Hi Chesnay, Welcome back, and sorry for interrupting your vacation. Since there is a negative vote, I'm fine we can cancel the vote and continue the technical discussion back to the DISCUSS thread.
I think we all have good intentions for the community. I hope the community collaboration can be more efficient. I also fully understand you want to involve in interested FLIPs and keep Flink in an elegant design. I think this is also a good chance to complement the FLIP process to build a better community with more various contributors/companies working together. Thank Xintong for sketching the improved FLIP process. I think this is a very good starting point for discussion. What about starting a new discussion thread for the FLIP process? This thread is a little over divergence. Best, Jark On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 at 14:32, Xintong Song <tonysong...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > AFAICS, there’s no consensus so far on how we should proceed discussions > while some of the participants are unresponsive, in either the Bylaws[1] or > any of the ML threads that I’m aware of. Without such consensus, it is > understandable that contributors take actions based on their different > personal opinions, which IMO causes this argument right now. So let’s try > not to point fingers at each other and focus on setting up a commonly > agreed process on this. > > I agree that every opinion, especially the concerns and disagreements, > should be respected and carefully discussed and addressed. Meantime, it is > also important for the Flink project to move forward at a good pace, of > course without sacrificing the quality. So the question is how do we > actively resolve the disagreements and reach consensus efficiently. With > the growth of the community, there’re more developers from various > companies concurrently working on more FLIPs / features / efforts than > before. It’s getting harder and harder for one contributor (e.g., myself) > to participate in every thread that he’s interested in without slowing down > the evolution of the project. In such cases, I personally would tend to > trust other contributors, especially the committers, in doing a good job > without my participant, rather than slowing down others due to my lack of > capacity. > > So here’s my proposal: > > 1. When raising an opinion (question / concern / disagreement) that blocks > the discussion from reaching consensus, the contributor that the opinion > comes from should try to respond to the replies to their opinions within 1 > week (5 work days since the replies are made, excluding weekends and public > holidays) if possible. > > 2. If the response cannot be made within 1 week (due to other works, > personal vacation plans, etc.), an explicit date of response should be > given. The given response date should be no later than 2 weeks (10 work > days since the replies are made, excluding weekends and public holidays), > unless agreed by all active participants in the discussion. > > 3. A question / concern / disagreement can be considered addressed if: a) > there’s no response in 1 week or before the given response date, and b) all > the active participants agreed that it is resolved. > > 4. A discussion should be opened for at least 1 week, for opinions to be > raised, before starting a vote. When there’re unresponsive participants, a > 72h notice is required before claiming reaching out consensus for a > discussion and starting a vote. This can overlap with the time waiting for > responses from the irresponsive participants. > > 5. Here *response* is restricted to technical opinions. Quick replies such > as "will take a look asap" do not count. > > Looking forward to your opinions. > > Best, > > Xintong > > > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Bylaws > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 10:07 AM Hang Ruan <ruanhang1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, all, > > > > Thanks for all discussions about this FLIP first. We all are trying to > make > > Flink better. But not getting a reply quickly really discourages > > contributors. > > OperatorCoordinatorMetricGroup and SplitEnumeratorMetricGroup are > important > > for many developers. And many metrics can not be reported without it. > This > > FLIP raised on 26 Dec 2022 and has last over a month. > > So let's make the discussion on FLIP-274 be settled. > > > > Thanks for all helps and let's make this FLIP move on together. > > > > Best, > > Hang > > > > Chesnay Schepler <ches...@apache.org> 于2023年1月12日周四 07:29写道： > > > > > You know, back when I wrote that line I actually felt a bit guilty > about > > > it and nearly dropped it, since it implicitly accused _someone_ of > > > actually being capable/willing to push something through despite voiced > > > concerns while no ones looking. > > > > > > Turns out things are a lot worse that I thought. You're actually > > > doubling down on it and even insult me. > > > > > > > > > As I haven't had a time to revisit the discussion and afaict my > concerns > > > weren't addressed, I hereby vote -1 (binding). > > > > > > Please be aware that since I'm effectively only back from vacation > > > tomorrow and need to catch up on things in general, I may not be able > to > > > revisit the discussion this week. In part because I guess I now need to > > > double-check everything. > > > > > > CC'ing the private ML because I find this very troubling behavior. > > > > > > On 11/01/2023 16:20, Martijn Visser wrote: > > > > Hi Jark, > > > > > > > > I disagree with your statement that someone doesn't care about the > > FLIP, > > > > especially since that person participated in the initial FLIP > > discussion > > > > and mentioned explicitly "Since I'm on holidays soon, just so no one > > > tries > > > > to pull a fast one on me, if this were to go to a vote as-is I'd be > > > against > > > > it.". > > > > > > > > Anyway: I can't tell when Chesnay exactly will participate, but I do > > > expect > > > > that this week. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Martijn > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 4:11 PM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi Martijn, > > > >> > > > >> Thanks for helping us to find Chesnay. > > > >> Could you clarify how "soon" will Chesnay participate? A day or a > > week? > > > >> > > > >> I agree with your improvement proposal and Hang exactly follows your > > > >> points. > > > >> The last-call-for-discussion for Chensay has been sent for more than > > 72 > > > >> hours, > > > >> even after the Christmas holiday. Therefore, from my point of view, > > this > > > >> FLIP > > > >> should have been passed. On the other hand, the Flink Bylaws[1] > don't > > > >> require > > > >> voting to begin until a specific person responds. The 3 days (even > > work > > > >> days) voting > > > >> length already considers the committers' reaction time. If someone > > > doesn't > > > >> vote -1 > > > >> during the time period, which means he/she doesn't have concerns > about > > > the > > > >> proposal. > > > >> If you care about the proposal, PLEASE VOTE and explain the reasons. > > > This > > > >> is how > > > >> the 200+ FLIPs work until today. I'm just very disappointed and > > > surprised > > > >> we have to > > > >> wait for someone to vote for the FLIP who doesn't care about the > FLIP > > > for > > > >> more than a month. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Best, > > > >> Jark > > > >> > > > >> [1]: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Bylaws > > > >> > > > >> On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 at 21:14, Martijn Visser < > > martijnvis...@apache.org> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi Jark and Dong, > > > >>> > > > >>> I fully understand your concerns in this case. I also think that > this > > > >>> situation is an exception. This discussion started just before the > > > >> holiday > > > >>> season in Europe started. The request to Chesnay if he had more > > > comments > > > >>> was sent just a couple of days before Christmas. > > > >>> > > > >>> From my perspective, given how the discussion started in the > > > discussion > > > >>> thread and the context that was provided, I would have sent an > email > > > that > > > >>> if there are no more comments in the next 72 hours, you would open > a > > > vote > > > >>> thread. Especially if someone raised a concern first. That has > > > happened a > > > >>> lot on other discussion threads as well, even when there were no > more > > > >> open > > > >>> discussion topics. > > > >>> > > > >>> While I fully understand the disappointment from your point of > view, > > > the > > > >>> other way around it feels disappointing that this was brought to a > > > vote. > > > >> So > > > >>> let's use the disappointments from both ends to learn and to > improve > > > >>> overall. Something like: > > > >>> > > > >>> * If someone raises concerns during a discussion, of course first > try > > > to > > > >>> resolve all concerns. > > > >>> * If that person no longer participates in the discussion, send a > > > >>> last-call-for-discussions in the discussion thread for 72 hours and > > > else > > > >>> you will open a vote thread > > > >>> * Follow the regular voting process > > > >>> > > > >>> For this specific FLIP, I've briefly talked to Chesnay offline and > > I'm > > > >> sure > > > >>> he will participate soon to unblock it. > > > >>> > > > >>> Best regards, > > > >>> > > > >>> Martijn > > > >>> > > > >>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 1:47 PM Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hi Martijn, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> A collaborative and active community is very important for any > > > >>> open-source > > > >>>> project. Flink can succeed today because we have many experienced > > and > > > >>>> passionate developers who collaborate together to develop Flink. > It > > is > > > >>>> important that developers can give constructive feedback and help > > each > > > >>>> other be productive. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I find it kind of surprising and disappointing that we have to > wait > > > for > > > >>> one > > > >>>> particular developer for more than 30 days to get a reply before > > being > > > >>>> allowed forward and making progress. It is hard to image what > would > > > >>> happen > > > >>>> if every committer can take 30+ days to reply to a FLIP and still > > > >> expects > > > >>>> the FLIP to wait for the reply. Flink community will likely be > dead > > if > > > >>> this > > > >>>> is the culture that Flink community uses to treat contributors. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Could you explain how long we have to wait before making progress > > for > > > >>> this > > > >>>> FLIP? And in the future, what would be the resonable timeframe to > > wait > > > >>> for > > > >>>> a reply before we can open the voting thread? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Thanks, > > > >>>> Dong > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 4:17 PM Martijn Visser < > > > >> martijnvis...@apache.org > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> -1 (binding) currently: I don't think this should have gone to a > > vote > > > >>> yet > > > >>>>> given that Chesnay deliberately mentioned that he would vote > > against > > > >> it > > > >>>>> as-is. The discussion should have been settled first. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 10:51 AM Zhu Zhu <reed...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> +1 (binding) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Thanks, > > > >>>>>> Zhu > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> 于2023年1月10日周二 17:43写道： > > > >>>>>>> +1 (binding) > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Best, > > > >>>>>>> Jark > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> 2023年1月10日 12:02，Qingsheng Ren <renqs...@gmail.com> 写道： > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks for the FLIP! > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> +1 (binding) > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Best, > > > >>>>>>>> Qingsheng > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:08 AM Hang Ruan < > > > >>> ruanhang1...@gmail.com> > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>> Hi all, > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for all the feedback so far. > > > >>>>>>>>> Based on the discussion[1], we have come to a consensus, so I > > > >>>> would > > > >>>>>> like to > > > >>>>>>>>> start a vote on FLIP-274: Introduce metric group for > > > >>>>>>>>> OperatorCoordinator[2]. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> The vote will last for at least 72 hours (Jan 7th at 11:00 > > > >> GMT) > > > >>>>> unless > > > >>>>>>>>> there is an objection or insufficient votes. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> [1] > > > >>>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/63m9w60rndqnrqvgb6qosvt2bcbww53k > > > >>>>>>>>> [2] > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-274%3A+Introduce+metric+group+for+OperatorCoordinator > > > >>>>>>>>> Best, > > > >>>>>>>>> Hang > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >
