git.net

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

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


Congrats on the newborn. I am assuming others also have personal things
going on!!

Also discussion thread is ongoing from April and not last 4 days. If enough
people think it is rushed, we can always revote.

On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 2:24 PM Joshua McKenzie <jmckenzie@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> That was four days ago, and I have a newborn at home. Not a lot of time for
> people to respond that have other things going on in life. :)
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:13 PM sankalp kohli <kohlisankalp@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > If you think vote is being forced, why not reply to my email on another
> > thread when I said we should vote? Why was the thread dead for months and
> > someone comes back with a contribution and then people starts talking?
> >
> > I would have happily waited for few more days!!
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 2:09 PM Joshua McKenzie <jmckenzie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > >  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
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>