Hi Jarek, Thank you for the clarification and the apology. I welcome your offer to hold a formal vote.
Could you clarify two points? 1. Will you withdraw the previous approval announcement and return AIP-120 to discussion until we complete the approval process? 2. Will the vote require consensus approval, with valid binding vetoes, or will you propose a majority vote? My understanding is that the documented AIP process <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/spaces/AIRFLOW/pages/89066602/Airflow+Improvement+Proposals> requires consensus approval. Both committers and PMC members have binding votes. Approval requires at least three binding +1 votes. A binding -1 returns the proposal to discussion. The ASF voting rules <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html> require a technical justification for a valid veto. Hussein On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 11:25 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > Answering an objection does not, by itself, establish that the person > accepts the answer. Given that known disagreement, I do not think later > silence was sufficient to assume agreement. > > This is why - after waiting for an answer, I started a second discussion > (after the first step of the optimisation process was done) - where I > explained what changes were added to address those concerns. > > Mostly because there were changes related to the PR limit. Possibly, it > could have been **clearer** if the AIP-120 was mentioned in the subject of > the second discussion. My mistake. > > But my intention was **never** to ignore Ash's objections, quite the > contrary - accept it, and apply changes to address them. It was absolutely > not intentional. > > I am happy to redo this as a vote if that will clear the situation.l > > And yes, > > I apologise to Ash for not mentioning AIP-120 in the follow-up discussion. > But not for "not following the rules" - I intended to follow them. > > J. > > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 11:18 PM Hussein Awala <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I think Ash is right about the approval process. > > > > Reducing Airflow’s use of ASF CI resources is important. But that does > not > > answer Ash’s objection here. His objection concerns the decision to > approve > > AIP-120 through lazy consensus. > > > > The OpenOffice guidance > > <https://openoffice.apache.org/docs/governance/lazyConsensus.html> > > explains > > that lazy consensus applies when we believe the community supports an > > action, unless someone objects. It also requires us to respond to valid > > objections, including reversing work when necessary. > > > > In the original discussion > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/w74655o8y1jzrzcnygntyyovocf7zmzj>, Ash > > clearly opposed requiring contributors to run CI in their forks. He > > repeated that objection after the clarification about free CI minutes. > His > > concerns included the effect on contributors and whether the proposal > > addressed the review backlog. > > > > Answering an objection does not, by itself, establish that the person > > accepts the answer. Given that known disagreement, I do not think later > > silence was sufficient to assume agreement. > > > > The AIP might pass through a normal vote under the project’s rules. That > > possibility does not change the problem with using lazy consensus to > > approve it. > > > > I think we should address that process concern directly. > > > > Hussein > > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 11:07 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Ah my bad, got my projects mixed up. It’s possible Airlfow wasn’t > > > directly > > > > asked and it’s just a number of other projects were asked to cut > back. > > > > > > It was :) . Very much asked. > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 11:02 PM Holden Karau <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Ah my bad, got my projects mixed up. It’s possible Airlfow wasn’t > > > directly > > > > asked and it’s just a number of other projects were asked to cut > back. > > > > > > > > > > > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau > > > > Fight Health Insurance: https://www.fighthealthinsurance.com/ > > > > <https://www.fighthealthinsurance.com/?q=hk_email> > > > > Books (Learning Spark, High Performance Spark, etc.): > > > > https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9 <https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9> > > > > YouTube Live Streams: https://www.youtube.com/user/holdenkarau > > > > Pronouns: she/her > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 12:50 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Thanks Holden, that seems to be Arrow though, not Airflow? > > > > > > > > > > > On 26 Oct 2026, at 19:42, Holden Karau <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > So a number of ASF projects have been called on the reduce CI > load > > > > > > (including Airflow and Spark). There's been a number of e-mails > > about > > > > > this, > > > > > > one of the airflow e-mails is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/0cs9lo9lqxcdbzpqt1yhzvzx5pn1h7dt?find_parent=true > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 12:20 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> First off: If a proposal is big enough to need an AIP, > > > definitionally, > > > > > it > > > > > >> is not appropriate for lazy consensus. AIP’s are for big > changes. > > > Big > > > > > >> changes get actively voted upon. And since it _does_ have an > AIP, > > > you > > > > > >> already acknowledged at some level it is a big change. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> AIP-120 starts out by saying "Apache Airflow receives more pull > > > > requests > > > > > >> than its maintainers can review”. That framing is very different > > to > > > > “ASF > > > > > >> org asked us to reduce our CI usage”. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Where in the AIP document or previous discussion thread was the > > “we > > > > need > > > > > >> to reduce our CI usage” called out as a goal? Ci time is > > mentioned, > > > > but > > > > > >> never “we need to reduce this because the ASF org has asked us > > to”. > > > I > > > > > too > > > > > >> would like my CI to jobs to run quicker. Who wouldn’t? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Where have we been called upon to reduce CI load? It was on this > > > > list? I > > > > > >> can’t see it. And if it isn’t on list it essentially didn’t > > happen. > > > > > Another > > > > > >> ASF maxim, of which you are also painfully aware. