Ping, in case it was lost in the barrage of mails On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 3:54 PM Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is it ok if we use the following vote template? Per comments above, it > will be optional, yet recommended. > > +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 > > > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 6:44 AM Yunze Xu <y...@streamnative.io.invalid> > wrote: > >> > you are ok with having a summary template, but have it non-required? >> >> Yes to me. >> >> In addition, I think the root cause of the problems you met is that >> some PIPs have low quality. They are not clear and friendly to others. >> A good proposal should not require reviewers to have deep knowledge of >> a specific domain. I think what PMC members should do to improve it is >> to cast the -1 to those ambiguous proposals until they become clear. >> >> Thanks, >> Yunze >> >> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 8:14 PM Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > The problem I'm trying to solve is: lack of ability to understand PIPs. >> > PIPs I had the chance of reading lack: >> > * Background information: It should contain all background information >> > necessary to understand the problem and the solution >> > * Clarity: It should be written in a coherent and easy to understand >> way. >> > >> > I thought this could improve using 2 ways: >> > 1. Define a clear template for PIPs - this should solve all the missing >> > information. This is in progress. >> > 2. Provide a checklist to verify the +1 voter check those 3 things: >> > background information, clarity, solid technical solution. >> > >> > Both Enrico and Yunze say, if I understand correctly, that the +1 voter >> > checks those 3 things implicitly. >> > Yet when I try to learn Pulsar by reading historical PIPs, I find some >> > lacking on those things (clarity, background information) making it >> super >> > hard for me to get onboard into Pulsar. >> > >> > Another aspect worth noting is: community increase. In my own opinion, >> > documents with clarity and enough background information produce a >> feeling >> > of quality - high quality. Making Pulsar PIPs clear and have all >> > information to understand them will help grow Pulsar adoption. >> > >> > Maybe incremental improvements are better.. If I understand correctly, >> both >> > Enrico and Yunze - you are ok with having a summary template, but have >> it >> > non-required? >> > >> > Enrico - Regarding previous suggestions. Root cause - help make Pulsar >> > better from my own perspective. Some suggestions may be super bad >> > suggestions and hopefully some will be good :) >> > This specific one - I validated with the PMC members in the weekly zoom >> > meeting roughly 3 weeks ago, and got +1 across the board (we had 5 >> people). >> > I did it since I felt it was a touchy subject. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Asaf >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 9:15 AM Yunze Xu <y...@streamnative.io.invalid> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > 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 >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > >> >
