Hi everyone, Based on the discussion so far, I'd like to cancel this vote. Thanks everyone for the thoughtful feedback and discussion.
Yufei On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 9:54 AM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > JB, waiting for Ossie makes sense to me. That said, I'd suggest we work in > parallel where possible. > > From my understanding, the main dependency on Ossie is the JSON validator, > which will arrive a bit later. Most of the other work can proceed > independently in the meantime. > > I'm also OK moving forward without a formal vote if that's the preferred > approach. I would keep the API explicitly in **beta** and make it clear > that we intend to transition to the Ossie specification once it becomes > available. That gives us a path to make progress now while remaining > aligned with the future direction. > > Yufei > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 5:38 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> It might be worth waiting for Apache Ossie to bootstrap before proceeding. >> While I agree with the intent, I want to avoid duplicative work where we >> implement the OSI spec first and the Apache Ossie spec as a follow-up. >> Since the OSI spec is transitioning into the Ossie spec, and an initial >> Apache Ossie spec release is expected soon, I suggest we pause this vote. >> >> Additionally, I would prefer to find a consensus rather than holding a >> vote, as voting is typically reserved for when consensus is difficult to >> reach. This vote could likely be considered a code modification under >> Apache voting guidelines (https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html). >> >> My recommendation is to pause the vote for now and leverage Apache Ossie, >> which I am currently working on. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Regards, >> JB >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 12:51 AM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Beta sounds good to me. We can clarify the beta status in a follow-up >> doc >> > change. >> > >> > Yufei >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 3:27 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Hi Yufei, >> > > >> > > I'd like to understand the impact of this vote better. >> > > >> > > Are you proposing to accept this new API without first going through a >> > > "beta" phase? >> > > >> > > I think the beta process is pretty standard for new APIs in Polaris >> these >> > > days (e.g. the Metrics API). >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Dmitri. >> > > >> > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 1:38 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hi everyone, >> > > > >> > > > I'd like to call a vote on accepting the OSI Semantic Model API >> > > > specification proposed in PR #4816( >> > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4816) >> > > > >> > > > This proposal introduces the initial scaffolding for the Open >> Semantic >> > > > Interchange (OSI) Semantic Model API in Polaris. The primary goal >> is to >> > > > establish the REST API surface and associated specification, while >> > > leaving >> > > > the implementation intentionally minimal. This provides a stable >> > > foundation >> > > > for future work while allowing the community to iterate on the >> > > > implementation independently. >> > > > >> > > > This vote will remain open for 72 hours. Please vote: >> > > > >> > > > [ ] +1 Accept the proposal >> > > > [ ] 0 No opinion >> > > > [ ] -1 Do not accept the proposal (please provide reasoning) >> > > > >> > > > Thanks to everyone who participated in the design discussions and >> > > reviews. >> > > > Yufei >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