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I feel you are taking liberties here and making big changes to > the > > > > > project > > > > > >> almost unilaterally. And I think you should apologise for doing > it > > > in > > > > a > > > > > >> tone deaf way without true consensus. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> On 26 Oct 2026, at 18:29, Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> BTW. Airflow has been called upon many times last week by other > > > > > projects > > > > > >> as > > > > > >>> *biggest resource hog" many times, people were angry, people > > asked > > > > > Infra > > > > > >>> to limit Airflow's resource usage. They literally called Infra > to > > > > shut > > > > > us > > > > > >>> down during the release process. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> The only way I contained that was by telling people we are > > already > > > > > >> working > > > > > >>> on it and we have a clear plan to follow. This required a lot > of > > > > "being > > > > > >>> firm". One comment I received was that after 3 weeks of > effort, I > > > > > finally > > > > > >>> refined the design enough that it raised no objections, > allowing > > me > > > > to > > > > > >>> follow through and help other projects—including helping them > > > reduce > > > > > >> their > > > > > >>> usage - which benefits everyone. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> I added this page > > > > > >> https://infra.apache.org/github-actions-optimization.html > > > > > >>> and added a feature in Magpie that allows people to optimize > > their > > > > > >>> workflows practically automatically.. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> All that following all the rules we agreed to. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> I will leave it at that. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> J. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 7:22 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> Sorry. We reduced our resource usage by 2/3 > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 7:20 PM Jarek Potiuk < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>>> Ash, > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> * The original discussion where I posted my last response > from > > me > > > > to > > > > > >> you > > > > > >>>>> on the change was Sep 22 and waited for your answer. That was > > 1.5 > > > > > >> months > > > > > >>>>> ago. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/w74655o8y1jzrzcnygntyyovocf7zmzj > > > > > >> - > > > > > >>>>> I have not seen you respond to it and I believe I answered > your > > > > > >> concerns > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> *.I implemented PR limits as the first step (with your > consent) > > > of > > > > > >>>>> improvements and announced my plan for the next steps > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/y0vzry5s55k2gy17rc93632zp0d5733o > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> * I adapted design, respondsed to your concerns and explained > > > what > > > > I > > > > > am > > > > > >>>>> going to do on this thread - where I started DISCUSSION on > the > > > > > updated > > > > > >>>>> design - > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ky392mrrcmj312y1r276r30p584n804c > > > > > >> - > > > > > >>>>> that was 21 days ago. - it did not receive any objection from > > you > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> * the discussion run until - 10 days ago > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ky392mrrcmj312y1r276r30p584n804c > > > > > >> - > > > > > >>>>> where no-one raised significant objections, this discussion > had > > > > links > > > > > >> to > > > > > >>>>> design, AIP, Draft PRs and my clear intentions to run LAZY > > > > CONSENSUS > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> * I raised Lazy consensus > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/nfno4r1jqx5dj75v867prjjgg6o77odx > > > > > >> - > > > > > >>>>> 7 days ago > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> * I announced result on Friday: - 4 days after it has been > > > waiting > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Yes. AIP-120 is approved. I cannot account for someone not > > paying > > > > > >>>>> attention for 1.5 months, sorry. You are just one of the PMC > > > > members > > > > > >> here - > > > > > >>>>> nobody else does not object. You are not more important than > > > others > > > > > >> and we > > > > > >>>>> are not going to wait with decisions, that also help the > whole > > > ASF > > > > > deal > > > > > >>>>> with the difficult situation of CI resources being exhausted > by > > > > > >>>>> AI—especially since we gave ample time to respond to two > > > > discussions > > > > > >> and > > > > > >>>>> the lazy consensus. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Get over that, Ash. If you would like to change somethign in > > the > > > > way > > > > > >> how > > > > > >>>>> AIP-120 is configured feel free to start discussiosn (you > > already > > > > did > > > > > >> in > > > > > >>>>> #contributors and made some suggestions - which is good). > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> It is implemented as is now. We can disable it any time if we > > do > > > > not > > > > > >> want > > > > > >>>>> to lose our contributors. We have many configuration options, > > and > > > > we > > > > > >>>>> already reduced our resource usage by one-third, unblocking > not > > > > only > > > > > >> our > > > > > >>>>> queue but also other projects' queues. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Let's discuss what we want to change and how to configure it, > > > > simply. > > > > > >>>>> Let's work toward the common goal of faster and better CI for > > > > > Airflow. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> J. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 6:44 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> 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] > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau > > > > > > Fight Health Insurance: https://www.fighthealthinsurance.com/ > > > > > > <https://www.fighthealthinsurance.com/?q=hk_email> > > > > > > Books (Learning Spark, High Performance Spark, etc.): > > > > > > https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9 <https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9> > > > > > > YouTube Live Streams: https://www.youtube.com/user/holdenkarau > > > > > > Pronouns: she/her > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
