> On 05 Jun 2017, at 18:30, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. >
This is probably where we are not converging. I don't know what passing this vote entails other than a wish to move to github issues in the case it passes. I'd much rather vote on a proposal that includes the precise steps so that we can assess whether that's a good move or not. But wait, you say something interesting next... > 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. > I see, we aren't really voting on a change or committing to anything, you just want to assess preferences. > >> 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. It is not really my preference, this is in the bylaws of the project. It is a responsibility of the PMC to maintain shared resources. I think that the issue tracking application is a shared resource. > > >> 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. Possibly, if this vote is about declaring intention rather than committing, then I'm totally good with that. -Flavio > > >> >> 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 >>>> >>>> >> >>
