Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Ryan Ernst]

+1

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 08:40 Tomoko Uchida 
wrote:

> Hi everyone!
>
> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub
> issue from Jira.
> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be
> good for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not
> familiar with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term
> committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation platform.
>
> You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current Jira
> issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
> Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.
>
> The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
>
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here is my +1
>
> *IMPORTANT NOTE*
> I set a local protocol for this vote.
> There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be effective
> if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from committers
> (including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC member votes
> are counted for the final result, the votes from all committers are
> important to make the vote result effective.
>
> If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand the
> term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient voters after
> the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless of the result.
> But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things are
> decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield a good
> outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the vote [4].
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
> [3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene
> [4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in person or
> virtually any of the committers (with a very few exceptions), therefore
> cannot assess if the vote result is reliable or not unless there is certain
> explicit feedback.
>
>
> Tomoko
>

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Julie Tibshirani]

+1 (PMC) from me too!

On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 8:47 AM Michael Sokolov  wrote:

> Sorry I missed the first vote I think; also +1(pmc) from me. I'd be OK
> with some issues (esp. closed ones) being orphaned in the old system
> too.
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 9:20 AM Dawid Weiss  wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm fine with either system (or both used concurrently). There is
> significant research effort Tomoko did already and I support this effort:
> +1 from me.
> >
> > Dawid
> >
> > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:40 PM Tomoko Uchida <
> tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi everyone!
> >>
> >> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub
> issue from Jira.
> >> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be
> good for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not
> familiar with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term
> committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation platform.
> >>
> >> You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current
> Jira issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
> >> Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.
> >>
> >> The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
> >>
> >> [ ] +1  approve
> >> [ ] +0  no opinion
> >> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
> >>
> >> Here is my +1
> >>
> >> *IMPORTANT NOTE*
> >> I set a local protocol for this vote.
> >> There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be
> effective if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from
> committers (including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC
> member votes are counted for the final result, the votes from all
> committers are important to make the vote result effective.
> >>
> >> If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand
> the term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient voters
> after the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless of the
> result.
> >> But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things are
> decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield a good
> outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the vote [4].
> >>
> >> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk
> >> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
> >> [3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene
> >> [4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in person
> or virtually any of the committers (with a very few exceptions), therefore
> cannot assess if the vote result is reliable or not unless there is certain
> explicit feedback.
> >>
> >> Tomoko
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Michael Sokolov]

Sorry I missed the first vote I think; also +1(pmc) from me. I'd be OK
with some issues (esp. closed ones) being orphaned in the old system
too.

On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 9:20 AM Dawid Weiss  wrote:
>
>
> I'm fine with either system (or both used concurrently). There is significant 
> research effort Tomoko did already and I support this effort: +1 from me.
>
> Dawid
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:40 PM Tomoko Uchida  
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone!
>>
>> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub 
>> issue from Jira.
>> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be good 
>> for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not familiar 
>> with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term 
>> committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation platform.
>>
>> You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current Jira 
>> issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
>> Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.
>>
>> The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
>>
>> [ ] +1  approve
>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>
>> Here is my +1
>>
>> *IMPORTANT NOTE*
>> I set a local protocol for this vote.
>> There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be effective if 
>> it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from committers 
>> (including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC member votes are 
>> counted for the final result, the votes from all committers are important to 
>> make the vote result effective.
>>
>> If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand the 
>> term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient voters after 
>> the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless of the result.
>> But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things are 
>> decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield a good 
>> outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the vote [4].
>>
>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk
>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
>> [3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene
>> [4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in person or 
>> virtually any of the committers (with a very few exceptions), therefore 
>> cannot assess if the vote result is reliable or not unless there is certain 
>> explicit feedback.
>>
>> Tomoko

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Dawid Weiss]

I'm fine with either system (or both used concurrently). There is
significant research effort Tomoko did already and I support this
effort: +1 from me.

Dawid

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:40 PM Tomoko Uchida 
wrote:

> Hi everyone!
>
> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub
> issue from Jira.
> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be
> good for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not
> familiar with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term
> committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation platform.
>
> You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current Jira
> issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
> Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.
>
> The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
>
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here is my +1
>
> *IMPORTANT NOTE*
> I set a local protocol for this vote.
> There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be effective
> if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from committers
> (including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC member votes
> are counted for the final result, the votes from all committers are
> important to make the vote result effective.
>
> If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand the
> term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient voters after
> the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless of the result.
> But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things are
> decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield a good
> outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the vote [4].
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
> [3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene
> [4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in person or
> virtually any of the committers (with a very few exceptions), therefore
> cannot assess if the vote result is reliable or not unless there is certain
> explicit feedback.
>
> Tomoko
>

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Atri Sharma]

+1(pmc)

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022, 18:04 Michael McCandless, 
wrote:

> +1 (PMC)
>
> Mike
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 7:57 AM Robert Muir  wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:40 AM Tomoko Uchida
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi everyone!
>> >
>> > As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub
>> issue from Jira.
>> > It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be
>> good for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not
>> familiar with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term
>> committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation platform.
>> >
>> > You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current
>> Jira issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
>> > Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.
>> >
>> > The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
>> >
>> > [ ] +1  approve
>> > [ ] +0  no opinion
>> > [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>> >
>> > Here is my +1
>> >
>> > *IMPORTANT NOTE*
>> > I set a local protocol for this vote.
>> > There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be
>> effective if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from
>> committers (including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC
>> member votes are counted for the final result, the votes from all
>> committers are important to make the vote result effective.
>> >
>> > If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand
>> the term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient voters
>> after the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless of the
>> result.
>> > But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things are
>> decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield a good
>> outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the vote [4].
>> >
>> > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk
>> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
>> > [3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene
>> > [4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in person
>> or virtually any of the committers (with a very few exceptions), therefore
>> cannot assess if the vote result is reliable or not unless there is certain
>> explicit feedback.
>> >
>> > Tomoko
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>>
>> --
> Mike McCandless
>
> http://blog.mikemccandless.com
>

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Michael McCandless]

+1 (PMC)

Mike

On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 7:57 AM Robert Muir  wrote:

> +1
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:40 AM Tomoko Uchida
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone!
> >
> > As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub
> issue from Jira.
> > It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be
> good for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not
> familiar with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term
> committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation platform.
> >
> > You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current
> Jira issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
> > Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.
> >
> > The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
> >
> > [ ] +1  approve
> > [ ] +0  no opinion
> > [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
> >
> > Here is my +1
> >
> > *IMPORTANT NOTE*
> > I set a local protocol for this vote.
> > There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be effective
> if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from committers
> (including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC member votes
> are counted for the final result, the votes from all committers are
> important to make the vote result effective.
> >
> > If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand
> the term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient voters
> after the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless of the
> result.
> > But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things are
> decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield a good
> outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the vote [4].
> >
> > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
> > [3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene
> > [4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in person
> or virtually any of the committers (with a very few exceptions), therefore
> cannot assess if the vote result is reliable or not unless there is certain
> explicit feedback.
> >
> > Tomoko
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
> --
Mike McCandless

http://blog.mikemccandless.com

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Robert Muir]

+1

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:40 AM Tomoko Uchida
 wrote:
>
> Hi everyone!
>
> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub issue 
> from Jira.
> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be good 
> for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not familiar 
> with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term 
> committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation platform.
>
> You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current Jira 
> issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
> Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.
>
> The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
>
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here is my +1
>
> *IMPORTANT NOTE*
> I set a local protocol for this vote.
> There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be effective if 
> it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from committers 
> (including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC member votes are 
> counted for the final result, the votes from all committers are important to 
> make the vote result effective.
>
> If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand the 
> term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient voters after 
> the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless of the result.
> But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things are 
> decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield a good 
> outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the vote [4].
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
> [3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene
> [4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in person or 
> virtually any of the committers (with a very few exceptions), therefore 
> cannot assess if the vote result is reliable or not unless there is certain 
> explicit feedback.
>
> Tomoko

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Adrien Grand]

+1 (PMC)

On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 9:09 AM Bruno Roustant 
wrote:

> +0 (PMC)
>
> While I like the simplification, I'm a little concerned by the risk of
> disruption in history.
>
> Le mar. 7 juin 2022 à 05:07, Tomoko Uchida 
> a écrit :
>
>> I'm sorry there was a mistake in the important date. This is the
>> corrected version.
>>
>> ==
>> this vote received 13 ballots in total (including +1, +0, and -1) so
>> far, this does not reach the quorum of 15. I'll extend the term to
>> 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC.
>>
>> This is a friendly reminder note in case you have missed it in my first
>> post.
>>
>> *IMPORTANT NOTE*
>> I set a local protocol for this vote.
>> There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be
>> effective if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15)
>> from committers (including PMC members). This means, that although
>> only PMC member votes are counted for the final result, the votes from
>> all committers are important to make the vote result effective.
>>
>> If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand
>> the term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient
>> voters after the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless
>> of the result.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tomoko
>>
>> 2022年6月7日(火) 12:03 Tomoko Uchida :
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> > this vote received 13 ballots in total (including +1, +0, and -1) so
>> > far, this does not reach the quorum of 15. I'll extend the term to
>> > 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
>> >
>> > This is a friendly reminder note in case you have missed it in my first
>> post.
>> >
>> > *IMPORTANT NOTE*
>> > I set a local protocol for this vote.
>> > There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be
>> > effective if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15)
>> > from committers (including PMC members). This means, that although
>> > only PMC member votes are counted for the final result, the votes from
>> > all committers are important to make the vote result effective.
>> >
>> > If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand
>> > the term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient
>> > voters after the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless
>> > of the result.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Tomoko
>> >
>> > 2022年6月1日(水) 6:19 Alessandro Benedetti :
>> > >
>> > > +1(committer, non PMC)
>> > >
>> > > Lately I kinda feel having to create the Jira, after I detailed a
>> contribution in the pull request, is just a boilerplate activity of copying
>> and pasting and tagging again.
>> > > I would be happy to reduce this burden.
>> > > I left other details in the discussion thread.
>> > >
>> > > Cheers
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, 31 May 2022, 21:19 Jason Gerlowski, 
>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> +1 (PMC)
>> > >>
>> > >> I understand concerns about handing governance over to a 3rd party,
>> but letting that drive our decision-making here feels like optimizing for a
>> rare case that might never occur.  I'd m,uch rather optimize for making
>> things easiest for contributors, and then accommodate any "Github ToS ban,
>> sanctions, etc." situations if and when they crop up on a case by case
>> basis.
>> > >>
>> > >> Best,
>> > >>
>> > >> Jason
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 10:09 AM Gus Heck 
>> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> -1 I think the disruption and bifurcation of where to find history
>> is not worth it. I also noticed a comment in the lucene issue for migration
>> with summaries by date range, status, affects version,  etc. sub-area,
>> exactly the sort of thing I expect to be much more difficult to obtain from
>> github. What I would find interesting is a deep integration of the two
>> systems so that initiation and basic commenting could be handled on github,
>> but transmitted to Jira where full metadata and reporting/tracking could be
>> maintained.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 12:17 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> >  -1
>> > 
>> >  On Tue, 31 May, 2022, 4:06 am Xi Chen,
>>  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > +1 from me (committer, non-PMC)
>> > >
>> > > Thanks Tomoko for starting the discussion and organizing /
>> leading this effort!
>> > >
>> > > Best,
>> > > Zach
>> > >
>> > > On May 30, 2022, at 2:56 PM, Houston Putman 
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > 
>> > > +1 Approve (PMC)
>> > >
>> > > Thanks so much for doing all of the work for this Tomoko!
>> > >
>> > > - Houston
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:38 PM David Smiley 
>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> +1 Approve (PMC)
>> > >>
>> > >> ~ David Smiley
>> > >> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>> > >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:40 AM Tomoko Uchida <
>> tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Hi everyone!
>> > >>>
>> > >>> As we had previous 

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Bruno Roustant]

+0 (PMC)

While I like the simplification, I'm a little concerned by the risk of
disruption in history.

Le mar. 7 juin 2022 à 05:07, Tomoko Uchida  a
écrit :

> I'm sorry there was a mistake in the important date. This is the
> corrected version.
>
> ==
> this vote received 13 ballots in total (including +1, +0, and -1) so
> far, this does not reach the quorum of 15. I'll extend the term to
> 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC.
>
> This is a friendly reminder note in case you have missed it in my first
> post.
>
> *IMPORTANT NOTE*
> I set a local protocol for this vote.
> There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be
> effective if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15)
> from committers (including PMC members). This means, that although
> only PMC member votes are counted for the final result, the votes from
> all committers are important to make the vote result effective.
>
> If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand
> the term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient
> voters after the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless
> of the result.
>
> Thanks,
> Tomoko
>
> 2022年6月7日(火) 12:03 Tomoko Uchida :
> >
> > Hi all,
> > this vote received 13 ballots in total (including +1, +0, and -1) so
> > far, this does not reach the quorum of 15. I'll extend the term to
> > 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
> >
> > This is a friendly reminder note in case you have missed it in my first
> post.
> >
> > *IMPORTANT NOTE*
> > I set a local protocol for this vote.
> > There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be
> > effective if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15)
> > from committers (including PMC members). This means, that although
> > only PMC member votes are counted for the final result, the votes from
> > all committers are important to make the vote result effective.
> >
> > If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand
> > the term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient
> > voters after the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless
> > of the result.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tomoko
> >
> > 2022年6月1日(水) 6:19 Alessandro Benedetti :
> > >
> > > +1(committer, non PMC)
> > >
> > > Lately I kinda feel having to create the Jira, after I detailed a
> contribution in the pull request, is just a boilerplate activity of copying
> and pasting and tagging again.
> > > I would be happy to reduce this burden.
> > > I left other details in the discussion thread.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 31 May 2022, 21:19 Jason Gerlowski, 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +1 (PMC)
> > >>
> > >> I understand concerns about handing governance over to a 3rd party,
> but letting that drive our decision-making here feels like optimizing for a
> rare case that might never occur.  I'd m,uch rather optimize for making
> things easiest for contributors, and then accommodate any "Github ToS ban,
> sanctions, etc." situations if and when they crop up on a case by case
> basis.
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >>
> > >> Jason
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 10:09 AM Gus Heck  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> -1 I think the disruption and bifurcation of where to find history
> is not worth it. I also noticed a comment in the lucene issue for migration
> with summaries by date range, status, affects version,  etc. sub-area,
> exactly the sort of thing I expect to be much more difficult to obtain from
> github. What I would find interesting is a deep integration of the two
> systems so that initiation and basic commenting could be handled on github,
> but transmitted to Jira where full metadata and reporting/tracking could be
> maintained.
> > >>>
> > >>> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 12:17 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >  -1
> > 
> >  On Tue, 31 May, 2022, 4:06 am Xi Chen,
>  wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 from me (committer, non-PMC)
> > >
> > > Thanks Tomoko for starting the discussion and organizing / leading
> this effort!
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Zach
> > >
> > > On May 30, 2022, at 2:56 PM, Houston Putman 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > +1 Approve (PMC)
> > >
> > > Thanks so much for doing all of the work for this Tomoko!
> > >
> > > - Houston
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:38 PM David Smiley 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> +1 Approve (PMC)
> > >>
> > >> ~ David Smiley
> > >> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> > >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:40 AM Tomoko Uchida <
> tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi everyone!
> > >>>
> > >>> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to
> GitHub issue from Jira.
> > >>> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think
> it'd be good for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Tomoko Uchida]

I'm sorry there was a mistake in the important date. This is the
corrected version.

==
this vote received 13 ballots in total (including +1, +0, and -1) so
far, this does not reach the quorum of 15. I'll extend the term to
2022-06-13 16:00 UTC.

This is a friendly reminder note in case you have missed it in my first post.

*IMPORTANT NOTE*
I set a local protocol for this vote.
There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be
effective if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15)
from committers (including PMC members). This means, that although
only PMC member votes are counted for the final result, the votes from
all committers are important to make the vote result effective.

If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand
the term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient
voters after the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless
of the result.

Thanks,
Tomoko

2022年6月7日(火) 12:03 Tomoko Uchida :
>
> Hi all,
> this vote received 13 ballots in total (including +1, +0, and -1) so
> far, this does not reach the quorum of 15. I'll extend the term to
> 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
>
> This is a friendly reminder note in case you have missed it in my first post.
>
> *IMPORTANT NOTE*
> I set a local protocol for this vote.
> There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be
> effective if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15)
> from committers (including PMC members). This means, that although
> only PMC member votes are counted for the final result, the votes from
> all committers are important to make the vote result effective.
>
> If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand
> the term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient
> voters after the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless
> of the result.
>
> Thanks,
> Tomoko
>
> 2022年6月1日(水) 6:19 Alessandro Benedetti :
> >
> > +1(committer, non PMC)
> >
> > Lately I kinda feel having to create the Jira, after I detailed a 
> > contribution in the pull request, is just a boilerplate activity of copying 
> > and pasting and tagging again.
> > I would be happy to reduce this burden.
> > I left other details in the discussion thread.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 31 May 2022, 21:19 Jason Gerlowski,  wrote:
> >>
> >> +1 (PMC)
> >>
> >> I understand concerns about handing governance over to a 3rd party, but 
> >> letting that drive our decision-making here feels like optimizing for a 
> >> rare case that might never occur.  I'd m,uch rather optimize for making 
> >> things easiest for contributors, and then accommodate any "Github ToS ban, 
> >> sanctions, etc." situations if and when they crop up on a case by case 
> >> basis.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Jason
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 10:09 AM Gus Heck  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> -1 I think the disruption and bifurcation of where to find history is not 
> >>> worth it. I also noticed a comment in the lucene issue for migration with 
> >>> summaries by date range, status, affects version,  etc. sub-area, exactly 
> >>> the sort of thing I expect to be much more difficult to obtain from 
> >>> github. What I would find interesting is a deep integration of the two 
> >>> systems so that initiation and basic commenting could be handled on 
> >>> github, but transmitted to Jira where full metadata and 
> >>> reporting/tracking could be maintained.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 12:17 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya 
> >>>  wrote:
> 
>  -1
> 
>  On Tue, 31 May, 2022, 4:06 am Xi Chen,  
>  wrote:
> >
> > +1 from me (committer, non-PMC)
> >
> > Thanks Tomoko for starting the discussion and organizing / leading this 
> > effort!
> >
> > Best,
> > Zach
> >
> > On May 30, 2022, at 2:56 PM, Houston Putman  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > +1 Approve (PMC)
> >
> > Thanks so much for doing all of the work for this Tomoko!
> >
> > - Houston
> >
> > On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:38 PM David Smiley  wrote:
> >>
> >> +1 Approve (PMC)
> >>
> >> ~ David Smiley
> >> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:40 AM Tomoko Uchida 
> >>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi everyone!
> >>>
> >>> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to 
> >>> GitHub issue from Jira.
> >>> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd 
> >>> be good for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who 
> >>> are not familiar with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of 
> >>> long-term committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation 
> >>> platform.
> >>>
> >>> You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current 
> >>> Jira issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
> >>> 

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Tomoko Uchida]

Hi all,
this vote received 13 ballots in total (including +1, +0, and -1) so
far, this does not reach the quorum of 15. I'll extend the term to
2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.

This is a friendly reminder note in case you have missed it in my first post.

*IMPORTANT NOTE*
I set a local protocol for this vote.
There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be
effective if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15)
from committers (including PMC members). This means, that although
only PMC member votes are counted for the final result, the votes from
all committers are important to make the vote result effective.

If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand
the term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient
voters after the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless
of the result.

Thanks,
Tomoko

2022年6月1日(水) 6:19 Alessandro Benedetti :
>
> +1(committer, non PMC)
>
> Lately I kinda feel having to create the Jira, after I detailed a 
> contribution in the pull request, is just a boilerplate activity of copying 
> and pasting and tagging again.
> I would be happy to reduce this burden.
> I left other details in the discussion thread.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> On Tue, 31 May 2022, 21:19 Jason Gerlowski,  wrote:
>>
>> +1 (PMC)
>>
>> I understand concerns about handing governance over to a 3rd party, but 
>> letting that drive our decision-making here feels like optimizing for a rare 
>> case that might never occur.  I'd m,uch rather optimize for making things 
>> easiest for contributors, and then accommodate any "Github ToS ban, 
>> sanctions, etc." situations if and when they crop up on a case by case basis.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 10:09 AM Gus Heck  wrote:
>>>
>>> -1 I think the disruption and bifurcation of where to find history is not 
>>> worth it. I also noticed a comment in the lucene issue for migration with 
>>> summaries by date range, status, affects version,  etc. sub-area, exactly 
>>> the sort of thing I expect to be much more difficult to obtain from github. 
>>> What I would find interesting is a deep integration of the two systems so 
>>> that initiation and basic commenting could be handled on github, but 
>>> transmitted to Jira where full metadata and reporting/tracking could be 
>>> maintained.
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 12:17 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya 
>>>  wrote:

 -1

 On Tue, 31 May, 2022, 4:06 am Xi Chen,  
 wrote:
>
> +1 from me (committer, non-PMC)
>
> Thanks Tomoko for starting the discussion and organizing / leading this 
> effort!
>
> Best,
> Zach
>
> On May 30, 2022, at 2:56 PM, Houston Putman  wrote:
>
> 
> +1 Approve (PMC)
>
> Thanks so much for doing all of the work for this Tomoko!
>
> - Houston
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:38 PM David Smiley  wrote:
>>
>> +1 Approve (PMC)
>>
>> ~ David Smiley
>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:40 AM Tomoko Uchida 
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi everyone!
>>>
>>> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub 
>>> issue from Jira.
>>> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be 
>>> good for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are 
>>> not familiar with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of 
>>> long-term committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation 
>>> platform.
>>>
>>> You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current 
>>> Jira issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
>>> Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.
>>>
>>> The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1  approve
>>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>>
>>> Here is my +1
>>>
>>> *IMPORTANT NOTE*
>>> I set a local protocol for this vote.
>>> There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be 
>>> effective if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from 
>>> committers (including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC 
>>> member votes are counted for the final result, the votes from all 
>>> committers are important to make the vote result effective.
>>>
>>> If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand 
>>> the term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient 
>>> voters after the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless 
>>> of the result.
>>> But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things are 
>>> decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield a 
>>> good outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the 

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Alessandro Benedetti]

+1(committer, non PMC)

Lately I kinda feel having to create the Jira, after I detailed a
contribution in the pull request, is just a boilerplate activity of copying
and pasting and tagging again.
I would be happy to reduce this burden.
I left other details in the discussion thread.

Cheers


On Tue, 31 May 2022, 21:19 Jason Gerlowski,  wrote:

> +1 (PMC)
>
> I understand concerns about handing governance over to a 3rd party, but
> letting that drive our decision-making here feels like optimizing for a
> rare case that might never occur.  I'd m,uch rather optimize for making
> things easiest for contributors, and then accommodate any "Github ToS ban,
> sanctions, etc." situations if and when they crop up on a case by case
> basis.
>
> Best,
>
> Jason
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 10:09 AM Gus Heck  wrote:
>
>> -1 I think the disruption and bifurcation of where to find history is not
>> worth it. I also noticed a comment in the lucene issue for migration with
>> summaries by date range, status, affects version,  etc. sub-area, exactly
>> the sort of thing I expect to be much more difficult to obtain from github.
>> What I would find interesting is a deep integration of the two systems so
>> that initiation and basic commenting could be handled on github, but
>> transmitted to Jira where full metadata and reporting/tracking could be
>> maintained.
>>
>> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 12:17 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
>> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> -1
>>>
>>> On Tue, 31 May, 2022, 4:06 am Xi Chen, 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 +1 from me (committer, non-PMC)

 Thanks Tomoko for starting the discussion and organizing / leading this
 effort!

 Best,
 Zach

 On May 30, 2022, at 2:56 PM, Houston Putman  wrote:

 
 +1 Approve (PMC)

 Thanks so much for doing all of the work for this Tomoko!

 - Houston

 On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:38 PM David Smiley 
 wrote:

> +1 Approve (PMC)
>
> ~ David Smiley
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:40 AM Tomoko Uchida <
> tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone!
>>
>> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to
>> GitHub issue from Jira.
>> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd
>> be good for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are 
>> not
>> familiar with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term
>> committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation platform.
>>
>> You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current
>> Jira issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
>> Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.
>>
>> The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
>>
>> [ ] +1  approve
>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>
>> Here is my +1
>>
>> *IMPORTANT NOTE*
>> I set a local protocol for this vote.
>> There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be
>> effective if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from
>> committers (including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC
>> member votes are counted for the final result, the votes from all
>> committers are important to make the vote result effective.
>>
>> If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will
>> expand the term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient
>> voters after the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless of
>> the result.
>> But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things
>> are decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield 
>> a
>> good outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the vote [4].
>>
>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk
>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
>> [3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene
>> [4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in
>> person or virtually any of the committers (with a very few exceptions),
>> therefore cannot assess if the vote result is reliable or not unless 
>> there
>> is certain explicit feedback.
>>
>> Tomoko
>>
>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work)
>> http://www.the111shift.com (play)
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Jason Gerlowski]

+1 (PMC)

I understand concerns about handing governance over to a 3rd party, but
letting that drive our decision-making here feels like optimizing for a
rare case that might never occur.  I'd m,uch rather optimize for making
things easiest for contributors, and then accommodate any "Github ToS ban,
sanctions, etc." situations if and when they crop up on a case by case
basis.

Best,

Jason

On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 10:09 AM Gus Heck  wrote:

> -1 I think the disruption and bifurcation of where to find history is not
> worth it. I also noticed a comment in the lucene issue for migration with
> summaries by date range, status, affects version,  etc. sub-area, exactly
> the sort of thing I expect to be much more difficult to obtain from github.
> What I would find interesting is a deep integration of the two systems so
> that initiation and basic commenting could be handled on github, but
> transmitted to Jira where full metadata and reporting/tracking could be
> maintained.
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 12:17 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
> ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> -1
>>
>> On Tue, 31 May, 2022, 4:06 am Xi Chen, 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 from me (committer, non-PMC)
>>>
>>> Thanks Tomoko for starting the discussion and organizing / leading this
>>> effort!
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Zach
>>>
>>> On May 30, 2022, at 2:56 PM, Houston Putman  wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> +1 Approve (PMC)
>>>
>>> Thanks so much for doing all of the work for this Tomoko!
>>>
>>> - Houston
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:38 PM David Smiley  wrote:
>>>
 +1 Approve (PMC)

 ~ David Smiley
 Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
 http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley


 On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:40 AM Tomoko Uchida <
 tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone!
>
> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to
> GitHub issue from Jira.
> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be
> good for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not
> familiar with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term
> committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation platform.
>
> You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current
> Jira issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
> Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.
>
> The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
>
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here is my +1
>
> *IMPORTANT NOTE*
> I set a local protocol for this vote.
> There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be
> effective if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from
> committers (including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC
> member votes are counted for the final result, the votes from all
> committers are important to make the vote result effective.
>
> If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand
> the term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient voters
> after the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless of the
> result.
> But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things are
> decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield a 
> good
> outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the vote [4].
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
> [3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene
> [4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in
> person or virtually any of the committers (with a very few exceptions),
> therefore cannot assess if the vote result is reliable or not unless there
> is certain explicit feedback.
>
> Tomoko
>

>
> --
> http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work)
> http://www.the111shift.com (play)
>

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Gus Heck]

-1 I think the disruption and bifurcation of where to find history is not
worth it. I also noticed a comment in the lucene issue for migration with
summaries by date range, status, affects version,  etc. sub-area, exactly
the sort of thing I expect to be much more difficult to obtain from github.
What I would find interesting is a deep integration of the two systems so
that initiation and basic commenting could be handled on github, but
transmitted to Jira where full metadata and reporting/tracking could be
maintained.

On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 12:17 AM Ishan Chattopadhyaya <
ichattopadhy...@gmail.com> wrote:

> -1
>
> On Tue, 31 May, 2022, 4:06 am Xi Chen, 
> wrote:
>
>> +1 from me (committer, non-PMC)
>>
>> Thanks Tomoko for starting the discussion and organizing / leading this
>> effort!
>>
>> Best,
>> Zach
>>
>> On May 30, 2022, at 2:56 PM, Houston Putman  wrote:
>>
>> 
>> +1 Approve (PMC)
>>
>> Thanks so much for doing all of the work for this Tomoko!
>>
>> - Houston
>>
>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:38 PM David Smiley  wrote:
>>
>>> +1 Approve (PMC)
>>>
>>> ~ David Smiley
>>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:40 AM Tomoko Uchida <
>>> tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 Hi everyone!

 As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub
 issue from Jira.
 It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be
 good for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not
 familiar with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term
 committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation platform.

 You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current
 Jira issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
 Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.

 The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.

 [ ] +1  approve
 [ ] +0  no opinion
 [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)

 Here is my +1

 *IMPORTANT NOTE*
 I set a local protocol for this vote.
 There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be
 effective if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from
 committers (including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC
 member votes are counted for the final result, the votes from all
 committers are important to make the vote result effective.

 If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand
 the term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient voters
 after the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless of the
 result.
 But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things are
 decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield a good
 outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the vote [4].

 [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk
 [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
 [3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene
 [4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in person
 or virtually any of the committers (with a very few exceptions), therefore
 cannot assess if the vote result is reliable or not unless there is certain
 explicit feedback.

 Tomoko

>>>

-- 
http://www.needhamsoftware.com (work)
http://www.the111shift.com (play)

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Ishan Chattopadhyaya]

-1

On Tue, 31 May, 2022, 4:06 am Xi Chen, 
wrote:

> +1 from me (committer, non-PMC)
>
> Thanks Tomoko for starting the discussion and organizing / leading this
> effort!
>
> Best,
> Zach
>
> On May 30, 2022, at 2:56 PM, Houston Putman  wrote:
>
> 
> +1 Approve (PMC)
>
> Thanks so much for doing all of the work for this Tomoko!
>
> - Houston
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:38 PM David Smiley  wrote:
>
>> +1 Approve (PMC)
>>
>> ~ David Smiley
>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:40 AM Tomoko Uchida <
>> tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone!
>>>
>>> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub
>>> issue from Jira.
>>> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be
>>> good for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not
>>> familiar with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term
>>> committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation platform.
>>>
>>> You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current
>>> Jira issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
>>> Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.
>>>
>>> The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
>>>
>>> [ ] +1  approve
>>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>>
>>> Here is my +1
>>>
>>> *IMPORTANT NOTE*
>>> I set a local protocol for this vote.
>>> There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be effective
>>> if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from committers
>>> (including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC member votes
>>> are counted for the final result, the votes from all committers are
>>> important to make the vote result effective.
>>>
>>> If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand
>>> the term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient voters
>>> after the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless of the
>>> result.
>>> But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things are
>>> decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield a good
>>> outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the vote [4].
>>>
>>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk
>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
>>> [3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene
>>> [4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in person
>>> or virtually any of the committers (with a very few exceptions), therefore
>>> cannot assess if the vote result is reliable or not unless there is certain
>>> explicit feedback.
>>>
>>> Tomoko
>>>
>>

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Xi Chen]

+1 from me (committer, non-PMC)

Thanks Tomoko for starting the discussion and organizing / leading this effort!

Best,
Zach

> On May 30, 2022, at 2:56 PM, Houston Putman  wrote:
> 
> 
> +1 Approve (PMC)
> 
> Thanks so much for doing all of the work for this Tomoko!
> 
> - Houston
> 
>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:38 PM David Smiley  wrote:
>> +1 Approve (PMC)
>> 
>> ~ David Smiley
>> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:40 AM Tomoko Uchida 
>>>  wrote:
>>> Hi everyone!
>>> 
>>> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub 
>>> issue from Jira.
>>> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be good 
>>> for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not 
>>> familiar with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term 
>>> committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation platform.
>>> 
>>> You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current Jira 
>>> issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
>>> Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.
>>> 
>>> The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
>>> 
>>> [ ] +1  approve
>>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>> 
>>> Here is my +1
>>> 
>>> *IMPORTANT NOTE*
>>> I set a local protocol for this vote.
>>> There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be effective if 
>>> it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from committers 
>>> (including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC member votes 
>>> are counted for the final result, the votes from all committers are 
>>> important to make the vote result effective.
>>> 
>>> If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand the 
>>> term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient voters after 
>>> the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless of the result.
>>> But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things are 
>>> decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield a good 
>>> outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the vote [4].
>>> 
>>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk
>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
>>> [3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene
>>> [4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in person or 
>>> virtually any of the committers (with a very few exceptions), therefore 
>>> cannot assess if the vote result is reliable or not unless there is certain 
>>> explicit feedback.
>>> 
>>> Tomoko

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Jan Høydahl]

+1 Approve (PMC)

I'm not worried about reliance on GitHub as it is already approved by ASF. This 
will lower the barrier to participation for new contributors.

- Jan

> 30. mai 2022 kl. 17:39 skrev Tomoko Uchida :
> 
> Hi everyone!
> 
> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub issue 
> from Jira.
> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be good 
> for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not familiar 
> with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term 
> committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation platform.
> 
> You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current Jira 
> issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
> Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.
> 
> The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
> 
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
> 
> Here is my +1
> 
> *IMPORTANT NOTE*
> I set a local protocol for this vote.
> There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be effective if 
> it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from committers 
> (including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC member votes are 
> counted for the final result, the votes from all committers are important to 
> make the vote result effective.
> 
> If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand the 
> term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient voters after 
> the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless of the result.
> But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things are 
> decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield a good 
> outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the vote [4].
> 
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk 
> 
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557 
> 
> [3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene 
> 
> [4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in person or 
> virtually any of the committers (with a very few exceptions), therefore 
> cannot assess if the vote result is reliable or not unless there is certain 
> explicit feedback.
> 
> Tomoko

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Houston Putman]

+1 Approve (PMC)

Thanks so much for doing all of the work for this Tomoko!

- Houston

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 5:38 PM David Smiley  wrote:

> +1 Approve (PMC)
>
> ~ David Smiley
> Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley
>
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:40 AM Tomoko Uchida <
> tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone!
>>
>> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub
>> issue from Jira.
>> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be
>> good for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not
>> familiar with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term
>> committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation platform.
>>
>> You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current Jira
>> issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
>> Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.
>>
>> The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
>>
>> [ ] +1  approve
>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>
>> Here is my +1
>>
>> *IMPORTANT NOTE*
>> I set a local protocol for this vote.
>> There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be effective
>> if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from committers
>> (including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC member votes
>> are counted for the final result, the votes from all committers are
>> important to make the vote result effective.
>>
>> If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand
>> the term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient voters
>> after the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless of the
>> result.
>> But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things are
>> decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield a good
>> outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the vote [4].
>>
>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk
>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
>> [3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene
>> [4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in person
>> or virtually any of the committers (with a very few exceptions), therefore
>> cannot assess if the vote result is reliable or not unless there is certain
>> explicit feedback.
>>
>> Tomoko
>>
>

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[David Smiley]

+1 Approve (PMC)

~ David Smiley
Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley


On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:40 AM Tomoko Uchida 
wrote:

> Hi everyone!
>
> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub
> issue from Jira.
> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be
> good for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not
> familiar with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term
> committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation platform.
>
> You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current Jira
> issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
> Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.
>
> The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
>
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here is my +1
>
> *IMPORTANT NOTE*
> I set a local protocol for this vote.
> There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be effective
> if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from committers
> (including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC member votes
> are counted for the final result, the votes from all committers are
> important to make the vote result effective.
>
> If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand the
> term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient voters after
> the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless of the result.
> But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things are
> decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield a good
> outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the vote [4].
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
> [3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene
> [4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in person or
> virtually any of the committers (with a very few exceptions), therefore
> cannot assess if the vote result is reliable or not unless there is certain
> explicit feedback.
>
> Tomoko
>

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Andi Vajda]

-1 (PMC, but not a veto)

Why ? As stated earlier, I'm not confortable with depending on GitHub for 
governance. As long as Lucene is an "Apache" project, I'd like Apache 
governance to determine who may or may not participate, not GitHub. I'd like 
Apache to determine what is and is not "acceptable behavior" from project 
participants.


That being said, the reasons for migrating off of Jira are all sound and, as 
an alternative, I propose that we consider moving to an Apache-hosted 
instance of GitLab. We'd still get all the benefits of migrating off of Jira 
but also the benefits of Apache running our infrastructure and setting our 
governance. Feature-wise, GitHub and GitLab are very similar but GitLab 
offers the possibility of self-hosting our instance.


Andi..

On Tue, 31 May 2022, Tomoko Uchida wrote:


Hi everyone!

As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub
issue from Jira.
It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be good
for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not
familiar with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term
committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation platform.

You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current Jira
issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.

The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.

[ ] +1  approve
[ ] +0  no opinion
[ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)

Here is my +1

*IMPORTANT NOTE*
I set a local protocol for this vote.
There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be effective if
it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from committers
(including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC member votes
are counted for the final result, the votes from all committers are
important to make the vote result effective.

If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand the
term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient voters after
the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless of the result.
But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things are
decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield a good
outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the vote [4].

[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
[3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene
[4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in person or
virtually any of the committers (with a very few exceptions), therefore
cannot assess if the vote result is reliable or not unless there is certain
explicit feedback.

Tomoko



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Walter Underwood]

So 15% is a quorum for votes.

wunder
Walter Underwood
wun...@wunderwood.org
http://observer.wunderwood.org/  (my blog)

> On May 30, 2022, at 1:14 PM, Tomoko Uchida  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi, 
> thank you for participating for this!
> 
> I may need to clarify the local rule I set.
> "15 votes" threshold means literally 15 votes, that includes approval(+1), 
> disapproval(-1), and no opinion(+0).
> I don't mean we need 15 approvals or 15 disapprovals to make the dicision - 
> it could be too high hurdle for both side I think.
> 
> I mean, I need at least "15 participants" who pay attention/take time on it 
> and decide to cast their valuable votes for this proposal.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tomoko
> 
> 
> 2022年5月31日(火) 4:04 Dragan Ivanovic  >:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> Not sure whether this email might help you, but let me share the VIVO 
> community experience with this issue. We have migrated JIRA issues available 
> at https://vivo-project.atlassian.net/jira/software/c/projects/VIVO/issues/ 
>  to 
> GitHub issues available athttps://github.com/vivo-project/VIVO/issues 
> . We used a customized version 
> of this project - https://github.com/rstoyanchev/jira-to-gh-issues 
>   (our customization is 
> available at https://github.com/chenejac/jira-to-gh-issues 
> ). Basically, it is possible 
> to migrate issues, not perfect, but majority of information is there, and we 
> are happy with our decision to move to GitHub issues. 
> 
> Good luck with migration.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dragan Ivanovic
> 
> the VIVO tech lead
> 
> On 5/30/2022 8:53 PM, Patrick Zhai wrote:
>> Thank you Tomoko for starting the vote, although I didn't participate in the 
>> last discussion but I'd love to see us moving towards the github issue.
>> 
>> So here's my +1 (committer, non-PMC)
>> 
>> BTW, by "the vote will be effective if it successfully gains more than 15% 
>> of voters (>= 15) from committers", do you mean to make it successful we 
>> need to collect 15 "+1" from committers or just 15 votes (regardless of the 
>> opinion)? 
>> 
>> Best
>> Patrick
>> 
>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tomoko Uchida > > wrote:
>> Hi everyone!
>> 
>> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub 
>> issue from Jira.
>> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be good 
>> for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not familiar 
>> with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term 
>> committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation platform.
>> 
>> You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current Jira 
>> issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
>> Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.
>> 
>> The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
>> 
>> [ ] +1  approve
>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>> 
>> Here is my +1
>> 
>> *IMPORTANT NOTE*
>> I set a local protocol for this vote.
>> There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be effective if 
>> it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from committers 
>> (including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC member votes are 
>> counted for the final result, the votes from all committers are important to 
>> make the vote result effective.
>> 
>> If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand the 
>> term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient voters after 
>> the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless of the result.
>> But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things are 
>> decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield a good 
>> outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the vote [4].
>> 
>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk 
>> 
>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557 
>> 
>> [3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene 
>> 
>> [4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in person or 
>> virtually any of the committers (with a very few exceptions), therefore 
>> cannot assess if the vote result is reliable or not unless there is certain 
>> explicit feedback.
>> 
>> Tomoko
> 
>  
> 
>   Virus-free. www.avast.com 
> 
>  
> 

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Mikhail Khludnev]

Hello, Tomoko.

+0

Thanks for moving it toward.

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 6:40 PM Tomoko Uchida 
wrote:

> Hi everyone!
>
> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub
> issue from Jira.
> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be
> good for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not
> familiar with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term
> committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation platform.
>
> You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current Jira
> issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
> Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.
>
> The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
>
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here is my +1
>
> *IMPORTANT NOTE*
> I set a local protocol for this vote.
> There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be effective
> if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from committers
> (including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC member votes
> are counted for the final result, the votes from all committers are
> important to make the vote result effective.
>
> If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand the
> term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient voters after
> the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless of the result.
> But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things are
> decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield a good
> outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the vote [4].
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
> [3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene
> [4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in person or
> virtually any of the committers (with a very few exceptions), therefore
> cannot assess if the vote result is reliable or not unless there is certain
> explicit feedback.
>
> Tomoko
>


-- 
Sincerely yours
Mikhail Khludnev

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Tomoko Uchida]

Hi,
thank you for participating for this!

I may need to clarify the local rule I set.
"15 votes" threshold means literally 15 votes, that includes approval(+1),
disapproval(-1), and no opinion(+0).
I don't mean we need 15 approvals or 15 disapprovals to make the dicision -
it could be too high hurdle for both side I think.

I mean, I need at least "15 participants" who pay attention/take time on it
and decide to cast their valuable votes for this proposal.

Thanks,
Tomoko


2022年5月31日(火) 4:04 Dragan Ivanovic :

> Hello everyone,
>
> Not sure whether this email might help you, but let me share the VIVO
> community experience with this issue. We have migrated JIRA issues
> available at
> https://vivo-project.atlassian.net/jira/software/c/projects/VIVO/issues/
> to GitHub issues available at https://github.com/vivo-project/VIVO/issues.
> We used a customized version of this project -
> https://github.com/rstoyanchev/jira-to-gh-issues  (our customization is
> available at https://github.com/chenejac/jira-to-gh-issues). Basically,
> it is possible to migrate issues, not perfect, but majority of information
> is there, and we are happy with our decision to move to GitHub issues.
>
> Good luck with migration.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dragan Ivanovic
>
> the VIVO tech lead
> On 5/30/2022 8:53 PM, Patrick Zhai wrote:
>
> Thank you Tomoko for starting the vote, although I didn't participate in
> the last discussion but I'd love to see us moving towards the github issue.
>
> So here's my +1 (committer, non-PMC)
>
> BTW, by "the vote will be effective if it successfully gains more than 15%
> of voters (>= 15) from committers", do you mean to make it successful we
> need to collect 15 "+1" from committers or just 15 votes (regardless of the
> opinion)?
>
> Best
> Patrick
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tomoko Uchida <
> tomoko.uchida.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone!
>>
>> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub
>> issue from Jira.
>> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be
>> good for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not
>> familiar with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term
>> committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation platform.
>>
>> You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current Jira
>> issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
>> Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.
>>
>> The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
>>
>> [ ] +1  approve
>> [ ] +0  no opinion
>> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>>
>> Here is my +1
>>
>> *IMPORTANT NOTE*
>> I set a local protocol for this vote.
>> There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be effective
>> if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from committers
>> (including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC member votes
>> are counted for the final result, the votes from all committers are
>> important to make the vote result effective.
>>
>> If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand
>> the term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient voters
>> after the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless of the
>> result.
>> But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things are
>> decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield a good
>> outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the vote [4].
>>
>> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk
>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
>> [3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene
>> [4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in person
>> or virtually any of the committers (with a very few exceptions), therefore
>> cannot assess if the vote result is reliable or not unless there is certain
>> explicit feedback.
>>
>> Tomoko
>>
>
>
> 
>  Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> 
> <#m_-2736906657232979281_m_-7706922548550600098_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Dragan Ivanovic]

