Thanks for taking the time to address my concerns. > I've split the S3/HTTP URI flight pieces out into a separate document and > separate thing to vote on at the request of several people who wanted to > view these as two separate proposals to vote on. So this vote *only* covers > adopting the protocol spec as an "Experimental Protocol" so we can start > seeing real world usage to help refine and improve it. That said, I believe > all clients currently would reject any non-grpc URI.
Ah, I was confused and my comments were mostly about the s3/http proposal. Regarding the proposal at hand, I went through it in more detail. I don't know much about ucx so I considered two different use cases: * The previously mentioned shared memory approach. I think this is compelling as people have asked about shared memory communication from time to time and I've always suggested flight over unix sockets though that forces a copy. * I think this could also form the basis for large transfers of arrow data over a wasm boundary. Wasm has a concept of shared memory objects[1] and a wasm data library could use this to stream data into javascript without a copy. I've added a few more questions to the doc. Either way, if we're only talking about an experimental protocol / suggested recommendation then I'm fine voting +1 on this (I'm not sure a formal vote is even needed). I would want to see at least 2 implementations if we wanted to remove the experimental label. On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 2:43 PM Joel Lubinitsky <joell...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 to the dissociated transports proposal > > On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 11:14 AM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote: > > > +1 from me as before > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024, at 18:06, Matt Topol wrote: > > >> There is a word doc with no implementation or PR. I think there > could > > > be an implementation / PR. > > > > > > In the word doc there is a link to a POC implementation[1] showing this > > > protocol working with a flight service, ucx and libcudf. The key piece > > here > > > is that we're voting on adopting this protocol spec (i.e. I'll add it > to > > > the documentation website) rather than us explicitly providing full > > > implementations or abstractions around it. We can provide reference > > > implementations like the POC, but I don't think they should be in the > > Arrow > > > monorepo or else we run the risk of a lot of the same issues that > Flight > > > has: i.e. Adding anything to Flight in C++ requires fully wrapping the > > > grpc/flight primitives with Arrow equivalents to export which increases > > the > > > maintenance burden on us and makes it more difficult for users to > > leverage > > > the underlying knobs and dials. > > > > > >> For example, does any ADBC client respect this protocol today? If a > > > flight server responds with an S3/HTTP URI will the ADBC client > download > > > the files from the correct place? Will it at least notice that the URI > > is > > > not a GRPC URI and give a "I don't have a connector for downloading > from > > > HTTP/S3" error? > > > > > > I've split the S3/HTTP URI flight pieces out into a separate document > and > > > separate thing to vote on at the request of several people who wanted > to > > > view these as two separate proposals to vote on. So this vote *only* > > covers > > > adopting the protocol spec as an "Experimental Protocol" so we can > start > > > seeing real world usage to help refine and improve it. That said, I > > believe > > > all clients currently would reject any non-grpc URI. > > > > > >> I was speaking with someone yesterday and they explained that > > > they ended up not choosing Flight for an internal project because > Flight > > > didn't support something called "cloud fetch" which I have now learned > is > > > > > > I was reading through that link, and it seems like it's pretty much > > > *identical* to Flight as it currently exists, except that it is using > > cloud > > > storage (S3, GCS, etc.) URIs containing Arrow IPC *files*, rather than > a > > > service sitting in front of those serving up Arrow IPC *streams*. Which > > has > > > been requested by others in the community, hence the second proposal > that > > > was split out [2]. > > > > > >> So a big +1 for the idea of disassociated transports but I'm not sure > > why > > > we need a vote to start working on it (but I'm not opposed if a vote > > helps) > > > > > > Mostly I found that the google doc was easier for iterating on the > > protocol > > > specification than a markdown PR for the Arrow documentation as I could > > > more visually express things without a preview of the rendered > markdown. > > If > > > it would get people to be more likely to vote on this, I can write up > the > > > documentation markdown now and create a PR rather than waiting until we > > > decide we're even going to adopt this protocol as an "official" arrow > > > protocol. > > > > > > Lemme know if there's any other unanswered questions! > > > > > > --Matt > > > > > > [1]: https://github.com/zeroshade/cudf-flight-ucx > > > [2]: > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-x7tHWDzpbgmsjtTUnVXeEO4b7vMWDHTu-lzxlK9_hE/edit#heading=h.ub6lgn7s75tq > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 4:53 PM Weston Pace <weston.p...