What do you think about the other guidelines/questions? On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 1:37 PM Daniel Imberman <daniel.imber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Jarek. All -1’s should be considered bur need to be qualified. > > Daniel > On Mar 16, 2020, 4:35 AM -0700, Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com>, wrote: > > Yes, I like the procedural issues one (that includes lazy consensus) too. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020, 11:31 Jarek Potiuk <jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > wrote: > > > > > (and BTW when we vote on this procedure we should follow voting > process on > > > procedural issues (same link - above) > > > > > > "Votes on procedural issues follow the common format of majority rule > > > unless otherwise stated. That is, if there are more favourable votes > than > > > unfavourable ones, the issue is considered to have passed -- > regardless of > > > the number of votes in each category. (If the number of votes seems too > > > small to be representative of a community consensus, the issue is > typically > > > not pursued. However, see the description of lazy consensus for a > modifying > > > factor.)" > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 12:29 PM Jarek Potiuk < > jarek.pot...@polidea.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Agree with the proposal in general. > > > > > > > > However I think this is about code modification, so we should rather > > > > follow Votes on code modifications rather than releases: > > > > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#votes-on-code-modification > > > > > > > > That means: > > > > > > > > - we sum all votes and positive means "passed" > > > > - qualified -1 is a veto but it needs strong explanation and good > > > > reason otherwise veto is invalid > > > > - there are fractional votes - -0.5 and -.0.9 as well as +0.9 with > > > > implications described above. > > > > - minimum 3 '+1' votes are required- without it we should continue to > > > > discuss and vote (unless we declare lazy-consensus). > > > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:50 AM Kaxil Naik <kaxiln...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hey all, > > > > > > > > > > I feel like we have good guidelines on creating an AIP, however, > there > > > we > > > > > don't have "clear" guidelines on the following (We might already > do, in > > > > > which case please correct me): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. How long should the *Vote *on AIP go on? > > > > > 2. Minimum number of votes required to marked the AIP as "accepted" > > > > > 3. What happens when the minimum number of votes is not reached > > > within > > > > > the deadline we decide for (1)? Should we consider it an implicit > > > > > "YES" or > > > > > just wait! Or is it an implicit "not interested in this AIP"? > > > > > 4. Can someone veto an AIP? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We can adopt the *Release Approval* > > > > > http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval > > > > > guidelines > > > > > for AIP too. > > > > > > > > > > My Proposed Answer (similar to Apache Release Process): > > > > > > > > > > - A *[DISCUSS]* thread is created to discuss the approach and idea. > > > If > > > > > there is a general interest in the idea and unless there are > security > > > > > concerns or a veto from a PMC member, this will go to a VOTE. > > > > > - A *[VOTE]* thread is created that would last for at least 3 days > > > > > *and *until > > > > > 3 *+1* *binding votes* are obtained. > > > > > - Binding Votes: PMC and Committers > > > > > - Non-binding Votes: Members of the community > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am happy to document the process once we finalize it. > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Kaxil > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk > > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Jarek Potiuk > > > Polidea <https://www.polidea.com/> | Principal Software Engineer > > > > > > M: +48 660 796 129 <+48660796129> > > > [image: Polidea] <https://www.polidea.com/> > > > >
