The emeritus stuff seems like unnecessary noise.

There's a bunch of subtle changes in the draft compared to existing "conventions"; we should find a way to highlight these and discuss them one by one.

On 11/07/2019 14:29, Robert Metzger wrote:
Thank you Becket for kicking off this discussion and creating a draft in
the Wiki.

I left some comments in the wiki.

In my understanding this means, that a committer always needs a review and
+1 from another committer. As far as I know this is currently not always
the case (often committer authors, contributor reviews & +1s).

I would agree to add such a bylaw, if we had cases in the past where code
was not sufficiently reviewed AND we believe that we have enough capacity
to ensure a separate committer's approval.





On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:49 AM Konstantin Knauf <konstan...@ververica.com>
wrote:

Hi all,

thanks a lot for driving this, Becket. I have two remarks regarding the
"Actions" section:

* In addition to a simple "Code Change" we could also add a row for "Code
Change requiring a FLIP" with a reference to the FLIP process page. A FLIP
will have/does have different rules for approvals, etc.
* For "Code Change" the draft currently requires "one +1 from a committer
who has not authored the patch followed by a Lazy approval (not counting
the vote of the contributor), moving to lazy majority if a -1 is received".
In my understanding this means, that a committer always needs a review and
+1 from another committer. As far as I know this is currently not always
the case (often committer authors, contributor reviews & +1s).

I think it is worth thinking about how we can make it easy to follow the
bylaws e.g. by having more Flink-specific Jira workflows and ticket types +
corresponding permissions. While this is certainly "Step 2", I believe, we
really need to make it as easy & transparent as possible, otherwise they
will be unintentionally broken.

Cheers and thanks,

Konstantin



On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:10 AM Becket Qin <becket....@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

As it was raised in the FLIP process discussion thread [1], currently
Flink
does not have official bylaws to govern the operation of the project.
Such
bylaws are critical for the community to coordinate and contribute
together. It is also the basis of other processes such as FLIP.

I have drafted a Flink bylaws page and would like to start a discussion
thread on this.

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=120731026
The bylaws will affect everyone in the community. It'll be great to hear
your thoughts.

Thanks,

Jiangjie (Becket) Qin

[1]


http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-META-FLIP-Sticking-or-not-to-a-strict-FLIP-voting-process-td29978.html#none

--

Konstantin Knauf | Solutions Architect

+49 160 91394525


Planned Absences: 10.08.2019 - 31.08.2019, 05.09. - 06.09.2010


--

Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany

--

Ververica GmbH
Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B
Managing Directors: Dr. Kostas Tzoumas, Dr. Stephan Ewen


Reply via email to