostgreSQL an even better system than it is now.
The patches under question were in "Waiting for Author" state for a
*long* time and the authors were notified about this. We could toss
such patches from one CF to another month after month or mark as RwF
and let the author know that no one is going to review that patch
until the author takes the actions. It's been noted that the letter
approach is more productive in the long run. The discussion can
continue in the same thread and the same thread can be registered for
the upcoming CF.
This being said, Peter is the CF manager, so he has every right to
change the status of the patches under questions if he disagrees.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev