Would love additional feedback on this suggestion.
On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 4:19 AM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > It looks like we can try to add a new section to > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/wiki/proposals/PIP.md > like "Review the proposal" and it is not only for PMCs, all the reviewers > can follow the checklist > to cast a solemn vote. > > And I totally support the motivation of this discussion. > > Regards, > Penghui > > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 4:46 AM Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > When you read last year's PIPs, many lack background information, hard to > > read and understand even if you know pulsar in and out. > > > > First step to fix was to change the PIP is structured: > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/19832 > > > > In my opinion, when someone votes "+1" and it's binding, they basically > > take the responsibility to say: > > > > * I read the PIP fully. > > * A person having basic Pulsar user knowledge, can read the PIP and fully > > understand it > > Why? Since it contains all background information necessary to > > understand the problem and the solution > > It is written in a coherent and easy to understand way. > > * I validated the solution technically and can vouch for it. > > Examples: > > The PIP adds schema compatibility rules for Protobuf Native. > > I learned / know protobuf well. > > I validated the rules written containing all rules needed > and > > not containing wrong rules, or missing rules. > > > > The PIP adds new OpenID Connect authentication. > > I learned / know Authentication in Pulsar. > > I learned / know OpenID connect > > I validated the solution is architecturally correct and > > sound. > > > > Basically the PMC member voting +1 on it, basically acts as Tech Lead of > > Pulsar for this PIP. > > It's a very big responsibility. > > It's the only way to ensure Pulsar architecture won't go haywire over the > > next few years. > > > > Yes, it will slow the process down. > > Yes, it will be harder to find people to review it like that. > > > > But, it will raise the bar for PIPs and for Pulsar architecture overall. > > IMO we need that, and it's customary. > > > > *My suggestion* > > When PMC member replies to vote, it will look like this: > > > > " > > +1 (binding) > > > > [v] PIP has all sections detailed in the PIP template (Background, > > motivation, etc.) > > [v] A person having basic Pulsar user knowledge, can read the PIP and > fully > > understand it > > [v] I read PIP and validated it technically > > " > > > > or > > " > > -1 (binding) > > > > I think this PIP needs: > > ... > > " > > > > Thanks, > > > > Asaf > > >
