OSDir


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

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


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
>>
>