On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 2:53 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ok, so why don't we make clear what we are voting for? If this vote is approved, then the outcome is that the community is going > to work on a plan to move to github issues, and that plan will be voted? I believed that I made the clarification on what to vote in this thread. Implementing the new github workflow would be a separated bookkeeper proposal and that implementation will follow bookkeeper proposal process to vote, which is a lazy majority vote from committers. Anyone are welcome to work on implementing the workflow. > Or is it going to be considered a code change and require just a +1 from a > committer? The reason I'm insisting is that I like the idea of moving to > github issues, but I'm not sure what we are voting for precisely. > > As for the approval process, it is not clear from the list of actions > which one is the one to take as not a single one is a good match. When this > is the case, the binding votes should be the PMC ones, and given that this > is a pretty significant change, I'd be more comfortable with lazy > consensus. Also, note that the shared resources of the project are > responsibility of the PMC. While we can do it in the open to gather > feedback from the community, and in fact, I'd say that this makes a lot of > sense to do it, it is the PMC responsibility. > Thanks for pointing it out. Yes, the binding votes for this will be active PMC members. Although I have a different personal opinion on the responsibility on shared resources. My feel is the shared resources are more developer resources, which committers/developers should own more responsibilities. We can discuss it separately. > My recommendation is that we clarify what we are voting for and call a > second vote. I'd happy to help out if it comes to that. > Let me know if the clarification is good to you or not. > > Thanks, > -Flavio > > > > On 03 Jun 2017, at 19:29, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Thanks for pushing this through, Sijie. I have a couple of concerns > about > >> this proposal: > >> > >> 1- There is a proposal, but I'm not seeing a workflow defined for github > >> issues. Should we define one and make that part of the vote? > >> > > > > Defining a workflow requires efforts and putting attentions into the > > community. The vote carries the proposal from last sync up to achieve a > > consensus in the community - "shall we try out github issues". If the > > community agrees on this, we can call for volunteers to drive the > > discussion on defining a workflow and help with logistics (e.g. works > with > > INFRA team) to make it happen. > > > > If the community isn't interested in moving forward, it doesn't make any > > sense to put the efforts on it. > > > > > >> 2- I'm not sure what the binding votes are and what the approval process > >> is. Are we following the project bylaws here? > >> > > > > http://bookkeeper.apache.org/bylaws.html > > > > This is related to development/release workflow, is counted as "Release > > Plan". It follows the "Lazy majority" approval process, any votes from > > committers are binding votes. > > > > The voting period is 3 days. > > > > - Sijie > > > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> -Flavio > >> > >>> On 01 Jun 2017, at 21:59, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Per the community meeting > >>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BOOKKEEPER/ > >> 2017-06-01+Meeting+notes> > >>> this morning, JV proposed to start use Github issues for issue tracking > >> for > >>> a few months and see how does it work out. I am starting this email > >> thread > >>> to vote for this. > >>> > >>> The vote will be: > >>> > >>> - Start using Github issues/pull requests for issue tracking for 3 > >> months. > >>> - During this 3 months, we will continue using both JIRA and Github > >> issues. > >>> - After 3 months, if the community decides whether we should continue > >> using > >>> Github issues or moving from JIRA to Github issues. (The final decision > >>> will be a separate vote in 3 months) > >>> > >>> Please vote +1 if in favor of trying out Github issues and -1 if not. > >>> > >>> See below thread and community meeting notes > >>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BOOKKEEPER/ > >> 2017-06-01+Meeting+notes> > >>> for reference: > >>> > >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/bookkeeper-dev/201705.mbox/% > >> 3CCAO2yDyYKmUiSfGfkGCKtfP8mmQtcJubGoMO-KsWsjM9_3pOd0Q%40mail.gmail.com > %3E > >>> > >>> - Sijie > >> > >> > >
