Hi, Asaf This is a great suggestion. I believe one significant advantage is that it can help newcomers better understand the voting process and how decisions are made. The checklist can serve as a reference framework, assisting new members in becoming familiar with the project's voting requirements and standards more quickly, thereby improving the overall participation and transparency of the project.
Moreover, this checklist can ensure that all participants have thoroughly reviewed the PIP, resulting in higher-quality PIPs. Although introducing a checklist may bring some additional burden, in the long run, it contributes to the project's robust development and continuous improvement. Thanks Xiangying On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 11:23 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > Asaf, > I understand your intent. > > I think that when anyone casts a +1, especially with '(binding)' they know > well what they are doing. > It is not an 'I like it', but it is an important assumption of > responsibility. > This applies to all the VOTEs. > > Requiring this checklist may be good in order to help new comers to > understand better how we take our decisions. > > If you feel that currently there are people who cast binding votes without > knowing what they do...then I believe that it is kind of a serious issue. > > It happened a few times recently that I see this sort of ML threads about > 'the PMC is not doing well', 'we want to retire people in the PMC...', 'PMC > members vote on stuff without knowing what they do'... > > I wonder what is the root cause of this. > > Back to he original question, my position it: > +1 to writing a clear and very brief summary of the consideration you hBe > to take before casting your vote. > -1 to requiring this checklist when we cast a vote > > Thanks > Enrico > > > > Il Dom 16 Apr 2023, 15:47 Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > > > Would love additional feedback on this suggestion. > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 4:19 AM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > It looks like we can try to add a new section to > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/wiki/proposals/PIP.md > > > like "Review the proposal" and it is not only for PMCs, all the > reviewers > > > can follow the checklist > > > to cast a solemn vote. > > > > > > And I totally support the motivation of this discussion. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Penghui > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 4:46 AM Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > >
