[jakehow]

Docker, Inc employees have popped in to make an offhand comment at various points, similar to the one you made "On the other, providing strict guarantees about context ensures true portability of Dockerfiles." but actual participation is nonexistent.

This has been the case on other issues I have seen as well, either things languish, or they get magically swept into the project, with the decision happening elsewhere.

Stewardship would mean actually explaining the position above, and discussing with the community how the issue affects them in order to gain an understanding of what we are talking about.

Yelling "repeatability" with no context and then disappearing is pretty frustrating.

[shykes]

Jake, you're being disingenuous. Back in April I gave a detailed explanation [1] as to why I hesitated to make the proposed change. When comments kept rolling in I followed up in June with a possible solution and a conclusion that "if somebody contributed this, we would love to merge it" [2] To my knowledge nobody has.

I know for a fact that you are aware of this since my comment was in direct response to you.

And since comments are still rolling in (even though there is already an open call for contribution, with a pre-approved design), I am focusing on it again this week [3].

There are definitely lots of growing pains in how we run the project, and having any participation at all from you is super appreciated. But the picture you pain here is unfair and inaccurate.

[1] https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/2112#issuecomment-39...

[2] https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/2112#issuecomment-47...

[3] https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/7284#issuecomment-55...