My thinking on AIPs that have a PR is that a vote on the AIP is "is this feature/design goal a good idea" but discussion about the code or merging the pr can happen on GitHub as usual.
For example AIP-12 is an excellent Idea but there are a few questions to answer about the design. (The author of the proposal also has an open PR). A bit of a thin distinction perhaps, but in the general case I was thinking not a discussion on the PR. Having written all that down I can see a workflow something like this: - start AIP - get loose consensus on list - open PR - call vote on AIP + that specific PR. (That falls down if we want to open multiple PRs to complete an AIP) -ash On 22 February 2019 19:28:15 GMT, Tao Feng <fengta...@gmail.com> wrote: >I think AIP is a proposal which is back by a PR. Hence it should >consider a >major code change(normal code change shouldn't need a AIP). > > >On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 2:54 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> >wrote: > >> There was a post about this AIP on 1 Febuary (but no replies other >than >> me), and AIPs are not code changes so the point about veto doesn't >apply >> here I don't think?. >> >> But yes, I think the rough idea of there should be apparent consensus >> before a vote is called makes sense. I was using "Lazy consensus" in >> calling my vote as no one else spoke up on the discussion thread ;) >> >> -ash >> >> >> > On 21 Feb 2019, at 20:22, Tao Feng <fengta...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Please correct me if I am wrong. I think normally it starts with a >> > [DISCUSS] email thread for all the technical details discussion. If >> > everyone aligns, we could move to the vote thread. Here are some >> guidelines >> > found on the apache website( >> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html) >> > . A few points captured: >> > >> > ``` >> > A code-modification proposal may be stopped dead in its tracks by a >-1 >> vote >> > by a qualified voter. This constitutes a veto, and it cannot be >overruled >> > nor overridden by anyone. Vetos stand until and unless withdrawn by >their >> > casters. >> > ``` >> > I think we should make sure everyone is aligned in the discuss >thread >> > before we move to vote thread. WDYT. >> > >> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 9:26 AM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> > >> >> I'm about to send a vote email for the first AIP that I (hope) is >going >> to >> >> be a simple and straight forward one to accept. >> >> >> >> Since we haven't defined the process of how/when we vote on AIPs >I'm >> >> making it up as we go along :) >> >> >> >> Some points: >> >> >> >> - A failed vote on an AIP is not the same as rejecting the AIP, it >could >> >> just need more refinement. >> >> - a proposal requires three positive votes and no negative ones in >order >> >> to pass >> >> - I've picked a some-what random time of 1 week for AIP votes >(compared >> to >> >> the 3 days for release votes) >> >> - members of the community are encouraged to cast votes. >> >> >> >> If no one objects to these "rules" I'll write them up in the wiki >along >> >> with a template email to use for AIP votes. >> >> >> >> -ash >> >>
