osdir.com

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

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


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
> > >>
> > >
> >
>