+1 for sticking to the lazy majority voting. Especially for the reason that if all committers don't have time capacity to help discuss and review the changes which bring up by the FLIP, it will be meaningless for this FLIP to be considered as accepted.
I don't have much suggestions about the scope of the FLIP but I'm sure the issue should be *important* enough to be as a FLIP. This actually leads to my another question and thought: Do we have to make sure that some committers should be volunteered to be the sheepherder of the FLIP if the author himself is not? The committer can help with discussion, review the changes, and help to reach out other committers if himself is not sure or familiar with all the changes. I think it will be very good experience for the contributor. In a short word: We should be *strict* for accepting new FLIPs, but once a FLIP is accepted, we also need to make sure the FLIP is been taken good care of. Best, Kurt On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:15 AM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 for sticking to the lazy majority voting. > > A question from my side, the 3+1 votes are binding votes which only active > (i.e. non-emeritus) committers and PMC members have? > > > Best, > Jark > > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 at 19:07, Tzu-Li (Gordon) Tai <tzuli...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > +1 to enforcing lazy majority voting for future FLIPs, starting from > FLIPs > > that are still currently under discussion (by the time we've agreed on > the > > FLIP voting process). > > > > My two cents concerning "what should and shouldn't be a FLIP": > > > > I can understand Chesnay's argument about how some FLIPs, while meeting > the > > criteria defined by the FLIP guidelines, feel to not be sufficiently > large > > to justify a FLIP. > > As a matter of fact, the FLIP guidelines explicitly mention that "Exposed > > Monitoring Information" is considered public interface; I guess that was > > why this FLIP came around in the first place. > > I was also hesitant in whether or not the recent FLIP about keyed state > > snapshot binary format unification (FLIP-41) deserves to be a FLIP, since > > the complexity of the change is rather small. > > > > However, with the fact that these changes indeed touch the general public > > interface of Flink, the scope (including all potential 3rd party > projects) > > is strictly speaking hard to define. > > Outcomes of such changes, even if the complexity of the change is rather > > trivial, can still stick around for quite a while. > > In this case, IMO the value of proposing a FLIP for such a change is less > > about discussing design or implementation details, and more on the fact > > that said change requires an official vote for approval from the > community. > > > > Best, > > Gordon > > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 5:50 PM Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > The FLIP guidelines disagree with your first point. > > > > > > The guidelines are a bit contradictory as at some places we say that > > > FLIPs are for major features, and in other places say they are for any > > > changes to the public API. > > > This very point came up in the recent FLIP about standardizing metrics. > > > Metrics are somewhat part of the public API, and thus you can interpret > > > the guidelines to say that you need a FLIP. But in terms of scope, I > > > believed it to not be sufficiently large to justify a FLIP. > > > > > > Overall I'm very much in favor of sticking to the lazy majority voting > > > scheme and enforcing it, > > > but I do think we have to reevaluate what changes require a FLIP and > > > which don't. > > > > > > On 26/06/2019 11:37, Aljoscha Krettek wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > When we originally introduced the FLIP process (which is based on the > > > KIP process from Kafka and refers to the Kafka bylaws for how votes > work) > > > voting was set to be “lazy majority”. This means that a FLIP vote > > "requires > > > 3 binding +1 votes and more binding +1 votes than -1 votes” [1][2]. > > > Currently, we treat FLIP votes more like “lazy Approval”, i.e. if there > > are > > > no -1 votes FLIP are often accepted, if there is a VOTE thread at all. > > > > > > > > I propose that we stick to the original process or update our FLIP > > > document to a voting scheme that we agree on. I’m in favour of sticking > > > with “lazy majority”, for these reasons: > > > > > > > > 1. FLIPs should typically be used for deeper changes of Flink. These > > > will stick around for quite a while after they’re implemented and the > PMC > > > (and the committers) has the burden of maintaining them. I think that > > > therefore FLIP votes are even move important than release votes, > because > > > they steer the long time direction of Flink. > > > > > > > > 2. Requiring at least 3 +1 votes means that there is more work needed > > > for getting a FLIP accepted. I think this is a good thing because it > will > > > require people to be more involved in the direction of the project. And > > if > > > there are not enough +1 votes on a FLIP, this is a signal that there is > > not > > > enough interest in the feature or that there is not enough bandwidth > for > > > working on a feature. > > > > > > > > 3. This is more an “optics” thing, but I think having clear rules and > > > sticking to them makes it easier for an international community (like > the > > > Apache Flink community) to work together and collaborate. If there is > > > preferential treatment for certain parts of the community that makes it > > > hard for other parts to participate and get into the community and > > > understand the workings of it. > > > > > > > > As a side note, I like the FLIP process because they are a place > where > > > we can keep track of important decisions and they are a place that we > can > > > point to when there is uncertainty about a certain feature in the > future. > > > For example FLIP-28 [3] (which is now discarded) would be a place where > > we > > > record the decision that we want Flink to be Scala free in the long > term. > > > We could then point to this in the future. There are some decisions in > > > Flink that are somewhat hidden in ML discussions or Jira issues, and > > > therefore hard to find, for example the decision to eventually phase > out > > > the DataSet API, or the decision to drop the older Python APIs, or the > > > semantics of savepoints and checkpoints. Some FLIPs might not be about > > > implementing a certain feature but just a general direction that we > want > > to > > > take. I think we should have more of these. > > > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Aljoscha > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals > > > > [2] > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Bylaws#Bylaws-Approvals > > > > [3] > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-28%3A+Long-term+goal+of+making+flink-table+Scala-free > > > > > > > > > > > >
