I understand that Dave, and hence I only started a discussion. What do you think of last reply I made there?
On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 5:31 PM Dave Fisher <wave4d...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > 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 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >> > >
