> The reason for that is that there's a long-standing norm to discuss the conduct of individuals only on private lists. In this case, I think it applies even though it is discussing hypothetical conduct. And note that I'm one of the individuals here.
Respectfully, what does this mean, Ryan? No individual was even singled out here. This comes off as stifling discussion, not cool... On Mon, Jun 24, 2024, 9:08 AM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry for the confusion Ryan, this is not mistakenly sent to devlist. As > we discussed, this is the thread for collecting community feedback, which > is essential for forming bylaws with the community. > > We have that separated discussion thread in the private list, which we > will continue to iterate, and the vote will eventually be carried out in > the private list as you said, according to the ASF guideline. > > -Jack > > On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 8:59 AM Ryan Blue <b...@databricks.com.invalid> > wrote: > >> Hey everyone, I think Jack mistakenly sent this to the dev list so please >> let's pause discussion for now. >> >> There's a thread on the private list about this in which PMC members, >> including me, have asked to keep it on the private list right now. >> >> The reason for that is that there's a long-standing norm to discuss the >> conduct of individuals only on private lists. In this case, I think it >> applies even though it is discussing hypothetical conduct. And note that >> I'm one of the individuals here. >> >> I know that there are also things here that merit discussion (like how to >> get PRs moving faster), but right now they are all tied up in a bundle of >> proposed bylaws. I've asked on the PMC list to separate the concerns and to >> discuss these issues individually. We will follow up with more discussion >> on this list. >> >> Ryan >> >> On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 6:19 AM Renjie Liu <liurenjie2...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Jack for raising this, this is quite important to keep healthy of >>> this community. >>> >>> I agree with Ajantha about the concerns of accumulated proposals and >>> prs, and maybe we should have another thread to discuss about it? >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 20:37 Robert Stupp <sn...@snazy.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Jack for the proposal. >>>> I’m generally +1 on this. There are a few details to clarify, but I >>>> suspect nothing that’s controversial. >>>> >>>> On 24. Jun 2024, at 12:45, Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Thank you, Jack, for your diligent work on this. >>>> >>>> This seems essential at the moment. >>>> >>>> I would like to address a couple of additional points that need our >>>> attention: >>>> >>>> >>>> *Criteria for Committership/PMC:*We've observed an inconsistency in >>>> how committership is granted. Contributors to sub-projects often attain >>>> committership to the main project more readily, while some who contribute >>>> significantly to the main project remain unrecognized. Although defining >>>> explicit criteria is challenging, it might be beneficial to establish >>>> guidelines or metrics that highlight the impact and quality of >>>> contributions. This could encourage more balanced and motivated >>>> participation across all project areas. >>>> >>>> >>>> *Accumulation of Proposals and PRs:*We have several proposals and PRs >>>> that are currently stalled despite multiple pings. Examples include the >>>> partition stats PR and proposals like table profitability, multi table >>>> transaction, secondary indexing etc. These important contributions are not >>>> making the expected progress. It might be helpful to create bylaws or >>>> procedures to ensure these proposals and PRs receive the necessary >>>> attention and are addressed promptly. This could involve setting timeframes >>>> for reviews or establishing a prioritization process. >>>> >>>> Thoughts and feedback on these suggestions would be highly valuable. >>>> >>>> - Ajantha >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 1:09 PM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> In light of the recent change of company for a few committers and PMC >>>>> members, I hear an increasing ask from the community to define proper >>>>> processes in Iceberg to ensure its vendor neutral stance. >>>>> >>>>> I propose that we put up a bylaws document like other projects such as >>>>> Apache Hadoop and Apache ORC. I think this will put people at peace and >>>>> remove many people's concerns about the future of the project and its >>>>> vendor-neutral stance. >>>>> >>>>> Here is a document that I have drafted that can be used as the >>>>> starting point (mostly just copied from the Hadoop one): >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BVHbshE2dmCH8QzkeMd9PQdJ86_slavDy1YPueqNSgI/edit >>>>> >>>>> This proposal is currently undergoing review by the PMC. At the same >>>>> time, it is critical to also understand the feedback from the community so >>>>> that we can formulate the bylaws in a way that meets the community's >>>>> needs. >>>>> >>>>> As a guide, here are a few key points that I think is worth special >>>>> attention and everyone's opinion: >>>>> >>>>> 0. *Bylaws or not*: first and foremost, do we think such bylaws would >>>>> be helpful, or do we think this is too much? >>>>> >>>>> 1. *Emeritus status*: the bylaws introduce the concept of emeritus >>>>> committers and PMC members, and will mark inactive committers and PMC >>>>> members as emeritus. It is designed purely for information purposes, so it >>>>> is easier to know who to count for during a vote. For people that have >>>>> questions regarding the PMC members' vendor affiliations, they can use >>>>> this >>>>> information to find out details about the proportion of active PMC members >>>>> in each organization. The emeritus status will not remove rights of the >>>>> specific committers or PMC members, and anyone who would like to re-join >>>>> the community just needs to report to PMC with an email to remove the >>>>> status. >>>>> >>>>> 2. *PMC chair rotation*: the bylaws introduce an annual rotation of >>>>> the PMC chair. The chair is purely an administrative role that does not >>>>> have special power, but it is undeniable that the chair is usually seen as >>>>> the lead of the project from a public perspective. By further rotating >>>>> this >>>>> role, it makes it clear that no one in the PMC is specifically leading the >>>>> project direction, and the PMC as a whole manages the direction of >>>>> Iceberg. >>>>> Given that right now at least 10 PMC members are fully salaried workers >>>>> dedicated to the Iceberg project, the overhead seems acceptable to perform >>>>> rotations. >>>>> >>>>> 3. *Definition of subprojects*: the bylaws divide the project into >>>>> subprojects, in order to properly define the responsibility of a release >>>>> manager. This is a concept learned from projects like Hadoop, and I think >>>>> as Iceberg is growing a lot in scope, this division will also help us >>>>> formalize different modules of the project, and properly release >>>>> components >>>>> like the table format spec, catalog spec, etc. that can be used for >>>>> consumption without dependency on releasing language-specific libraries. >>>>> >>>>> 4. *Voting procedure*: the bylaws describe a lot about the voting >>>>> procedure, and how different matters in Iceberg should be voted. I mostly >>>>> referenced other projects when writing the related sections, so it would >>>>> be >>>>> great for us to double check it with existing decisions that have been >>>>> made >>>>> in Iceberg regarding voting, as well as related rules in ASF to avoid any >>>>> conflict. >>>>> >>>>> Really appreciate any feedback, and look forward to discussing this >>>>> with everyone! >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Jack Ye >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> -- >> Ryan Blue >> Databricks >> >
