Re: [VOTE] Development Approach for Apache Cassandra Management process
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:41 PM Sylvain Lebresne <lebresne@xxxxxxxxx>
> That's probably a stupid question, and excuse me if it is, but what does
> those votes on the dev mailing list even mean?
> How do you count votes at the end? Just by counting all votes cast,
> irregardless of whomever cast it? Or are we intending to only count PMC
> members, or maybe committers votes?
I believe the intent is to try to see if there exists consensus.
Ultimately, PMC is going to matter more than random email addresses from
people nobody recognizes. This should be in public, though, not private, so
seeing what feedback is beyond the PMC is useful (primarily because it will
matter when it comes time to extend and maintain it - if people strongly
prefer one or the other, then maintenance is going to be a problem).
If there's 100 random non-contributor votes for one option and 20 pmc votes
for another options, I think the real answer will be "we don't have
consensus, and either we don't do it, or we do it the way the PMC thinks is
best", for all of the reasons you describe in the paragraphs below.
> If the former, that is a bit weird to me because we simply don't know who
> votes. And I don't mean to be rude towards anyone, but 1) someone could
> easily create 10 email addresses to vote 10 times (and sure, you could
> invoke trust, and I'm not entirely against trust in general, but it's the
> internet...) and 2) this kind of decision will have non-trivial
> consequences for the project, particularly on those that maintain it, so I
> admit I'm not entirely comfortable with "anyone's voice has the same
> If the latter, then this makes more sense to me (why are we even bothering
> voting PMC members in if it's not to handle these kinds of decisions, which
> are very "project management" related), but we should be very clear about
> this from the get go (we could still use the dev list for transparency
> sake, that I don't mind)? We should probably also have some deadline to the
> vote, one that isn't too short.
Like releases, I think PMC votes count
> Anyway, fwiw, my opinion on this vote is not far from the one on the golang
> driver acceptance vote (for which my remark above also apply btw): no yet
> 100% convinced adding more pieces and scope to the project is what the
> project needs just right now, but not strongly opposed if people really
> wants this (and this one makes more sense to me than the golang driver
> actually). But if I'm to pick between a) and b), I'm leaning b).
FWIW, two of the main reasons I'm in favor is as a way to lower barrier to
entry to both using the software AND contributing to the project, so I
think your points are valid (both on gocql thread and on this note above),
but I think that's also part of why we should be encouraging both.