No. Jarek: this behaviour _was not okay_. You knew when creating the lazy consensus that there was not consensus.
This was never a valid use case of a Lazy Consensus. This discussion already had strong disagreements. I was the most vocal, but I wasn’t the only person to mention disagreement. And yet you really thought lazy consensus was appropriate tool here? How would you feel if I passed a “Remove Breeze” via lazy consensus when I knew you were on holiday? As per ASF’s own guidance, which I know you already know. > Sometimes lazy consensus is not appropriate. In such cases it is necessary to > make a proposal to the email list and discuss options And since the discussion _already_ had pushback, lazy consensus was categorically not appropriate. This is not an appropriate response Jarek. Not even remotely. If you think it is you need to re-evaluate your priorities around community building. I repeat. There is no consensus on AIP-120. > On 26 Oct 2026, at 14:59, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> There is no consensus reached here. > > Consensus has been reached. We've been through that before; there was a > long discussion followed by arguments from the other side. Your only > opposition was that it is aimed only to save CI time of shared runners > (which also it does). > And as the last time we discussed - you can always call to revert that > decision. AIP-120 was approved 3 days ago. > >> Calling a lazy consensus on this AIP given how strongly I voiced my > opposition to it is appropriate. > > You can always call a change to remove it. In the meantime, we proceed with > testing it. Also, an alternative is that we would likely have to cut down > our usage of shared ASF CI because we are taking nearly 30% of it. Some of > the changes and optimizations Shahar and I implemented over the weekend > reduced our usage to one-third (also Arrow and Datafusion also made similar > optimizations with room for more) - which already had an effect on > significant decrease of queue time (which was also goal of AIP-120). > > But yes - feel free to start a new discussion on reverting it. This is the > way how decisions are being made here. > > J > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 2:23 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I’m angry and making typos. Is _not appropriate_. >> >> >> >>> On 26 Oct 2026, at 13:22, Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Calling a lazy consensus on this AIP given how strongly I voiced my >> opposition to it is appropriate. >>> >>> This should have never a candidate for lazy consensus, and was opened >> and closed when many of us were busy working on the 3.4 release. There is >> no consensus reached here. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 23 Oct 2026, at 21:52, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello everyone, >>>> >>>> The lazy consensus on AIP-120 [1] ended on 2026-10-22 12:00 UTC with >>>> no objections, so AIP-120 is accepted. >>>> >>>> Next steps, as described in the proposal: merge the design PR and the >>>> stacked implementation PRs (everything ships switched off), run the >>>> opt-in pilot, then switch it on for all external contributors in a >>>> separate one-line change. >>>> >>>> Reviews on the stack are very welcome: #73378, #74819, #74820, #74822, >>>> #74823, #74825. >>>> >>>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/nfno4r1jqx5dj75v867prjjgg6o77odx >>>> >>>> J. >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
