Re: [VOTE] Development Approach for Apache Cassandra Management process
I would appreciate if we can give feedback on the
discussion threads and not wait for vote threads. I made it clear in the
discussion thread that we will start a vote!!
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:47 PM Jeff Jirsa <jjirsa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
> > admit I'm not entirely comfortable with "anyone's voice has the same
> > weight".
> > If the latter, then this makes more sense to me (why are we even
> > voting PMC members in if it's not to handle these kinds of decisions,
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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.
> - Jeff