Hello everyone,

Not sure whether this email might help you, but let me share the VIVO 
community experience with this issue. We have migrated JIRA issues 
available at 
https://vivo-project.atlassian.net/jira/software/c/projects/VIVO/issues/ 
to GitHub issues available at 
https://github.com/vivo-project/VIVO/issues. We used a customized 
version of this project - 
https://github.com/rstoyanchev/jira-to-gh-issues  (our customization is 
available at https://github.com/chenejac/jira-to-gh-issues). Basically, 
it is possible to migrate issues, not perfect, but majority of 
information is there, and we are happy with our decision to move to 
GitHub issues.


Good luck with migration.

Regards,

Dragan Ivanovic

the VIVO tech lead

On 5/30/2022 8:53 PM, Patrick Zhai wrote:
Thank you Tomoko for starting the vote, although I didn't participate 
in the last discussion but I'd love to see us moving towards the 
github issue.


So here's my +1 (committer, non-PMC)

BTW, by "the vote will be effective if it successfully gains more than 
15% of voters (>= 15) from committers", do you mean to make it 
successful we need to collect 15 "+1" from committers or just 15 votes 
(regardless of the opinion)?


Best
Patrick

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tomoko Uchida 
 wrote:


Hi everyone!

As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to
GitHub issue from Jira.
It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think
it'd be good for the project - not only for welcoming new
developers who are not familiar with Jira, but also for improving
the experiences of long-term committers/contributors by
consolidating the conversation platform.

You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on
current Jira issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.

The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.

[ ] +1  approve
[ ] +0  no opinion
[ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)

Here is my +1

*IMPORTANT NOTE*
I set a local protocol for this vote.
There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be
effective if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15)
from committers (including PMC members). This means, that although
only PMC member votes are counted for the final result, the votes
from all committers are important to make the vote result effective.

If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will
expand the term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get
sufficient voters after the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this
vote regardless of the result.
But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things
are decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't
yield a good outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass
the vote [4].

[1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
[3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene
[4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in
person or virtually any of the committers (with a very few
exceptions), therefore cannot assess if the vote result is
reliable or not unless there is certain explicit feedback.

Tomoko



--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Mike Drob]

+0

There’s other people who have thought about this much more than I have, but
I wouldn’t want my inaction to impact the increase 15 vote threshold.

Mike Drob

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 10:40 AM Tomoko Uchida 
wrote:

> Hi everyone!
>
> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub
> issue from Jira.
> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be
> good for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not
> familiar with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term
> committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation platform.
>
> You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current Jira
> issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
> Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.
>
> The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
>
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here is my +1
>
> *IMPORTANT NOTE*
> I set a local protocol for this vote.
> There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be effective
> if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from committers
> (including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC member votes
> are counted for the final result, the votes from all committers are
> important to make the vote result effective.
>
> If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand the
> term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient voters after
> the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless of the result.
> But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things are
> decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield a good
> outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the vote [4].
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
> [3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene
> [4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in person or
> virtually any of the committers (with a very few exceptions), therefore
> cannot assess if the vote result is reliable or not unless there is certain
> explicit feedback.
>
>
> Tomoko
>

Re: [VOTE] Migration to GitHub issue from Jira (LUCENE-10557)

[Patrick Zhai]

Thank you Tomoko for starting the vote, although I didn't participate in
the last discussion but I'd love to see us moving towards the github issue.

So here's my +1 (committer, non-PMC)

BTW, by "the vote will be effective if it successfully gains more than 15%
of voters (>= 15) from committers", do you mean to make it successful we
need to collect 15 "+1" from committers or just 15 votes (regardless of the
opinion)?

Best
Patrick

On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 8:41 AM Tomoko Uchida 
wrote:

> Hi everyone!
>
> As we had previous discussion thread [1], I propose migration to GitHub
> issue from Jira.
> It'd be technically possible (see [2] for details) and I think it'd be
> good for the project - not only for welcoming new developers who are not
> familiar with Jira, but also for improving the experiences of long-term
> committers/contributors by consolidating the conversation platform.
>
> You can see a short summary of the discussion, some stats on current Jira
> issues, and a draft migration plan in [2].
> Please review [2] if you haven't seen it and vote for this proposal.
>
> The vote will be open until 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC.
>
> [ ] +1  approve
> [ ] +0  no opinion
> [ ] -1  disapprove (and reason why)
>
> Here is my +1
>
> *IMPORTANT NOTE*
> I set a local protocol for this vote.
> There are 95 committers on this project [3] - the vote will be effective
> if it successfully gains more than 15% of voters (>= 15) from committers
> (including PMC members). This means, that although only PMC member votes
> are counted for the final result, the votes from all committers are
> important to make the vote result effective.
>
> If there are less than 15 votes at 2022-06-06 16:00 UTC, I will expand the
> term to 2022-06-13 16:00 UTC. If this fails to get sufficient voters after
> the expanded time limit, I'll cancel this vote regardless of the result.
> But why do I set such an extra bar? My fear is that if such things are
> decided by the opinions of a few members, the result shouldn't yield a good
> outcome for the future. It isn't my goal to just pass the vote [4].
>
> [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/78wj0vll73sct065m5jjm4z8gqb5yffk
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-10557
> [3] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?lucene
> [4] I'm sorry for being overly cautious, but I have never met in person or
> virtually any of the committers (with a very few exceptions), therefore
> cannot assess if the vote result is reliable or not unless there is certain
> explicit feedback.
>
> Tomoko
>