Hey everyone, This is a gentle bump from my end on this thread since I like the idea. Several people have already approved Dan's PR <https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/9932/> about formalizing the proposal process. Are there any questions or concerns from the PMC before adopting this?
Kind regards, Fokko Driesprong Op wo 13 mrt 2024 om 13:17 schreef Renjie Liu <liurenjie2...@gmail.com>: > Hi, JB: > > Your proposal looks great to me. We should definitely have a vote for a > proposal impacting the spec, and the model is great. > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:55 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I think a vote would be necessary only if we don't have consensus on a >> proposal. If anyone is OK with the proposal (no clear "concern" in the >> doc and/or the GitHub issue), a vote is not required. >> That said, any proposal impacting a spec should be voted (as part of >> the spec proposal). >> >> I think it's fair to identify a proposal vote as a "code modification" >> vote. >> It means that it follows this model: a negative vote constitutes a >> veto , which the voting group (generally the PMC of a project) cannot >> override. Again, this model may be modified by a lazy consensus >> declaration when the request for a vote is raised, but the full-stop >> nature of a negative vote does not change. Under normal (non-lazy >> consensus) conditions, the proposal requires three positive votes and >> no negative votes in order to pass; if it fails to garner the >> requisite amount of support, it doesn't. Then the proposer either >> withdraws the proposal or modifies the code and resubmits it, or the >> proposal simply languishes as an open issue until someone gets around >> to removing it. >> >> We can link to https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 2:21 AM Renjie Liu <liurenjie2...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > 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 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. >> >
