What would then be the next steps we'd take to collectively decide on plans and timelines moving forward? Might I suggest scheduling a conference call with appropriate PMCs to put our ideas together? Maybe such a discussion can take place at next week's meeting? Or do we need to have a separate formalized voting thread which is guided by a PMC?
My suggestion is to try to make concrete steps forward and to avoid letting
this slip through the cracks.
I also think there would be merits to having a project plan and estimates
around how long each of the features we want to complete is going to take to
implement and review.
-Matt Cheah
On 2/24/19, 3:05 PM, "Sean Owen" <sro...@apache.org> wrote:
Sure, I don't read anyone making these statements though? Let's assume
good intent, that "foo should happen" as "my opinion as a member of
the community, which is not solely up to me, is that foo should
happen". I understand it's possible for a person to make their opinion
over-weighted; this whole style of decision making assumes good actors
and doesn't optimize against bad ones. Not that it can't happen, just
not seeing it here.
I have never seen any vote on a feature list, by a PMC or otherwise.
We can do that if really needed I guess. But that also isn't the
authoritative process in play here, in contrast.
If there's not a more specific subtext or issue here, which is fine to
say (on private@ if it's sensitive or something), yes, let's move on
in good faith.
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 3:45 PM Mark Hamstra <m...@clearstorydata.com>
wrote:
> There is nothing wrong with individuals advocating for what they think
should or should not be in Spark 3.0, nor should anyone shy away from
explaining why they think delaying the release for some reason is or isn't a
good idea. What is a problem, or is at least something that I have a problem
with, are declarative, pseudo-authoritative statements that 3.0 (or some other
release) will or won't contain some feature, API, etc. or that some issue is or
is not blocker or worth delaying for. When the PMC has not voted on such
issues, I'm often left thinking, "Wait... what? Who decided that, or where did
that decision come from?"
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
