I totally agree with Sandesh. Things are being pushed when there is clear disagreement. If Apex has to grow the community, it can't grow using divide and conquer method.
On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Sandesh Hegde <sand...@datatorrent.com> wrote: > Using all the technicalities and loop holes, we can declare many votes > invalid. What purpose does it solve? This thread is dividing the community, > instead of recognizing the difference if we move forward with this, there > is a chance that Apex will alienate many contributors. What's the end game > here? At what cost? > > On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 9:31 AM Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Yes, you would need a separate discussion/vote on changes not being > > reflected in master that you make to a branch (current procedure). > > > > Regarding procedural vote, the decision to start development towards new > > major release is a longer term decision, not just code change. > > > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval > > > > "Refers to a vote (sense 1) which has completed with at least three > binding > > +1 votes and more +1 votes than -1 votes. ( I.e. , a simple majority > with a > > minimum quorum of three positive votes.) Note that in votes requiring > > majority approval a -1 vote is simply a vote against, not a veto. Compare > > Consensus Approval. See also the description of the voting process." > > > > > > For code modifications the rules are different, -1 is a veto that needs > to > > have a valid technical reason why the change cannot be made. Otherwise it > > is void. None of the -1s in the vote result provide such justification. > > > > Thanks, > > Thomas > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:06 PM, Pramod Immaneni < > pra...@datatorrent.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Thomas, > > > > > > Wouldn't you need to call a separate procedural vote for whether > changes > > > cannot be allowed into 3.x without requiring they be submitted to 4.x > as > > > there was a disagreement there? Also, I am not sure that the procedural > > > vote argument can be used here for 4.x given that it involves > > modifications > > > to existing code. I would say we should drive towards getting a > consensus > > > by addressing the concerns folks have about 4.x. > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > There wasn't any more discussion on this, so here is the result: > > > > > > > > 1. Version 4.0 as major version change from 3.x > > > > ==================================== > > > > > > > > +1 (7) > > > > > > > > Thomas Weise (PMC) > > > > Ananth G > > > > Vlad Rozov (PMC) > > > > Munagala Ramanath (committer) > > > > Pramod Immaneni (PMC) > > > > Sanjay Pujare > > > > David Yan (PMC) > > > > > > > > -1 (3) > > > > > > > > Amol Kekre (PMC) > > > > Sergey Golovko > > > > Ashwin Chandra Putta (committer) > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Version 1.0 with simultaneous change of Maven artifact IDs > > > > =============================================== > > > > > > > > +1 (5) > > > > > > > > Thomas Weise (PMC) > > > > Ananth G > > > > Vlad Rozov (PMC) > > > > Munagala Ramanath (committer) > > > > David Yan (PMC) > > > > > > > > -1 (5) > > > > > > > > Pramod Immaneni (PMC) > > > > Sanjay Pujare > > > > Amol Kekre (PMC) > > > > Sergey Golovko > > > > Ashwin Chandra Putta (committer) > > > > > > > > > > > > RESULT > > > > ======= > > > > > > > > Vote for option 1 (major version 4.x) *passes* with majority rule > [1]. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Thomas > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 6:39 PM, Thomas Weise <t...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > This is to formalize the major version change for Malhar discussed > in > > > > [1]. > > > > > > > > > > There are two options for major version change. Major version > change > > > will > > > > > rename legacy packages to org.apache.apex sub packages while > > retaining > > > > file > > > > > history in git. Other cleanup such as removing deprecated code is > > also > > > > > expected. > > > > > > > > > > 1. Version 4.0 as major version change from 3.x > > > > > > > > > > 2. Version 1.0 with simultaneous change of Maven artifact IDs > > > > > > > > > > Please refer to the discussion thread [1] for reasoning behind both > > of > > > > the > > > > > options. > > > > > > > > > > Please vote on both options. Primary vote for your preferred > option, > > > > > secondary for the other. Secondary vote can be used when counting > > > primary > > > > > vote alone isn't conclusive. > > > > > > > > > > Vote will be open for at least 72 hours. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Thomas > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/ > > > bd1db8a2d01e23b0c0ab98a785f6ee > > > > > 9492a1ac9e52d422568a46e5f3@%3Cdev.apex.apache.org%3E > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
