git.net

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [VOTE] Development Approach for Apache Cassandra Management process


>
>  It is important we make progress as we have been discussing this since
> April!!


The discussion was making progress. Just because you want things to happen
faster is no reason to force an early vote.

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:04 PM sankalp kohli <kohlisankalp@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> Also my vote is same as Jeff. d but would slightly prefer b. It is
> important we make progress as we have been discussing this since April!!
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 1:52 PM sankalp kohli <kohlisankalp@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > The last email on the thread was 3 days ago and I made it clear days back
> > that we should vote on it to make progress. Without this vote, I am not
> > sure we will make progress.
> > Many people want to contribute on this and hence we are voting so we can
> > make progress.
> >
> > My vote is d
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 1:36 PM Jonathan Haddad <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> >> This voting process feels a bit rushed and frankly not well thought out.
> >> In addition to Sylvain's valid points, which you (Sankalp) didn't
> address
> >> at all, the discussion in the other threads seemed to be ongoing.  The
> >> last
> >> email you wrote on one of them was asking for additional feedback, that
> >> indicates the discussion is still open.
> >>
> >> Out of principal I vote for none of the options (inaction).  You're
> >> deliberately trying to ram *something* through, and that's not how this
> is
> >> supposed to work.
> >>
> >> For those of you unfamiliar with the process - please read
> >> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html.
> >>
> >> I'd like to ask those of you that are +1'ing, are you willing to
> >> contribute
> >> or are you just voting we start an admin tool from scratch because you
> >> think it'll somehow produce a perfect codebase?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:50 PM sankalp kohli <kohlisankalp@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Sylvain,
> >> >                 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!!
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Sankalp
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > 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
> >> > > > weight".
> >> > > > 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.
> >> > >
> >> > > - Jeff
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jon Haddad
> >> http://www.rustyrazorblade.com
> >> twitter: rustyrazorblade
> >>
> >
>