Yes I am totally aware of the situation of people on vacation and traveling, and was in the process of talking and resolving some people's comments in the doc, that's why I did not start the vote as originally planned. I think we are all aligned on this, sorry I did not make it very clear in the last reply.
And thank you Owen, this would be a great idea! I also heard some concerns of me driving this since I am also backed by a vendor. I considered opening the access to all PMC members, but there are some technical challenges like people's devlist email are not exactly their Gmail and many people are still out of town, so things were also delayed at this front. Let us know what you think is the best way to proceed! Best, Jack Ye On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 9:14 AM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: > Thanks Owen, I really appreciate the offer to moderate the discussion. I > think that's a good idea and it would really benefit the community to have > someone facilitating the discussion and drafting docs that does not have > commercial interest. > > A number of PMC members have expressed that they're currently traveling or > on vacation, which makes me concerned that the discussion isn't really > reflective of the PMC. > > I'd love to hear your thoughts on how we might want to proceed. > > Thanks, > Dan > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 1:57 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> Hi Owen >> >> Sorry I missed your message before replying. I agree, I think we >> should take more time on the proposal. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 10:14 PM Owen O'Malley <owen.omal...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Sorry for coming into this conversation late, but I have a lot of >> experience with writing the bylaws for Apache projects (Hadoop & ORC). As a >> neutral third party (not working for Databricks or a cloud provider) who >> has a lot of Apache experience, I'd like to offer my service as a moderator >> for the discussion. I don't think it is appropriate for a small group to >> come back with a finished product for a final vote, especially during the >> summer when lots of people are travelling, this process should be much more >> gradual and inclusive. >> > >> > .. Owen >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 7:21 AM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> >> >> Thanks for all the comments and feedback on the document, I am working >> with a few commenters on some additional changes and wording, and then will >> carry out the vote. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Jack Ye >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 11:02 AM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> To provide an update here, I have consolidated most of the comments >> in the initial version, with the following changes: >> >>> >> >>> (1) condensed the section of roles and responsibilities, with >> pointers to different pages in ASF and existing Iceberg project pages. >> >>> >> >>> (2) clarified voting details, regrading things like partial votes, >> difference of voting on mailing lists vs voting on GitHub PRs >> >>> >> >>> (3) clarified the section regarding lazy consensus. There is a >> definition difference between the ASF definition (no +1 vote needed) vs the >> ORC definition (1 +1 vote). I renamed the ORC version as "minimum >> consensus" instead. >> >>> >> >>> (4) updated "Modify Code" vote type to minimum consensus. This is a >> bit different from ASF definition for code modification, but I think we are >> coming to an agreement that the ASF definition is outdated. Minimum >> consensus seems to make the most sense given the way we operate Iceberg so >> far, which is basically at least 1 committer other than the author needs to >> approve a PR before merging. >> >>> >> >>> (5) updated all decisions regarding committers and PMC members and >> guideline updates to majority approval, following the ASF guideline on >> voting for procedural issues. >> >>> >> >>> Let me know if there is anything else we see major disagreements >> with, and I will organize a vote after 24 hours. >> >>> >> >>> Best, >> >>> Jack Ye >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 11:04 AM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> +1 for adding to the site. >> >>>> >> >>>> I am putting it as a doc for now since Google doc is easier to >> comment (I think?). My plan is to: >> >>>> >> >>>> (1) publish it as a PR after a vote has passed. We can do one more >> sanity check in the PR, but the information will be exactly as it is >> presented in the Google doc, maybe adding some additional links to more >> easily jump among the sections or to other pages in the site, fix some >> grammar issues that were overlooked. >> >>>> >> >>>> (2) keep a changelog within the document itself. Because we have >> moved the site multiple times in the past, I am not really confident that >> we could just track history with Git commit history, especially with such >> an important document. I would like to add a changelog section in the end, >> documenting what change has been approved when, with links to devlist >> discussions and votes. >> >>>> >> >>>> For how we tackle the other topics, my plan is to pass the initial >> version first, and then we just go through all the identified topics one by >> one. I have a list of all topics in the original feedback collection >> devlist thread. >> >>>> >> >>>> Let me know what you think about these plans! >> >>>> >> >>>> Best, >> >>>> Jack Ye >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 9:04 AM Ryan Blue >> <b...@databricks.com.invalid> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> +1 for adding this to the site once we agree on the changes. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> One thing that has been raised several times but hasn't yet been >> addressed is how we want to tackle this. Many of us have asked to review >> the additional bylaws individually and discuss the purpose and merits of >> each one. It's great to have an overall doc (much like our integrated PRs >> to give context) but I think we should start having separate discussions >> about the rationale for each bylaw to make progress. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Ryan >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 8:57 AM Micah Kornfield < >> emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Hi Jack, >> >>>>>> I think it would make sense to convert this to a PR, so it can be >> version tracked in the future (and that way it avoids another review if the >> intent is to transitition github)? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Thanks, >> >>>>>> Micah >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 9:07 AM Jack Ye <yezhao...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hi everyone, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Thanks for the feedback in the bylaws document discussion thread! >> As suggested, I have removed all the topics that require further debates, >> and created this new doc to serve as the initial version that we can review >> and later vote. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S3igb5NqSlYE3dq_qRsP3X2gwhe54fx-Sxq5hqyOe6I/edit >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I will organize new devlist threads to discuss other topics to >> amend the guidelines step by step, once this initial version is in. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> A few additional changes that I have already incorporated: >> >>>>>>> 1. modified the name from "bylaws" to "community guidelines", >> following the latest ASF guideline >> >>>>>>> 2. renamed "lazy majority" and "lazy 2/3 majority" to "majority >> approval" and "2/3 majority approval" >> >>>>>>> 3. changed "Propose Removing Committer", "Propose Removing PMC >> Member" to consensus approval, and added "Propose PMC Chair Change" >> decision following the default Apache project community guidelines. >> >>>>>>> 4. changed "Release Product" voting period to 5 days instead of 3 >> days excluding weekends. >> >>>>>>> 5. clarified the copyright of code in Apache Iceberg codebases >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> The most important thing is probably to agree upon the 2/3 >> majority approval for modifying the project guidelines, so we can have a >> consistent voting method going forward. This initial introduction of the >> bylaws will be voted using consensus approval. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Please take a look and comment about any additional changes >> needed, and I will host a vote in 3 days. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Best, >> >>>>>>> Jack Ye >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> Ryan Blue >> >>>>> Databricks >> >
