This vote passes (+8 binding / +3 non-binding). I've created ARROW-13218 and started a PR [1] to tackle both this vote and the other vote (regarding instants). The PR will need to wait until the other vote settles to be merged but I'd appreciate any comments / refinements in the meantime.
[1] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/10629 On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 8:25 AM Jorge Cardoso Leitão <jorgecarlei...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 7:47 PM Julian Hyde <jhyde.apa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > > On Jun 25, 2021, at 10:36 AM, Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Le 24/06/2021 à 21:16, Weston Pace a écrit : > > >> The discussion in [1] led to the following proposal which I would like > > >> to submit for a vote. > > >> --- > > >> Arrow allows a timestamp column to omit the time zone property. This > > >> has caused confusion because some people have interpreted a timestamp > > >> without a time zone to be an Instant while others have interpreted it > > >> to be a LocalDateTime. > > >> This proposal is to clarify the Arrow schema (via comments) and assert > > >> that a timestamp without a time zone should be interpreted as > > >> LocalDateTime. > > >> Note: For definitions of Instant and LocalDateTime (and a discussion > > >> on the semantics) please refer to [3] > > >> --- > > > > > > +1 > > > >
