Responding to your request for a vote, I meant that this isn't required per se and the consensus here was not to vote on it. Hence the jokes about meta-voting protocol. In that sense nothing new happened process-wise, nothing against ASF norms, if that's your concern.
I think it's just an agreed convention now, that we will VOTE, as normal, on particular types of changes that we call SPIPs. I mean it's no new process in the ASF sense because VOTEs are an existing mechanic. I personally view it as, simply, additional guidance about how to manage huge JIRAs in a way that makes them stand a chance of moving forward. I suppose we could VOTE about any JIRA if we wanted. They all proceed via lazy consensus at the moment. Practically -- I heard support for codifying this process and no objections to the final form. This was bouncing around in process purgatory, when no particular new process was called for. It takes effect immediately, implicitly, like anything else I guess, like amendments to code style guidelines. Please uses SPIPs to propose big changes from here. As to finding it hard to pick out of the noise, sure, I sympathize. Many big things happen without a VOTE tag though. It does take a time investment to triage these email lists. I don't know that this by itself means a VOTE should have happened. On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:15 PM Tom Graves <tgraves...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Another thing I think you should send out is when exactly does this take > affect. Is it any major new feature without a pull request? Is it > anything major starting with the 2.3 release? > > Tom > > > On Monday, March 13, 2017 1:08 PM, Tom Graves <tgraves...@yahoo.com.INVALID> > wrote: > > > I'm not sure how you can say its not a new process. If that is the case > why do we need a page documenting it? > As a developer if I want to put up a major improvement I have to now > follow the SPIP whereas before I didn't, that certain seems like a new > process. As a PMC member I now have the ability to vote on these SPIPs, > that seems like something new again. > > There are apache bylaws and then there are project specific bylaws. As > far as I know Spark doesn't document any of its project specific bylaws so > I guess this isn't officially a change to them, but it was implicit before > that you didn't need any review for major improvements before, now you need > an explicit vote for them to be approved. Certainly seems to fall under > the "Procedural" section in the voting link you sent. > > I understand this was under discussion for a while and you have asked for > peoples feedback multiple times. But sometimes long threads are easy to > ignore. That is why personally I like to see things labelled [VOTE], > [ANNOUNCE], [DISCUSS] when it gets close to finalizing on something like > this. > > I don't really want to draw this out or argue anymore about it, if I > really wanted a vote I guess I would -1 the change. I'm not going to do > that. > I would at least like to see an announcement go out about it. The last > thing I saw you say was you were going to call a vote. A few people chimed > in with their thoughts on that vote, but nothing was said after that. > > Tom > > > > On Monday, March 13, 2017 12:36 PM, Sean Owen <so...@cloudera.com> wrote: > > > It's not a new process, in that it doesn't entail anything not already in > http://apache.org/foundation/voting.html . We're just deciding to call a > VOTE for this type of code modification. > > To your point -- yes, it's been around a long time with no further > comment, and I called several times for more input. That's pretty strong > lazy consensus of the form we use every day. > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM Tom Graves <tgraves...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > It seems like if you are adding responsibilities you should do a vote. > SPIP'S require votes from PMC members so you are now putting more > responsibility on them. It feels like we should have an official vote to > make sure they (PMC members) agree with that and to make sure everyone pays > attention to it. That thread has been there for a while just as discussion > and now all of a sudden its implemented without even an announcement being > sent out about it. > > Tom > > > > > >
