Hi, Daniel: Thanks for this summary.
I think one thing missing is that do we need a vote for the proposal to be accepted or rejected? If required, what should the voting process be? On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 9:04 AM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: > Hey everyone, I synced up with JB about the proposal process and wanted to > see if we could make some initial progress. > > Based on some of the earlier discussions, we want to leverage as much of > the informal process as possible, but improve discoverability and a little > structure. This probably means using github for tracking, google docs > where possible for the early proposal implementation comments, and the dev > list for discussion threads, awareness and voting. > > That said, I propose we adopt the following: > > 1. A simple issue template for initiating a proposal and applying a > 'proposal' label to the issue > 2. Use a github search link to document current proposals (based on the > 'proposal' label) > 3. Continue using google docs for proposals documentation/comments > (referenced from the github issue) > 4. Continue to create DISCUSS threads on the dev list for communication > 4. Backfill current proposals by creating issues for them > > I've created this PR <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/9932> to > capture the initial template and docs. > > I think we want to introduce this with as little overhead as possible. > Please follow up with questions/comments so we can close this out. > > Thanks, > Dan > > > On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 11:30 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> Hi Manu >> >> Yup, it's on my TODO. Thanks for the reminder, I will be back on this >> one this week :) >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 4:07 AM Manu Zhang <owenzhang1...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi JB, >> > >> > Are you still working on this nice proposal? >> > >> > Regards, >> > Manu >> > >> > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 3:35 PM Fokko Driesprong <fo...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Nice! I fully agree with the abovementioned. I originally set up the >> stalebot for the issues because I noticed that there were many issues >> around old Spark versions that weren't even maintained anymore. I feel it >> is better to either close or take action on an issue. For me, it makes >> sense to extend this to PRs as well. >> >> >> >> Same as Amogh said, always feel free to ping me when either a PR or >> issue lingering and you need some eyes on it. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Fokko >> >> >> >> Op do 4 jan 2024 om 07:42 schreef Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> j...@nanthrax.net>: >> >>> >> >>> Hi >> >>> >> >>> That's also the purpose of the reviewers file: having multiple >> >>> reviewers per tag. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks guys for your feedback, I will move forward with the PR :) >> >>> >> >>> Regards >> >>> JB >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 6:38 AM Ajantha Bhat <ajanthab...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > +1, >> >>> > >> >>> > Some of my PRs have been open for a long time and sometimes it >> doesn't get the attention it requires. >> >>> > Notifying both the reviewer and the author can help expedite the >> review process and facilitate quicker handling of new contributions. >> >>> > I think having more than one committer assigned for PR can also >> definitely help in speeding up the process if one of the committer is busy >> or on holiday. >> >>> > >> >>> > But we also need to think on the next steps. What if we still don't >> receive the necessary response even after sending notifications? >> >>> > Should we have a slack channel for those PRs to conclude by >> discussing (or some guidelines on how to take it further). >> >>> > >> >>> > We can have a trial run for some days and see how it goes. >> >>> > >> >>> > Thanks, >> >>> > Ajantha >> >>> > >> >>> > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 8:19 AM Amogh Jahagirdar <am...@tabular.io> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> +1, I think this is a step in the right direction. One other >> consideration I wanted to bring up was dependabot and if there's any unique >> handling we want to do there because I've noticed that PRs from dependabot >> tend to pile up. I think with the proposal we won't really need to do >> anything unique and just treat it as a normal PR (it would be a build label >> with its own set of reviewers) and we'll get notified the same way. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> I'll also say for reviews (speaking for myself, but I think many >> others probably feel this way as well), always feel free to ping on Slack >> and follow up :) But overall I do like having more of a mechanism. >> >
