> Point of order I would like to encourage everyone to vote to collect the community’s views. Jonathan has vetoed the CEP, but everyone’s views are important to register and the second two votes are not on the CEP itself so remain valid.
Ultimately the PMC makes all decisions, and so can interpret the outcome of this vote once it concludes and refine the community process to ensure this situation does not arise in future. 1. +1 2. +1 3. +1 From: Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 17:57 To: dev <dev@cassandra.apache.org> Subject: Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions My votes: 1. -1 for a minor and a major reason. The minor reason is that I believe we reached consensus in the discussion that allowing the equivalent of LOCAL_SERIAL should be part of the CEP, but the CEP has not been updated to reflect this. The major reason is that there is not a clear path from the simple CAS operations supported by Accord to full SQL support with interactive transactions, or even to Calvin-style deterministic transactions with richer semantics. 2. -1, I'm not convinced that we want a one-size-fits-all approach and if we do that Accord is the best one size. 3. +1, although obviously the devil is in the details. I would support, for instance, exposing any interfaces necessary in Cassandra to make it feasible to maintain and use Accord as an out-of-tree plugin for the time being. This lets work on Accord continue while not closing the door on alternatives that make different tradeoffs. I would also support, in that world, CQL extensions that only work with Accord or other “next-gen” transaction managers to start evolving our APIs past what LWT can handle. On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:44 AM Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote: > Point of order: our project governance states > <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Cassandra+Project+Governance> > , > > "Once the proposal is finalized and any major committer dissent > reconciled, call a [VOTE] on the ML to have the proposal adopted. The > criteria for acceptance is consensus (3 binding +1 votes and no binding > vetoes). The vote should remain open for 72 hours." > > No provision is made for declaring a CEP, or part of it, to be subject to > a simple majority vote simply by claiming it's directional. > > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:32 AM bened...@apache.org <bened...@apache.org> > wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, >> as discussion has been circular for some time. >> >> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP? >> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for >> Cassandra? >> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in >> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development? >> >> The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and >> third however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority >> votes of the PMC. >> >> Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you >> reject the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal. >> If a majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will >> halt for the time being. >> >> This vote will be open for 72 hours. >> > > > -- > Jonathan Ellis > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > @spyced > -- Jonathan Ellis co-founder, http://www.datastax.com @spyced
