Hey Daniel, I am sure that Till didn't try to set up the vote towards his desired outcome. Actually it should conform to the Apache Voting Process.
Quoting from http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html: "Expressing Votes: +1, 0, -1, and Fractions The voting process in Apache may seem more than a little weird if you've never encountered it before. Votes are represented as numbers between -1 and +1, with '-1' meaning 'no' and '+1' meaning 'yes.' [...] +0: 'I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with this.' -0: 'I won't get in the way, but I'd rather we didn't do this.' [...] Vetos A code-modification proposal may be stopped dead in its tracks by a -1 vote by a qualified voter. This constitutes a veto, and it cannot be overruled nor overridden by anyone. Vetos stand until and unless withdrawn by their casters. To prevent vetos from being used capriciously, they must be accompanied by a technical justification showing why the change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight." The only thing I'm not sure about is whether "upfront" votes are usual. If this was a code modification (PR or commit), the way that this is setup should definitely be OK. Maybe a mentor can help with this? On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:11 AM, Daniel Warneke <warn...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi, > > sorry, but I think the way this vote is set up is already biased towards > the author’s desired outcome. Two out of the three possible options > effectively lead to the switch to Scala. Moreover, the -1 option requires > the voter to explain his/her decision, the +1 option does not. > > Best regards, > > Daniel > > > Am 03.09.2014 22:58, schrieb Till Rohrmann: > > In the wake of replacing the current proprietary RPC service with an Akka >> service, we have to rewrite the JobManager and TaskManager. Akka is >> implemented in Scala and offers bindings for Scala as well as Java. Since >> the implementation using Scala would probably be neater and less verbose, >> we would like to use Scala for the reimplementation. That would imply that >> Flink's runtime module would become a mixed Java and Scala project. >> >> So please vote whether Scala should be used for rewriting the JobManager >> and TaskManager or not. >> >> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours. >> >> [ ] +1 Using Scala for reimplementation >> [ ] 0 I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okay with using Scala >> [ ] -1 Do not use Scala because... >> >> >