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >> I'm sorry for the very late reply. Until yesterday I had no real > > concept > > >> of what this was talking about and so I had stayed out. > > >> > > >> I'm +0 only because it isn't clear what we are voting on. There is a > > word > > >> doc with no implementation or PR. I think there could be an > > implementation > > >> / PR. For example, does any ADBC client respect this protocol today? > > If a > > >> flight server responds with an S3/HTTP URI will the ADBC client > download > > >> the files from the correct place? Will it at least notice that the > URI > > is > > >> not a GRPC URI and give a "I don't have a connector for downloading > from > > >> HTTP/S3" error? In general, I think we do want this in Flight (see > > >> comments below) and I am very supportive of the idea. However, if > > adopting > > >> this as an experimental proposal helps move this forward then I think > > >> that's fine. > > >> > > >> That being said, I do want to express support for the proposal as a > > >> concept, at least the "disassociated transports" portion (I can't > speak > > to > > >> UCX/etc.). I was speaking with someone yesterday and they explained > > that > > >> they ended up not choosing Flight for an internal project because > Flight > > >> didn't support something called "cloud fetch" which I have now learned > > is > > >> [1]. I had recalled looking at this proposal before and this person > > seemed > > >> interested and optimistic to know this was being considered for > Flight. > > >> This proposal, as I understand it, should make it possible for cloud > > >> servers to support a cloud fetch style API. From the discussion I got > > the > > >> impression that this cloud fetch approach is useful and generally > > >> applicable. > > >> > > >> So a big +1 for the idea of disassociated transports but I'm not sure > > why > > >> we need a vote to start working on it (but I'm not opposed if a vote > > helps) > > >> > > >> [1] > > >> > > >> > > > https://www.databricks.com/blog/2021/08/11/how-we-achieved-high-bandwidth-connectivity-with-bi-tools.html > > >> > > >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 1:04 PM Matt Topol <zotthewiz...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > I'll keep this new vote open for at least the next 72 hours. As > before > > >> > please reply with: > > >> > > > >> > [ ] +1 Accept this Proposal > > >> > [ ] +0 > > >> > [ ] -1 Do not accept this proposal because... > > >> > > > >> > Thanks everyone! > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 7:51 PM Benjamin Kietzman < > > bengil...@gmail.com> > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > +1 > > >> > > > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024, 18:36 Matt Topol <zotthewiz...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Should I start a new thread for a new vote? Or repeat the > original > > >> vote > > >> > > > email here? > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Just asking since there hasn't been any responses so far. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > --Matt > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:46 AM Matt Topol < > > zotthewiz...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Absolutely, it will be marked experimental until we see some > > people > > >> > > using > > >> > > > > it and can get more real-world feedback. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > There's also already a couple things that will be followed-up > on > > >> > after > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > > initial adoption for expansion which were discussed in the > > >> comments. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 11:42 AM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> I think let's try again. Would it be reasonable to declare > this > > >> > > > >> 'experimental' for the time being, just as we did with > > >> Flight/Flight > > >> > > > >> SQL/etc? > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024, at 15:24, Matt Topol wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Hey All, It's been another month and we've gotten a whole > > bunch > > >> of > > >> > > > >> feedback > > >> > > > >> > and engagement on the document from a variety of > individuals. > > >> > Myself > > >> > > > >> and a > > >> > > > >> > few others have proactively attempted to reach out to as > many > > >> > third > > >> > > > >> parties > > >> > > > >> > as we could, hoping to pull more engagement also. While it > > would > > >> > be > > >> > > > >> great > > >> > > > >> > to get even more feedback, the comments have slowed down > and > > we > > >> > > > haven't > > >> > > > >> > gotten anything in a few days at this point. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > If there's no objections, I'd like to try to open up for > > voting > > >> > > again > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > >> > officially adopt this as a protocol to add to our docs. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Thanks all! > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > --Matt > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 6:43 PM Paul Whalen < > > pgwha...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >> Agreed that it makes sense not to focus on in-place > updating > > >> for > > >> > > this > > >> > > > >> >> proposal. I’m not even sure it’s a great fit as a > “general > > >> > > purpose” > > >> > > > >> Arrow > > >> > > > >> >> protocol, because of all the assumptions and restrictions > > >> > required > > >> > > as > > >> > > > >> you > > >> > > > >> >> noted. > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> I took another look at the proposal and don’t think > there’s > > >> > > anything > > >> > > > >> >> preventing in-place updating in the future - ultimately > the > > >> data > > >> > > body > > >> > > > >> could > > >> > > > >> >> just be in the same location for subsequent messages. > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> Thanks! > > >> > > > >> >> Paul > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 5:28 PM Matt Topol < > > >> > zotthewiz...