Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 18, 2023, at 5:14 AM, 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.
Nothing discussed in that meeting was a decision. PMC Members in the community
meeting are not making PMC decisions. Decisions are ONLY made here. Whatever
you may think I said my intent was for you to start this discussion and only
that.
Best,
Dave
>
> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
