Hi, all, Thanks for all discussions about this FLIP first. We all are trying to make Flink better. But not getting a reply quickly really discourages contributors. OperatorCoordinatorMetricGroup and SplitEnumeratorMetricGroup are important for many developers. And many metrics can not be reported without it. This FLIP raised on 26 Dec 2022 and has last over a month. So let's make the discussion on FLIP-274 be settled.
Thanks for all helps and let's make this FLIP move on together. Best, Hang Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> 于2023年1月12日周四 07:29写道： > You know, back when I wrote that line I actually felt a bit guilty about > it and nearly dropped it, since it implicitly accused _someone_ of > actually being capable/willing to push something through despite voiced > concerns while no ones looking. > > Turns out things are a lot worse that I thought. You're actually > doubling down on it and even insult me. > > > As I haven't had a time to revisit the discussion and afaict my concerns > weren't addressed, I hereby vote -1 (binding). > > Please be aware that since I'm effectively only back from vacation > tomorrow and need to catch up on things in general, I may not be able to > revisit the discussion this week. In part because I guess I now need to > double-check everything. > > CC'ing the private ML because I find this very troubling behavior. > > On 11/01/2023 16:20, Martijn Visser wrote: > > Hi Jark, > > > > I disagree with your statement that someone doesn't care about the FLIP, > > especially since that person participated in the initial FLIP discussion > > and mentioned explicitly "Since I'm on holidays soon, just so no one > tries > > to pull a fast one on me, if this were to go to a vote as-is I'd be > against > > it.". > > > > Anyway: I can't tell when Chesnay exactly will participate, but I do > expect > > that this week. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Martijn > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 4:11 PM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi Martijn, > >> > >> Thanks for helping us to find Chesnay. > >> Could you clarify how "soon" will Chesnay participate? A day or a week? > >> > >> I agree with your improvement proposal and Hang exactly follows your > >> points. > >> The last-call-for-discussion for Chensay has been sent for more than 72 > >> hours, > >> even after the Christmas holiday. Therefore, from my point of view, this > >> FLIP > >> should have been passed. On the other hand, the Flink Bylaws[1] don't > >> require > >> voting to begin until a specific person responds. The 3 days (even work > >> days) voting > >> length already considers the committers' reaction time. If someone > doesn't > >> vote -1 > >> during the time period, which means he/she doesn't have concerns about > the > >> proposal. > >> If you care about the proposal, PLEASE VOTE and explain the reasons. > This > >> is how > >> the 200+ FLIPs work until today. I'm just very disappointed and > surprised > >> we have to > >> wait for someone to vote for the FLIP who doesn't care about the FLIP > for > >> more than a month. > >> > >> > >> Best, > >> Jark > >> > >> [1]: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Bylaws > >> > >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 at 21:14, Martijn Visser <martijnvis...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Jark and Dong, > >>> > >>> I fully understand your concerns in this case. I also think that this > >>> situation is an exception. This discussion started just before the > >> holiday > >>> season in Europe started. The request to Chesnay if he had more > comments > >>> was sent just a couple of days before Christmas. > >>> > >>> From my perspective, given how the discussion started in the > discussion > >>> thread and the context that was provided, I would have sent an email > that > >>> if there are no more comments in the next 72 hours, you would open a > vote > >>> thread. Especially if someone raised a concern first. That has > happened a > >>> lot on other discussion threads as well, even when there were no more > >> open > >>> discussion topics. > >>> > >>> While I fully understand the disappointment from your point of view, > the > >>> other way around it feels disappointing that this was brought to a > vote. > >> So > >>> let's use the disappointments from both ends to learn and to improve > >>> overall. Something like: > >>> > >>> * If someone raises concerns during a discussion, of course first try > to > >>> resolve all concerns. > >>> * If that person no longer participates in the discussion, send a > >>> last-call-for-discussions in the discussion thread for 72 hours and > else > >>> you will open a vote thread > >>> * Follow the regular voting process > >>> > >>> For this specific FLIP, I've briefly talked to Chesnay offline and I'm > >> sure > >>> he will participate soon to unblock it. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Martijn > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 1:47 PM Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Martijn, > >>>> > >>>> A collaborative and active community is very important for any > >>> open-source > >>>> project. Flink can succeed today because we have many experienced and > >>>> passionate developers who collaborate together to develop Flink. It is > >>>> important that developers can give constructive feedback and help each > >>>> other be productive. > >>>> > >>>> I find it kind of surprising and disappointing that we have to wait > for > >>> one > >>>> particular developer for more than 30 days to get a reply before being > >>>> allowed forward and making progress. It is hard to image what would > >>> happen > >>>> if every committer can take 30+ days to reply to a FLIP and still > >> expects > >>>> the FLIP to wait for the reply. Flink community will likely be dead if > >>> this > >>>> is the culture that Flink community uses to treat contributors. > >>>> > >>>> Could you explain how long we have to wait before making progress for > >>> this > >>>> FLIP? And in the future, what would be the resonable timeframe to wait > >>> for > >>>> a reply before we can open the voting thread? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Dong > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 4:17 PM Martijn Visser < > >> martijnvis...@apache.org > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> -1 (binding) currently: I don't think this should have gone to a vote > >>> yet > >>>>> given that Chesnay deliberately mentioned that he would vote against > >> it > >>>>> as-is. The discussion should have been settled first. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 10:51 AM Zhu Zhu <reed...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> +1 (binding) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Zhu > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> 于2023年1月10日周二 17:43写道： > >>>>>>> +1 (binding) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>> Jark > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 2023年1月10日 12:02，Qingsheng Ren <renqs...@gmail.com> 写道： > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks for the FLIP! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> +1 (binding) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>> Qingsheng > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:08 AM Hang Ruan < > >>> ruanhang1...@gmail.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for all the feedback so far. > >>>>>>>>> Based on the discussion[1], we have come to a consensus, so I > >>>> would > >>>>>> like to > >>>>>>>>> start a vote on FLIP-274: Introduce metric group for > >>>>>>>>> OperatorCoordinator[2]. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The vote will last for at least 72 hours (Jan 7th at 11:00 > >> GMT) > >>>>> unless > >>>>>>>>> there is an objection or insufficient votes. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/63m9w60rndqnrqvgb6qosvt2bcbww53k > >>>>>>>>> [2] > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-274%3A+Introduce+metric+group+for+OperatorCoordinator > >>>>>>>>> Best, > >>>>>>>>> Hang > >>>>>>>>> > >