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > @pgwhalen: As a potential "end user developer," (and > > >> aspiring > > >> > > > >> >> > contributor) this > > >> > > > >> >> > immediately excited me when I first saw it. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > Yay! Good to hear that! > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > @pgwhalen: And it wasn't clear to me whether updating > > >> batches > > >> > > in > > >> > > > >> >> > place (and the producer/consumer coordination that comes > > with > > >> > > that) > > >> > > > >> was > > >> > > > >> >> > supported or encouraged as part of the proposal. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > So, updating batches in place was not a particular > > use-case > > >> we > > >> > > were > > >> > > > >> >> > targeting with this approach. Instead using shared > memory > > to > > >> > > > produce > > >> > > > >> and > > >> > > > >> >> > consume the buffers/batches without having to physically > > copy > > >> > the > > >> > > > >> data. > > >> > > > >> >> > Trying to update a batch in place is a dangerous > prospect > > >> for a > > >> > > > >> number of > > >> > > > >> >> > reasons, but as you've mentioned it can technically be > > made > > >> > safe > > >> > > if > > >> > > > >> the > > >> > > > >> >> > shape is staying the same and you're only modifying > > >> fixed-width > > >> > > > data > > >> > > > >> >> types > > >> > > > >> >> > (i.e. not only is the *shape* unchanged but the sizes of > > the > > >> > > > >> underlying > > >> > > > >> >> > data buffers are also remaining unchanged). The > > >> > producer/consumer > > >> > > > >> >> > coordination that would be needed for updating batches > in > > >> place > > >> > > is > > >> > > > >> not > > >> > > > >> >> part > > >> > > > >> >> > of this proposal but is definitely something we can look > > into > > >> > as > > >> > > a > > >> > > > >> >> > follow-up to this for extending it. There's a number of > > >> > > discussions > > >> > > > >> that > > >> > > > >> >> > would need to be had around that so I don't want to add > on > > >> > > another > > >> > > > >> >> > complexity to this already complex proposal. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > That said, if you or anyone see something in this > proposal > > >> that > > >> > > > would > > >> > > > >> >> > hinder or prevent being able to use it for your use case > > >> please > > >> > > let > > >> > > > >> me > > >> > > > >> >> know > > >> > > > >> >> > so we can address it. Even though the proposal as it > > >> currently > > >> > > > exists > > >> > > > >> >> > doesn't fully support the in-place updating of batches, > I > > >> don't > > >> > > > want > > >> > > > >> to > > >> > > > >> >> > make things harder for us in such a follow-up where we'd > > end > > >> up > > >> > > > >> requiring > > >> > > > >> >> > an entirely new protocol to support that. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > @octalene.dev: I know of a third party that is > > interested > > >> in > > >> > > > >> Arrow for > > >> > > > >> >> > HPC environments that could be interested in the > proposal > > >> and I > > >> > > can > > >> > > > >> see > > >> > > > >> >> if > > >> > > > >> >> > they're interested in providing feedback. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > Awesome! Thanks much! > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > For reference to anyone who hasn't looked at the > document > > in > > >> a > > >> > > > while, > > >> > > > >> >> since > > >> > > > >> >> > the original discussion thread on this I have added a > full > > >> > > > >> "Background > > >> > > > >> >> > Context" page to the beginning of the proposal to help > > anyone > > >> > who > > >> > > > >> isn't > > >> > > > >> >> > already familiar with the issues this protocol is trying > > to > > >> > solve > > >> > > > or > > >> > > > >> >> isn't > > >> > > > >> >> > already familiar with ucx or libfabric transports to > > better > > >> > > > >> understand > > >> > > > >> >> > *why* I'm > > >> > > > >> >> > proposing this and what it is trying to solve. The point > > of > > >> > this > > >> > > > >> >> background > > >> > > > >> >> > information is to help ensure that anyone who might have > > >> > thoughts > > >> > > > on > > >> > > > >> >> > protocols in general or APIs should still be able to > > >> understand > > >> > > the > > >> > > > >> base > > >> > > > >> >> > reasons and goals that we're trying to achieve with this > > >> > protocol > > >> > > > >> >> proposal. > > >> > > > >> >> > You don't need to already understand managing GPU/device > > >> memory > > >> > > or > > >> > > > >> ucx to > > >> > > > >> >> > be able to have meaningful input on the document. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > Thanks again to all who have contributed so far and > please > > >> > spread > > >> > > > to > > >> > > > >> any > > >> > > > >> >> > contacts that you think might be interested in this for > > their > > >> > > > >> particular > > >> > > > >> >> > use cases. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > --Matt > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 1:39 AM Aldrin > > >> > > <octalene....@pm.me.invalid > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > I am interested in this as well, but I haven't gotten > > to a > > >> > > point > > >> > > > >> where > > >> > > > >> >> I > > >> > > > >> >> > > can have valuable input (I haven't tried other > > >> transports). I > > >> > > > know > > >> > > > >> of a > > >> > > > >> >> > > third party that is interested in Arrow for HPC > > >> environments > > >> > > that > > >> > > > >> could > > >> > > > >> >> > be > > >> > > > >> >> > > interested in the proposal and I can see if they're > > >> > interested > > >> > > in > > >> > > > >> >> > providing > > >> > > > >> >> > > feedback. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > I glanced at the document before but I'll go through > > again > > >> to > > >> > > see > > >> > > > >> if > > >> > > > >> >> > there > > >> > > > >> >> > > is anything I can comment on. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > # ------------------------------ > > >> > > > >> >> > > # Aldrin > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > https://github.com/drin/ > > >> > > > >> >> > > https://gitlab.com/octalene > > >> > > > >> >> > > https://keybase.io/octalene > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > On Tuesday, February 27th, 2024 at 17:43, Paul Whalen > < > > >> > > > >> >> > pgwha...@gmail.com> > > >> > > > >> >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > As a potential "end user developer," (and aspiring > > >> > > contributor) > > >> > > > >> this > > >> > > > >> >> > > > immediately excited me when I first saw it. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > I work at a trading firm, and my team has developed > an > > >> IPC > > >> > > > >> mechanism > > >> > > > >> >> > for > > >> > > > >> >> > > > efficiently transmitting pandas dataframes both > > remotely > > >> > via > > >> > > > TCP > > >> > > > >> and > > >> > > > >> >> > > > locally via shared memory, where the interface for > the > > >> > > > >> application > > >> > > > >> >> > > > developer is the same for both. The data in the > > >> dataframes > > >> > > may > > >> > > > >> change > > >> > > > >> >> > > > rapidly, so when communicating locally via shared > > memory, > > >> > if > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > >> >> shape > > >> > > > >> >> > of > > >> > > > >> >> > > > the dataframe doesn't change, we update the memory > in > > >> > place, > > >> > > > >> >> > coordinating > > >> > > > >> >> > > > between the producer and consumer via TCP. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > We intend to move away from our remote TCP mechanism > > >> > towards > > >> > > > >> Arrow > > >> > > > >> >> > > Flight, > > >> > > > >> >> > > > or a lighter-weight version of Arrow IPC. For the > > local > > >> > > shared > > >> > > > >> memory > > >> > > > >> >> > > > mechanism which we previously did not have a good > > answer > > >> > for, > > >> > > > it > > >> > > > >> >> seems > > >> > > > >> >> > > like > > >> > > > >> >> > > > Disassociated Arrow IPC maps quite well to our > > problem. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > So some features that enable our use case are: > > >> > > > >> >> > > > - Updating existing batches in place is supported > > >> > > > >> >> > > > - The interface is pretty similar to Flight > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > I'd imagine we're not the only financial firm to > > >> implement > > >> > > > >> something > > >> > > > >> >> > like > > >> > > > >> >> > > > this, given how widespread pandas usage is, so that > > could > > >> > be > > >> > > a > > >> > > > >> place > > >> > > > >> >> to > > >> > > > >> >> > > > seek feedback. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > As I was reading the proposal initially, I gleaned > > that > > >> the > > >> > > > most > > >> > > > >> >> > > important > > >> > > > >> >> > > > audience was those writing interfaces to GPUs/remote > > >> > > > >> >> > memory/non-standard > > >> > > > >> >> > > > transports/etc. And it wasn't clear to me whether > > >> updating > > >> > > > >> batches in > > >> > > > >> >> > > > place (and the producer/consumer coordination that > > comes > > >> > with > > >> > > > >> that) > > >> > > > >> >> was > > >> > > > >> >> > > > supported or encouraged as part of the proposal. But > > >> > > > regardless, > > >> > > > >> as > > >> > > > >> >> an > > >> > > > >> >> > > end > > >> > > > >> >> > > > user, this seems like an easier and more efficient > > way to > > >> > > glue > > >> > > > >> pieces > > >> > > > >> >> > in > > >> > > > >> >> > > > the Arrow ecosystem together if it was adopted > > broadly. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > Paul > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 6:05 PM Matt Topol > > >> > > > >> zotthewiz...@gmail.com > > >> > > > >> >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > I'll continue my efforts of trying to reach out to > > >> other > > >> > > > >> interested > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > parties, but if anyone else here has any contacts > or > > >> > > > >> connections > > >> > > > >> >> that > > >> > > > >> >> > > they > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > think might be interested please forward them the > > link > > >> to > > >> > > the > > >> > > > >> >> Google > > >> > > > >> >> > > doc. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > I really do want to get as much engagement and > > feedback > > >> > as > > >> > > > >> possible > > >> > > > >> >> > on > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > this. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > Thanks! > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024, 6:38 PM Wes McKinney > > >> > > > wesmck...@gmail.com > > >> > > > >> >> > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > Have there been efforts to proactively reach out > > to > > >> > other > > >> > > > >> third > > >> > > > >> >> > > parties > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > that might have an interest in this or be a > > potential > > >> > > user > > >> > > > at > > >> > > > >> >> some > > >> > > > >> >> > > point? > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > There are a lot of interested parties in Arrow > > that > > >> may > > >> > > not > > >> > > > >> >> > actively > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > follow > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > the mailing list. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > Seems like folks from the Dask, Ray, RAPIDS > > >> (especially > > >> > > > >> folks at > > >> > > > >> >> > > NVIDIA > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > or > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > working on UCX), or other communities like that > > might > > >> > > have > > >> > > > >> >> > > constructive > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > thoughts about this. DLPack ( > > >> > > > >> >> https://dmlc.github.io/dlpack/latest/ > > >> > > > >> >> > ) > > >> > > > >> >> > > also > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > seems adjacent and worth reaching out to. Other > > ideas > > >> > for > > >> > > > >> >> projects > > >> > > > >> >> > or > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > companies that could be reached out to for > > feedback. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 5:23 PM Antoine Pitrou > > >> > > > >> >> anto...@python.org > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > If there's no engagement, then I'm afraid it > > might > > >> > mean > > >> > > > >> that > > >> > > > >> >> > third > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > parties have no interest in this. I don't > really > > >> have > > >> > > any > > >> > > > >> >> > solution > > >> > > > >> >> > > for > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > generating engagement except nagging and > pinging > > >> > people > > >> > > > >> >> > explicitly > > >> > > > >> >> > > :-) > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > Le 27/02/2024 à 19:09, Matt Topol a écrit : > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I would like to see the same Antoine, > > currently > > >> > given > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > >> >> lack > > >> > > > >> >> > of > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engagement (both for OR against) I was going > > to > > >> > take > > >> > > > the > > >> > > > >> >> > silence > > >> > > > >> >> > > as > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > assent > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > and hope for non-Voltron Data PMC members to > > vote > > >> > in > > >> > > > >> this. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > If anyone has any suggestions on how we > could > > >> > > > potentially > > >> > > > >> >> > > generate > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > more > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engagement and discussion on this, please > let > > me > > >> > know > > >> > > > as > > >> > > > >> I > > >> > > > >> >> want > > >> > > > >> >> > > as > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > many > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > parties in the community as possible to be > > part > > >> of > > >> > > > this. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Thanks everyone. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > --Matt > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 12:48 PM Antoine > > Pitrou > > >> > > > >> >> > > anto...@python.org > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hello, > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I'd really like to see more engagement and > > >> > > criticism > > >> > > > >> from > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > non-Voltron > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data parties before this is formally > > adopted as > > >> > an > > >> > > > >> Arrow > > >> > > > >> >> > spec. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Regards > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Antoine. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Le 27/02/2024 à 18:35, Matt Topol a écrit > : > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Hey all, > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose a vote for us to > > >> officially > > >> > > > >> adopt the > > >> > > > >> >> > > protocol > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > described in the google doc[1] for > > >> Dissociated > > >> > > > Arrow > > >> > > > >> IPC > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Transports. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > This > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposal was originally discussed at 2. > > Once > > >> > this > > >> > > > >> >> proposal > > >> > > > >> >> > is > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > adopted, > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > will work on adding the necessary > > >> documentation > > >> > > to > > >> > > > >> the > > >> > > > >> >> > Arrow > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > website > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > along > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > with examples etc. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 > > hours. > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Accept this Proposal > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [ ] +0 > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [ ] -1 Do not accept this proposal > > because... > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Thank you everyone! > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > --Matt > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [1]: > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHbnyK1r6KHpMOtEdIg1EZKNzHx-MVgUMOzB87GuXyk/edit#heading=h.38515dnp2bdb > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >
