> you are ok with having a summary template, but have it non-required? Yes to me.
In addition, I think the root cause of the problems you met is that some PIPs have low quality. They are not clear and friendly to others. A good proposal should not require reviewers to have deep knowledge of a specific domain. I think what PMC members should do to improve it is to cast the -1 to those ambiguous proposals until they become clear. Thanks, Yunze On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 8:14 PM Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The problem I'm trying to solve is: lack of ability to understand PIPs. > PIPs I had the chance of reading lack: > * Background information: It should contain all background information > necessary to understand the problem and the solution > * Clarity: It should be written in a coherent and easy to understand way. > > I thought this could improve using 2 ways: > 1. Define a clear template for PIPs - this should solve all the missing > information. This is in progress. > 2. Provide a checklist to verify the +1 voter check those 3 things: > background information, clarity, solid technical solution. > > Both Enrico and Yunze say, if I understand correctly, that the +1 voter > checks those 3 things implicitly. > Yet when I try to learn Pulsar by reading historical PIPs, I find some > lacking on those things (clarity, background information) making it super > hard for me to get onboard into Pulsar. > > Another aspect worth noting is: community increase. In my own opinion, > documents with clarity and enough background information produce a feeling > of quality - high quality. Making Pulsar PIPs clear and have all > information to understand them will help grow Pulsar adoption. > > Maybe incremental improvements are better.. If I understand correctly, both > Enrico and Yunze - you are ok with having a summary template, but have it > non-required? > > Enrico - Regarding previous suggestions. Root cause - help make Pulsar > better from my own perspective. Some suggestions may be super bad > suggestions and hopefully some will be good :) > This specific one - I validated with the PMC members in the weekly zoom > meeting roughly 3 weeks ago, and got +1 across the board (we had 5 people). > I did it since I felt it was a touchy subject. > > Thanks, > > Asaf > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 9:15 AM Yunze Xu <y...@streamnative.io.invalid> > wrote: > > > Basically I think describing how much work the reviewer did to give > > his +1 is good. Just like the vote for a release, each +1 follows with > > the verifications he did, e.g. here [1] is a vote for Pulsar 2.11.1 > > candidate 1: > > > > > • Built from the source package (maven 3.8.6 OpenJDK 17.0) > > > • Ran binary package standalone with pub/sub > > > ... > > > > But I don't think forcing the rule is good. The proposal could > > sometimes be not so complicated. From my personal experience, > > sometimes I vote my +1 just because I think it's good and there is no > > serious problem. If you want me to vote again with the checklist, I > > might still not have an idea of what I should write, unless there is a > > template and I filled the template. Only if the proposal is somehow > > complicated will the checklist be meaningful, like the PIP-192, which > > is a very complicated proposal. > > > > > Moreover, this checklist can ensure that all participants have > > thoroughly reviewed the PIP, > > > > Regarding this point from Xiangying, I want to repeat a similar > > thought [2] for the previous discussion. > > > > IF ANYONE WANT, HE CAN STILL COPY A CHECKLIST FROM OTHERS AND JUST > > PERFORM SOME SLIGHTLY CHANGES. > > > > Forcing a checklist won't change anything if there is a PMC that gave > > his vote without any careful review. It just makes the rule more > > complicated. If you don't trust a PMC, no rule could restrict him. > > Rules only make him a better game player. > > > > In addition, when a reviewer approves a PR, should he add a checklist > > as well, instead of a simple LGTM or +1? Huge PRs appear more often > > than complicated proposals. > > > > In conclusion, I am +0 to this suggestion. If this suggestion is > > passed, I will follow it well. But if I cannot think of a checklist > > with a proposal, I will try to be a good vote game player. > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/13xmt4jdwmlo1mo5dhkxlg9pnkfdwjjj > > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/o0vw1dfoo84pscfd46gdm3sm9mvovmr2 > > > > Thanks, > > Yunze > > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 3:48 PM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > I don't think it will bring more burden on reviewers. > > > It will only provide a checklist for reviewers before > > > you vote +1 or -1. It could be done in 1 minute if you > > > did a great proposal review. Of course, if you are > > > missing some aspects that should be reviewed, > > > This will make the reviewer spend more time reviewing > > > the missing items, but it is valuable. > > > > > > I don't think this proposal is accusing PMCs, but PMCs > > > might also miss some items. The checklist can help PMCs > > > to avoid missing items. Actually, I think every PMC has > > > checklist for a proposal review. It might be recorded in > > > a tiny notebook, or in his brain. Now, the proposal provides > > > a way to share your experience of proposal review. > > > > > > And we are actually doing the same thing in the voting of > > > release. Everyone will provide a list of what they have > > > verified with +1 or -1. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Penghui > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 10:37 AM Xiangying Meng <xiangy...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
