Mick, With respect, I would appreciate it if you would re-read the discussion in full. I have been in discussion with Jonathan for a month with no progress. I have still not received answers to simple questions I have posed on multiple times over a dozen emails (see below), all of which I consider basic requirements for constructive engagement.
Jonathan’s expectation that I engage with every demand, coupled with his highly selective responses to emails and failure to respond to basic queries, has genuinely caused significant toll on my health and mental well-being over the past month. I have invested a great deal of time and energy engaging with everyone in the community on this CEP, but this aspect of the episode has been hugely dissuading to pursuing this kind of activity in future. I am unwilling to continue engaging with Jonathan without significant changes to his approach. I do not think that it is healthy either for me or the community to expect it, either. I believe we need to update the CEP process to make clear what the expectations are on each participant, and I will explore this in the aftermath of this vote, whatever the outcome. If you could help me understand what I could have done better to achieve constructive engagement on my below queries and points I would appreciate it, but perhaps we can take that offline. - Requested specific semantic goals to contextualise discussion [2,3,6,7,8,13] - Requested specific technical shortcomings of Accord with respect to achieving these goals [2,3,6,8,9,13] - Offered a video call to discuss in detail [0,2,4,5,6,13] (an answer to decline was forthcoming after almost a month and only after repeated requests – I continue to maintain this would be a much more productive and less burdensome medium, but no explanation has been forthcoming for his reticence to engage with this) - Discussed or reiterated Accord's compatibility with all transaction systems mooted by Jonathan [0,1,2,3,7,10,11,12,13]. Jonathan has evidently rejected one of these approaches for interactive transactions, seemingly requiring that we pursue a Cockroach style approach, but he is separately demanding a Calvin line of enquiry and has not yet engaged with my explanations of Accord’s compatibility with the Cockroach approach, either to ask for clarification or to explain my mistake. [0] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r5656428f3d0154c008ba19b74bf26cf1518b42309bcfd770a74dab4d%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/re1192924ca9f9e1a533e33c6df169c37f9c2d2bcb133e034adb6e079%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r68e08d2441b9df9e3606e0fc2adacdda638beff30543ef15b3d46a80%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E [3] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r7da88e29adcce7e98d048753224fe84dea026c24632336038eea1d47%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E [4] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r58cf47ff3d654807f743161a2a35cf79b30e4602afb44db50edbbb9e%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E [5] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rff5425aee42e0758f86c2d53790fb5870b6fa6d6d7edcd54f93d8df1%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E [6] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rf96513cfd5ddab52ecdf9d7d579ca46f9ac85cd3053c39a6e8faa332%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E [7] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r394064787a9db6d02de73e5d760dd0c9b4f5fbb5b6d169df31a33073%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E [8] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r5c0be74659f3696f310e3921cbbf7cecaf2ade0218397920dcfe3a4d%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E [9] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/reb0addf14d7d2307c8d2ca7422489484940cdf40a288d5625dabf265%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E [10] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/red7edd4f8be310a0d725ea0872d645dfceb43f7c3a6885db1ee3a244%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E [11] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rd2c3b6a40ffa2530fb7898e3045efbd999f5e8f1619a56589bf29b8b%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E [12] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r21f8f532986b2ae6bf80f31a162ce7652ef2fa93af8d6abbe259e21f%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E [13] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/re6734d8aadcc17f6f14e1e07b9d3483a3e7628b70d094980e3056c3b%40%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E From: Mick Semb Wever <m...@apache.org> Date: Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 22:08 To: dev@cassandra.apache.org <dev@cassandra.apache.org> Subject: Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions > > 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? > 1. -1 There's discussions still ongoing around this CEP. I support the CEP but believe it is important that the community takes the patience to let everyone say their piece and feel that they have been heard. I do not see that waiting a week, or two, before another vote risks the inclusion of this CEP in this release cycle. I've certainly appreciated reading through every question raised, and wouldn't object to the CEP page being updated to include even more (but this is not a blocker for me).
