Basically I think describing how much work the reviewer did to give his +1 is good. Just like the vote for a release, each +1 follows with the verifications he did, e.g. here [1] is a vote for Pulsar 2.11.1 candidate 1:
> • Built from the source package (maven 3.8.6 OpenJDK 17.0) > • Ran binary package standalone with pub/sub > ... But I don't think forcing the rule is good. The proposal could sometimes be not so complicated. From my personal experience, sometimes I vote my +1 just because I think it's good and there is no serious problem. If you want me to vote again with the checklist, I might still not have an idea of what I should write, unless there is a template and I filled the template. Only if the proposal is somehow complicated will the checklist be meaningful, like the PIP-192, which is a very complicated proposal. > Moreover, this checklist can ensure that all participants have thoroughly > reviewed the PIP, Regarding this point from Xiangying, I want to repeat a similar thought [2] for the previous discussion. IF ANYONE WANT, HE CAN STILL COPY A CHECKLIST FROM OTHERS AND JUST PERFORM SOME SLIGHTLY CHANGES. Forcing a checklist won't change anything if there is a PMC that gave his vote without any careful review. It just makes the rule more complicated. If you don't trust a PMC, no rule could restrict him. Rules only make him a better game player. In addition, when a reviewer approves a PR, should he add a checklist as well, instead of a simple LGTM or +1? Huge PRs appear more often than complicated proposals. In conclusion, I am +0 to this suggestion. If this suggestion is passed, I will follow it well. But if I cannot think of a checklist with a proposal, I will try to be a good vote game player. [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/13xmt4jdwmlo1mo5dhkxlg9pnkfdwjjj [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/o0vw1dfoo84pscfd46gdm3sm9mvovmr2 Thanks, Yunze On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 3:48 PM PengHui Li <peng...@apache.org> wrote: > > I don't think it will bring more burden on reviewers. > It will only provide a checklist for reviewers before > you vote +1 or -1. It could be done in 1 minute if you > did a great proposal review. Of course, if you are > missing some aspects that should be reviewed, > This will make the reviewer spend more time reviewing > the missing items, but it is valuable. > > I don't think this proposal is accusing PMCs, but PMCs > might also miss some items. The checklist can help PMCs > to avoid missing items. Actually, I think every PMC has > checklist for a proposal review. It might be recorded in > a tiny notebook, or in his brain. Now, the proposal provides > a way to share your experience of proposal review. > > And we are actually doing the same thing in the voting of > release. Everyone will provide a list of what they have > verified with +1 or -1. > > Regards, > Penghui > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 10:37 AM Xiangying Meng <xiangy...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Hi, Asaf > > This is a great suggestion. I believe one significant advantage is that > > it can help newcomers better understand the voting process and how > > decisions are made. > > The checklist can serve as a reference framework, > > assisting new members in becoming familiar with the project's voting > > requirements and standards more quickly, > > thereby improving the overall participation and transparency of the > > project. > > > > Moreover, this checklist can ensure that all participants have thoroughly > > reviewed the PIP, > > resulting in higher-quality PIPs. > > Although introducing a checklist may bring some additional burden, > > in the long run, it contributes to the project's robust development and > > continuous improvement. > > > > Thanks > > Xiangying > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 11:23 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Asaf, > > > I understand your intent. > > > > > > I think that when anyone casts a +1, especially with '(binding)' they > > know > > > well what they are doing. > > > It is not an 'I like it', but it is an important assumption of > > > responsibility. > > > This applies to all the VOTEs. > > > > > > Requiring this checklist may be good in order to help new comers to > > > understand better how we take our decisions. > > > > > > If you feel that currently there are people who cast binding votes > > without > > > knowing what they do...then I believe that it is kind of a serious issue. > > > > > > It happened a few times recently that I see this sort of ML threads > > about > > > 'the PMC is not doing well', 'we want to retire people in the PMC...', > > 'PMC > > > members vote on stuff without knowing what they do'... > > > > > > I wonder what is the root cause of this. > > > > > > Back to he original question, my position it: > > > +1 to writing a clear and very brief summary of the consideration you hBe > > > to take before casting your vote. > > > -1 to requiring this checklist when we cast a vote > > > > > > Thanks > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > > Il Dom 16 Apr 2023, 15:47 Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> ha > > scritto: > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
