I think that’s a bit extreme – it seems perfectly fine to comment on Jira, but high level discussions around scope, goals and potential confounders should ideally happen on the DISCUSS thread. It’s a difficult balancing act, choosing the venue for a discussion, so let’s not censure people unnecessarily.
Perhaps we should put together a cheat sheet for kinds of discussion and what venue to raise them in at different phases in a CEP lifecycle. As this process is likely to be quite dynamic over a CEP’s lifetime - once a vote passes, it’s likely that aspects of a CEP will be revisited as a result of discussions (including high level ones) on Jira and other venues, but we won’t want to bring those discussions immediately back to another DISCUSS thread – it’s likely that would wait until some consensus emerges amongst those involved in the work, to present to the dev list for further discussion. From: Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> Date: Thursday, 8 July 2021 at 11:14 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Clarifying the CEP process My understanding is that they should have been raised on the DISCUSSION > thread. Once those concerns are addressed or discussed, I believe that if > nobody raised more concerns we should trigger a VOTE. > > Is my understanding correct? > Agree, we shouldn't be commenting on jira tickets or on PRs until the CEP process has passed a vote. The jira ticket and PR can be created as a PoC to help explain and illustrate the CEP, but nothing more than that. Thanks for raising this Benjamin. It's important we make the new process of CEPs easy for adoption.
