I cannot agree more with Dave's comments. I just reviewed PIP-261 and PIP-264 yesterday. When I gave +1 to PIP-261, I recalled this thread so I'm wondering if I can add a checklist. Eventually, I did not do that. IMO, it's the author's responsibility to give a checklist for authors to choose for his/her proposal. However, it burdens the new contributors to the community. PIPs should be more friendly to new contributors. That's also my perspective to Rajan's concern: we should still require a PIP for changes of metrics or configurations, but the process should be more friendly to new contributors.
When I reviewed PIP-264, I recalled PIP-45 and PIP-192 as well, while PIP-264 is much more huge than them. Accidentally, I was developing KoP for 2.8.0 (not released) when PIP-45 was in progress. It's really annoying to see the interfaces changed again and again in the master branch. The partner developers maintain their own version of Pulsar based on 2.6.x. It's also annoying for them to cherry-pick PRs from the master branch. PIP-192 is also a huge proposal. There are so many PRs for a proposal. From what I know, It seems the design was slightly changed when implementing it. Adding a checklist cannot solve the key issues for a huge proposal: - The design when being voted could be different from PRs - The changes could not be easily realized and eventually it was ignored - A complicated proposal could not be understood by many reviewers. If the author left the community, it could be a hard job to maintain it. > Being overly dependent on rules is not a replacement for open discussion. +1. I also hear voices to make some rules for cherry-picking PRs during the release process. But it's still necessary to start a discussion even if we have any rule. Thanks, Yunze On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 1:58 AM Dave Fisher <wave4d...@comcast.net> wrote: > > You asked. Here it is. > > 1. You brushed aside Enrico’s concerns with that comment. It was not subtle. > > 2. I think the project should pay more attention to Rajan’s concerns about > new contributors being either ignored or told they need a PIP for what seems > to them a trivial change. We lose contributors. We need to handle that more > gently by helping them figure how to better make their PR. > > 3. For minor PIPs this is too much. Minor PIPs should be easy. > > 4. For master PIPs like your OTel nothing here is enough. Experience with > PIP-45 and PIP-192 is that there will be breakage, divergence, and not > everyone will agree on the result. You worked for 11 months in apparent > secrecy, yet seemingly ignored Lari’s similar open discussion about scaling > which occurred in the same time frame. > > Being overly dependent on rules is not a replacement for open discussion. > > Sorry if this seems harsh, but this is what I think as an individual. > > The ASF has a saying “Community over Code” > > Best, > Dave > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On May 7, 2023, at 9:55 AM, Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I understand that Dave, and hence I only started a discussion. > > What do you think of last reply I made there? > > > > > >> On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 5:31 PM Dave Fisher <wave4d...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >>>> On Apr 18, 2023, at 5:14 AM, 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. > >> > >> Nothing discussed in that meeting was a decision. PMC Members in the > >> community meeting are not making PMC decisions. Decisions are ONLY made > >> here. Whatever you may think I said my intent was for you to start this > >> discussion and only that. > >> > >> Best, > >> Dave > >> > >>> > >>> 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 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> > >> >
