Hi, When you read last year's PIPs, many lack background information, hard to read and understand even if you know pulsar in and out.
First step to fix was to change the PIP is structured: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19832 In my opinion, when someone votes "+1" and it's binding, they basically take the responsibility to say: * I read the PIP fully. * A person having basic Pulsar user knowledge, can read the PIP and fully understand it Why? Since it contains all background information necessary to understand the problem and the solution It is written in a coherent and easy to understand way. * I validated the solution technically and can vouch for it. Examples: The PIP adds schema compatibility rules for Protobuf Native. I learned / know protobuf well. I validated the rules written containing all rules needed and not containing wrong rules, or missing rules. The PIP adds new OpenID Connect authentication. I learned / know Authentication in Pulsar. I learned / know OpenID connect I validated the solution is architecturally correct and sound. Basically the PMC member voting +1 on it, basically acts as Tech Lead of Pulsar for this PIP. It's a very big responsibility. It's the only way to ensure Pulsar architecture won't go haywire over the next few years. Yes, it will slow the process down. Yes, it will be harder to find people to review it like that. But, it will raise the bar for PIPs and for Pulsar architecture overall. IMO we need that, and it's customary. *My suggestion* When PMC member replies to vote, it will look like this: " +1 (binding) [v] PIP has all sections detailed in the PIP template (Background, motivation, etc.) [v] A person having basic Pulsar user knowledge, can read the PIP and fully understand it [v] I read PIP and validated it technically " or " -1 (binding) I think this PIP needs: ... " Thanks, Asaf
