> > It is important we make progress as we have been discussing this since > April!!
The discussion was making progress. Just because you want things to happen faster is no reason to force an early vote. On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:04 PM sankalp kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> wrote: > Also my vote is same as Jeff. d but would slightly prefer b. It is > important we make progress as we have been discussing this since April!! > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 1:52 PM sankalp kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > The last email on the thread was 3 days ago and I made it clear days back > > that we should vote on it to make progress. Without this vote, I am not > > sure we will make progress. > > Many people want to contribute on this and hence we are voting so we can > > make progress. > > > > My vote is d > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 1:36 PM Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> > wrote: > > > >> This voting process feels a bit rushed and frankly not well thought out. > >> In addition to Sylvain's valid points, which you (Sankalp) didn't > address > >> at all, the discussion in the other threads seemed to be ongoing. The > >> last > >> email you wrote on one of them was asking for additional feedback, that > >> indicates the discussion is still open. > >> > >> Out of principal I vote for none of the options (inaction). You're > >> deliberately trying to ram *something* through, and that's not how this > is > >> supposed to work. > >> > >> For those of you unfamiliar with the process - please read > >> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. > >> > >> I'd like to ask those of you that are +1'ing, are you willing to > >> contribute > >> or are you just voting we start an admin tool from scratch because you > >> think it'll somehow produce a perfect codebase? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:50 PM sankalp kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Sylvain, > >> > I would appreciate if we can give feedback on the > >> > discussion threads and not wait for vote threads. I made it clear in > the > >> > discussion thread that we will start a vote!! > >> > Thanks, > >> > Sankalp > >> > > >> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:47 PM Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:41 PM Sylvain Lebresne < > lebre...@gmail.com > >> > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > That's probably a stupid question, and excuse me if it is, but > what > >> > does > >> > > > those votes on the dev mailing list even mean? > >> > > > > >> > > > How do you count votes at the end? Just by counting all votes > cast, > >> > > > irregardless of whomever cast it? Or are we intending to only > count > >> PMC > >> > > > members, or maybe committers votes? > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > I believe the intent is to try to see if there exists consensus. > >> > > Ultimately, PMC is going to matter more than random email addresses > >> from > >> > > people nobody recognizes. This should be in public, though, not > >> private, > >> > so > >> > > seeing what feedback is beyond the PMC is useful (primarily because > it > >> > will > >> > > matter when it comes time to extend and maintain it - if people > >> strongly > >> > > prefer one or the other, then maintenance is going to be a problem). > >> > > > >> > > If there's 100 random non-contributor votes for one option and 20 > pmc > >> > votes > >> > > for another options, I think the real answer will be "we don't have > >> > > consensus, and either we don't do it, or we do it the way the PMC > >> thinks > >> > is > >> > > best", for all of the reasons you describe in the paragraphs below. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > If the former, that is a bit weird to me because we simply don't > >> know > >> > who > >> > > > votes. And I don't mean to be rude towards anyone, but 1) someone > >> could > >> > > > easily create 10 email addresses to vote 10 times (and sure, you > >> could > >> > > > invoke trust, and I'm not entirely against trust in general, but > >> it's > >> > the > >> > > > internet...) and 2) this kind of decision will have non-trivial > >> > > > consequences for the project, particularly on those that maintain > >> it, > >> > so > >> > > I > >> > > > admit I'm not entirely comfortable with "anyone's voice has the > same > >> > > > weight". > >> > > > If the latter, then this makes more sense to me (why are we even > >> > > bothering > >> > > > voting PMC members in if it's not to handle these kinds of > >> decisions, > >> > > which > >> > > > are very "project management" related), but we should be very > clear > >> > about > >> > > > this from the get go (we could still use the dev list for > >> transparency > >> > > > sake, that I don't mind)? We should probably also have some > >> deadline to > >> > > the > >> > > > vote, one that isn't too short. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > Like releases, I think PMC votes count > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > Anyway, fwiw, my opinion on this vote is not far from the one on > the > >> > > golang > >> > > > driver acceptance vote (for which my remark above also apply btw): > >> no > >> > yet > >> > > > 100% convinced adding more pieces and scope to the project is what > >> the > >> > > > project needs just right now, but not strongly opposed if people > >> really > >> > > > wants this (and this one makes more sense to me than the golang > >> driver > >> > > > actually). But if I'm to pick between a) and b), I'm leaning b). > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > FWIW, two of the main reasons I'm in favor is as a way to lower > >> barrier > >> > to > >> > > entry to both using the software AND contributing to the project, > so I > >> > > think your points are valid (both on gocql thread and on this note > >> > above), > >> > > but I think that's also part of why we should be encouraging both. > >> > > > >> > > - Jeff > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jon Haddad > >> http://www.rustyrazorblade.com > >> twitter: rustyrazorblade > >> > > >
