> I also don't think that things should be added or removed from the milestone without a discussion and vote.
Agree with PJ Fanning here, while it is fair that in the normal running of an Apache project needing to vote in order to remove/add things from a milestone makes sense, if this was done in Pekko, with the amount of things we need to do it would take years to get the first release done. I get the impression that the assumption of how much work is necessary is extremely under-estimated. If you want to get a more accurate estimate of how much is done, have a look at the github contributor page on Pekko's for the most active committers. Having to require a vote to add/remove things in the current state of Pekko as a project, a lot of contributors would get the impression that it's adding bureaucracy/process with no real benefit. Since the current group of committers is quite tight nit (we are talking about former Akka/Scala developers) everyone is in broad agreement of what needs to be done for a release and the more big ticket contentious issues (i.e. waiting for Scala 3.3 LTS, adding inliner) are already being discussed on the mailing list. And even if we did add voting for this, it would largely be pointless because the same few people that are part of the active contributors would just be +1 everything except that we would have to wait a week for any change (for the voting to conclude). At this point some people amy bring up "well we don't have to wait for a week of voting, it can be lower" and then we get into needless bike shedding arguments wasting even more time. And to be clear here, I am not saying that these things can't change and the current state of affairs is perfectly healthy, there are definite issues about sustainability here but our current highest priority is to get a Pekko release out ASAP else we have the risk of it being DOA (dead on arrival) because a large proportion of would-be Pekko users/community have moved on. So for now I would urge that rather than unless strictly necessary, we should refrain from adding new processes before the first release. Instead focusing on *how* we do things, we should focus on *what* the goals are and let the process's form organically from the developers. I also have confidence that the PPMC would be more open than typical for a project like Pekko with the context/understanding that Pekko is a hard fork of an existing project (Akka) and because of this it's bringing in an already existing, non trivial sized community and its expectations/workflow/processes. Pekko is not a typical greenfield Incubator project and it should stop being treated as such unless as a default unless we are breaking some hard ASF rule. On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 10:42 AM Claude Warren, Jr <[email protected]> wrote: > My discussion was not about how to develop or direction for each issue but > whether each issues belongs in the milestone. There is no other place to > discuss the milestone and what goes in it. Since there was not a lot of > discussion on the milestone contents I felt that taking a line item vote > would be good to surface any cases where there were issues with what should > be in the milestone. > > I also don't think that things should be added or removed from the > milestone without a discussion and vote. > > > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 5:58 PM PJ Fanning <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I agree with Matthew. I believe the issues should be discussed > > individually in the comments on the issues themselves. > > > > My opinion is that where there are differences in opinions in these > > comments and that we need some mechanism to decide on which way to go, > that > > a Vote thread is then useful. > > > > We have already closed off some issues and dropped others from the > > milestone. > > > > We are getting close to a release and we are discovering a lot of issues > > with the technicalities of making the release. Getting involved in voting > > on all of these issues will slow down the whole process. > > > > On 2023/05/24 15:40:01 Matthew Benedict de Detrich wrote: > > > If we are talking about the milestone generally and voting then it's > > clear > > > that this can be discussed on the mailing list. I was referring to > > > individual > > > discussion of issues in a milestone which is what I also believe PJ > > Fanning > > > was referring to. > > > > > > On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 5:28 PM Claude Warren, Jr > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The milestone itself [1] does not have any way to discuss the > > milestone as > > > > a single entity. There is no place where all discussion about what > > should > > > > go into (or be taken out of) the milestone occurs. Each ticket in > the > > > > milestone has its discussion space. But the milestone itself does > not. > > > > Thus my desire to have discussions about what goes into or come out > of > > the > > > > milestone to be held on the dev list. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-pekko/milestone/1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Matthew de Detrich > > > > > > *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* > > > > > > Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin > > > > > > Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B > > > > > > Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen > > > > > > *m:* +491603708037 > > > > > > *w:* aiven.io *e:* [email protected] > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > > -- Matthew de Detrich *Aiven Deutschland GmbH* Immanuelkirchstraße 26, 10405 Berlin Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 209739 B Geschäftsführer: Oskari Saarenmaa & Hannu Valtonen *m:* +491603708037 *w:* aiven.io *e:* [email protected]
