Thanks. :) sleep deprivation is real. To Ellis' point: "But I'd like to see a serious investigation of the options " While we've talked about a lot of things on that email thread, I don't think we have a distilled view of the gap between current status for these options and the resources available and interested to focus on them, as the success or failure of any community driven effort is going to be heavily dependent on participation.
i.e. my gut tells me the outcome of this vote won't be something we can disagree and commit on, but rather something where we'll split down the middle and have half the community disengage since it's a popularity vote atm rather than one based on data. On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:27 PM sankalp kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> wrote: > Congrats on the newborn. I am assuming others also have personal things > going on!! > > Also discussion thread is ongoing from April and not last 4 days. If enough > people think it is rushed, we can always revote. > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 2:24 PM Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > That was four days ago, and I have a newborn at home. Not a lot of time > for > > people to respond that have other things going on in life. :) > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:13 PM sankalp kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > If you think vote is being forced, why not reply to my email on another > > > thread when I said we should vote? Why was the thread dead for months > and > > > someone comes back with a contribution and then people starts talking? > > > > > > I would have happily waited for few more days!! > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 2:09 PM Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is important we make progress as we have been discussing this > > since > > > > > April!! > > > > > > > > > > > > The discussion was making progress. Just because you want things to > > > happen > > > > faster is no reason to force an early vote. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:04 PM sankalp kohli < > kohlisank...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Also my vote is same as Jeff. d but would slightly prefer b. It is > > > > > important we make progress as we have been discussing this since > > > April!! > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 1:52 PM sankalp kohli < > > kohlisank...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The last email on the thread was 3 days ago and I made it clear > > days > > > > back > > > > > > that we should vote on it to make progress. Without this vote, I > am > > > not > > > > > > sure we will make progress. > > > > > > Many people want to contribute on this and hence we are voting so > > we > > > > can > > > > > > make progress. > > > > > > > > > > > > My vote is d > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 1:36 PM Jonathan Haddad < > j...@jonhaddad.com > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> This voting process feels a bit rushed and frankly not well > > thought > > > > out. > > > > > >> In addition to Sylvain's valid points, which you (Sankalp) > didn't > > > > > address > > > > > >> at all, the discussion in the other threads seemed to be > ongoing. > > > The > > > > > >> last > > > > > >> email you wrote on one of them was asking for additional > feedback, > > > > that > > > > > >> indicates the discussion is still open. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Out of principal I vote for none of the options (inaction). > > You're > > > > > >> deliberately trying to ram *something* through, and that's not > how > > > > this > > > > > is > > > > > >> supposed to work. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> For those of you unfamiliar with the process - please read > > > > > >> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I'd like to ask those of you that are +1'ing, are you willing to > > > > > >> contribute > > > > > >> or are you just voting we start an admin tool from scratch > because > > > you > > > > > >> think it'll somehow produce a perfect codebase? > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:50 PM sankalp kohli < > > > > kohlisank...@gmail.com> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Hi Sylvain, > > > > > >> > I would appreciate if we can give feedback on > > the > > > > > >> > discussion threads and not wait for vote threads. I made it > > clear > > > in > > > > > the > > > > > >> > discussion thread that we will start a vote!! > > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > > > >> > Sankalp > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:47 PM Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:41 PM Sylvain Lebresne < > > > > > lebre...@gmail.com > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > That's probably a stupid question, and excuse me if it is, > > but > > > > > what > > > > > >> > does > > > > > >> > > > those votes on the dev mailing list even mean? > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > How do you count votes at the end? Just by counting all > > votes > > > > > cast, > > > > > >> > > > irregardless of whomever cast it? Or are we intending to > > only > > > > > count > > > > > >> PMC > > > > > >> > > > members, or maybe committers votes? > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > I believe the intent is to try to see if there exists > > consensus. > > > > > >> > > Ultimately, PMC is going to matter more than random email > > > > addresses > > > > > >> from > > > > > >> > > people nobody recognizes. This should be in public, though, > > not > > > > > >> private, > > > > > >> > so > > > > > >> > > seeing what feedback is beyond the PMC is useful (primarily > > > > because > > > > > it > > > > > >> > will > > > > > >> > > matter when it comes time to extend and maintain it - if > > people > > > > > >> strongly > > > > > >> > > prefer one or the other, then maintenance is going to be a > > > > problem). > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > If there's 100 random non-contributor votes for one option > and > > > 20 > > > > > pmc > > > > > >> > votes > > > > > >> > > for another options, I think the real answer will be "we > don't > > > > have > > > > > >> > > consensus, and either we don't do it, or we do it the way > the > > > PMC > > > > > >> thinks > > > > > >> > is > > > > > >> > > best", for all of the reasons you describe in the paragraphs > > > > below. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > If the former, that is a bit weird to me because we simply > > > don't > > > > > >> know > > > > > >> > who > > > > > >> > > > votes. And I don't mean to be rude towards anyone, but 1) > > > > someone > > > > > >> could > > > > > >> > > > easily create 10 email addresses to vote 10 times (and > sure, > > > you > > > > > >> could > > > > > >> > > > invoke trust, and I'm not entirely against trust in > general, > > > but > > > > > >> it's > > > > > >> > the > > > > > >> > > > internet...) and 2) this kind of decision will have > > > non-trivial > > > > > >> > > > consequences for the project, particularly on those that > > > > maintain > > > > > >> it, > > > > > >> > so > > > > > >> > > I > > > > > >> > > > admit I'm not entirely comfortable with "anyone's voice > has > > > the > > > > > same > > > > > >> > > > weight". > > > > > >> > > > If the latter, then this makes more sense to me (why are > we > > > even > > > > > >> > > bothering > > > > > >> > > > voting PMC members in if it's not to handle these kinds of > > > > > >> decisions, > > > > > >> > > which > > > > > >> > > > are very "project management" related), but we should be > > very > > > > > clear > > > > > >> > about > > > > > >> > > > this from the get go (we could still use the dev list for > > > > > >> transparency > > > > > >> > > > sake, that I don't mind)? We should probably also have > some > > > > > >> deadline to > > > > > >> > > the > > > > > >> > > > vote, one that isn't too short. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > Like releases, I think PMC votes count > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > Anyway, fwiw, my opinion on this vote is not far from the > > one > > > on > > > > > the > > > > > >> > > golang > > > > > >> > > > driver acceptance vote (for which my remark above also > apply > > > > btw): > > > > > >> no > > > > > >> > yet > > > > > >> > > > 100% convinced adding more pieces and scope to the project > > is > > > > what > > > > > >> the > > > > > >> > > > project needs just right now, but not strongly opposed if > > > people > > > > > >> really > > > > > >> > > > wants this (and this one makes more sense to me than the > > > golang > > > > > >> driver > > > > > >> > > > actually). But if I'm to pick between a) and b), I'm > leaning > > > b). > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > FWIW, two of the main reasons I'm in favor is as a way to > > lower > > > > > >> barrier > > > > > >> > to > > > > > >> > > entry to both using the software AND contributing to the > > > project, > > > > > so I > > > > > >> > > think your points are valid (both on gocql thread and on > this > > > note > > > > > >> > above), > > > > > >> > > but I think that's also part of why we should be encouraging > > > both. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > - Jeff > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> Jon Haddad > > > > > >> http://www.rustyrazorblade.com > > > > > >> twitter: rustyrazorblade > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
