I think the 24 hours point that was raised was pointed to being too short was
just for the roll-call; I personally that think for closing down a discussion,
24 hours is acceptable in order to assist progress, since it should only be
called when it's clear the discussion has halted or consensus has likely been
reached. If in retrospect it appears that was wrong, we can always cancel the
vote.
With regards to CEPs, I personally don't see any value in voting to start one.
There's nothing to stop proposers seeking advice, discussion and collaborators
beforehand, but voting on it seems premature until there's at least some
concrete proposal that's had some thought put into it, and an initial round of
wider discussion. There's already a community cost to the process, too, and we
don't want it to be overly burdensome.
On 04/06/2020, 22:39, "Joshua McKenzie" <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote:
On the topic of CEP's, I'd advocate for us trying a couple/few out first
and seeing what uncertainties arise as being troublesome and see if we
can't codify a best practice around them. To date we've had only a couple
CEP's actively move and a few in draft pre-move pending more progress on
4.0 so I don't think we have enough signal on how they evolve to know what
we might want to address through this doc. Does that make sense?
24 hours to close down lazy consensus does feel pretty quick by default; I
think a default 72 hour with flexibility based on the topic (i.e. like
adding testing to the CEP guideline; super non-controversial) we can just
run with things and revert if they're off.
Speaking of revert - that's one thing that was a real eye opener for me
personally philosophically in the past few weeks; git revert exists for a
reason and if we all changed our posture to periodic reverts being a
healthy thing rather than shameful or contentious, we can all move a lot
faster together in trust and revert when mistakes invariably happen. Not
that we should start ninja'ing in 40k patches of course, but hopefully the
point makes sense and resonates in terms of it being a continuum we're
perhaps quite extreme on culturally as a project.
And we all have a sense for when something's more controversial, so we have
CEP's to lean on. I dunno, makes sense in my head. :)
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:13 PM Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> wrote:
> > A link to the current draft of the governance doc is here:
> >
>
>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wOrJBkgudY2BxEVtubq9IbiFFC3d3efJSj9OIrGcqQ8/edit#
> >
> > The doc is only 2 pages long; if you're interested in engaging in a
> > discussion about how we evolve and collaborate as a project, please take
> > some time to read through the doc, think through things, and engage on
> this
> > thread here.
>
>
>
> Thanks Benedict and Josh. This is an awesome initiative to put out in the
> open and include everyone in.
>
> My question is around the CEP lifecycle, how one is established and how it
> exits (or moves into a real implementation stage). I guess that is an
> evolving discussion, and also depends on the nature of the individual CEP.
> But it raises the questions of when do we apply the vote. For example I
can
> imagine two votes on a CEP: once to accept an CEP to start in earnest, and
> a second time on the finalised CEP that the working group has
> finalised. As CEPs
> can evolve to quite a different place from their original idea. Maybe we
> don't need that entry vote, as the document implies, but I'm not entirely
> sure about that: i think some initial exposure and discussion can be
> valuable to prevent wasted adventures.
>
> regards,
> Mick
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
