+1 (binding), thanks for working on this Vahid. @Dana - See https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Bylaws re: binding/non-binding, although I now notice that we specify criteria (lazy majority) on the KIP overview https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Kafka+Improvement+Proposals#KafkaImprovementProposals-Process but don't seem to specify whose votes are binding -- we've used active committers as binding votes for KIPs.
-Ewen On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Guozhang Wang <wangg...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1. > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > Vahid, > > > > Thanks for the clear explanation in the KIP. +1 > > > > Jun > > > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Vahid S Hashemian < > > vahidhashem...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > I would like to initiate the voting process for KIP-70 ( > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > > 70%3A+Revise+Partition+Assignment+Semantics+on+New+ > > > Consumer%27s+Subscription+Change > > > ). > > > > > > The only issue that was discussed in the discussion thread is > > > compatibility, but because it applies to an edge case, it is not > expected > > > to impact existing users. > > > The proposal was shared with Spark and Storm users and no issue was > > raised > > > by those communities. > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > Regards, > > > --Vahid > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > -- Guozhang > -- Thanks, Ewen
