On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 10:27 AM Zixuan Liu <node...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we can reference https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > > Votes on code modifications follow a different model. In this scenario, > a negative vote constitutes a veto , which the voting group (generally the > PMC of a project) cannot override. Again, this model may be modified by a > lazy consensus declaration when the request for a vote is raised, but the > full-stop nature of a negative vote does not change. Under normal (non-lazy > consensus) conditions, the proposal requires three positive votes and no > negative votes in order to pass; if it fails to garner the requisite amount > of support, it doesn't. Then the proposer either withdraws the proposal or > modifies the code and resubmits it, or the proposal simply languishes as an > open issue until someone gets around to removing it. > > It seems that there is no need for three binding votes for code > modifications. If I am wrong, please point it out. > > I believe you may be wrong. Lazy Consensus is described here <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#LazyConsensus> as: Lazy consensus is simply an announcement of 'silence gives assent.' When > someone wants to determine the sense of the community this way, they might > do so with a mail message such as: > "The patch below fixes bug #8271847; if no-one objects within three > days, I'll assume lazy consensus and commit it." > You cannot apply lazy consensus to code changes when the > review-then-commit > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ReviewThenCommit> policy > is in effect. My understanding is that for the PIP process, we are using a review-then-commit policy, which actually means we can't use lazy consensus. The definition of a Lazy Consensus defined here <https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#LazyConsensus> is: A decision-making policy which assumes general consent if no responses are > posted within a defined period. For example, "I'm going to commit this by > lazy consensus if no-one objects within the next three days." Also see > Consensus > Approval > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#ConsensusApproval> , Majority > Approval > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#MajorityApproval> , and > the description of the voting process > <https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html>. So if I summarize, a PIP needs to follow the "the proposal requires three positive votes and no negative votes in order to pass;" > Thanks, > Zixuan > > Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> 于2023年6月21日周三 14:59写道： > > > > I'm not a committer or PMC member, so I can't comment on this. > > > > I am curious to know the difference between other Apache projects and > other > > foundation projects, such as CNCF, if you know about it. > > Do you think the Apache Foundation's view on individuals, not part of a > > commercial entity, does not live up to today's state of affairs? > > > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 10:40 PM Rajan Dhabalia <rdhaba...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > (" a lazy majority of at least 3 binding +1s votes") > > > > > > I don't think it's fair at this stage where majority Pulsar committers > are > > > mostly part of one enterprise and only their PIP/PRs are moving > forward and > > > PR/PIP created by other community members get blocked or not reviewed > > > without any major reasons. I can list down many different examples but > I > > > don't want to start that destructive discussion for now but I strongly > ask > > > to help other community members to let them contribute to Pulsar so, > we can > > > grow Pulsar community and let Pulsar be at the stage where it has > > > committers from various different institutions and we have good number > of > > > reviewers to review PIP/PR on time. > > > Right now, there are many examples where PRs are sitting unreviewed > for a > > > long time and we have to fix it first by encouraging and having more > > > committers/reviewers across multiple organizations as a part of the > Pulsar > > > community. So, this is not the right time to restrict and this is > > > indirectly making it difficult for many Pulsar committers and > contributors > > > who don't belong to specific enterprises. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Rajan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 12:14 PM Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > This is just a reminder that PMC/Committers can only merge the PIP PR > > > when > > > > the vote thread is concluded and in a positive manner, as described > (" a > > > > lazy > > > > majority of at least 3 binding +1s votes") > > > > > > > > So please, before clicking that merge button, double-check those two > > > > conditions > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > Asaf > > > > > > > >
