> On Sep 23, 2024, at 8:07 PM, Yunze Xu <x...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I have similar concerns for it. Some PIPs might not get enough
> attention. Generally I agree with the proposal that a PIP should be
> treated as "approved" if
> - there is at least 1 binding +1 vote
> - there is no binding -1 vote
> - the vote has started for over a month
>
> Additionally, if a PMC member gave a -1 vote, he/she should be
> responsible to actively respond to the proposal changes or
> explanations from the author. If the PMC member never respond to the
> PIP author for a long time, this binding -1 vote should also be
> invalidated.
A -1 without a technical reason should be considered invalid. Please see this
standard advice from the ASF: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto
An -1 from a PMC member on a PIP must stand if they provide a valid technical
reason. Ones that don’t should be immediately be considered invalid.
Best,
Dave
>
> Thanks,
> Yunze
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 7:52 AM Rajan Dhabalia <rdhaba...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have created this PIP a few months back and it is having relatively a
>> simple and non-breaking change, and voting is open for a while but this PIP
>> still has not received the required number of binding VOTE to move forward.
>> Another recent example is PIP-271 which is a very useful and simple api
>> change and we also would like to use it but VOTE is open for more than a
>> year now and not moving forward even after reminding multiple times. I
>> understand contributors of the projects would be busy and they also have
>> priorities to review specific PIPs which is part of their organization
>> interest but due to lack of bandwidth to review other PIPs, we are not able
>> to move forward with PIP and implementation even though those PIPs already
>> have partial approval with binding VOTE.
>> Therefore, I think we should improve the PIP process to encourage such
>> useful PIPs which are sitting for a long time to wait for complete
>> approval, and those PIP can be unblocked and move forward. So, we should
>> also add max waiting time for any PIP which has partial binding VOTE (at
>> least 1 binding VOTE) and non-negative binding VOTE can move forward after
>> waiting for max 1 month. This way , we can still have an approved review
>> from binding VOTE and max time can give contributors hope to get their
>> change available to get the benefit of Pulsar for their organization.
>> We should really improve the process as it is really painful for the org or
>> contributors who have to wait such long for useful changes in Pulsar.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rajan
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 8:08 AM Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 (binding)
>>>
>>> -Lari
>>>
>>> On 2024/09/04 04:38:01 Rajan Dhabalia wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to start a voting thread for PIP-326 to support the admin
>>> API
>>>> to read schema metadata and display in readable format.
>>>>
>>>> PIP design PR:
>>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/22913
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thread:
>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/8s8m6k7oprmkn3jpblgxqkdh6d8z43x2
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Rajan
>>>>
>>>
