On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 8:58 PM Dave Fisher <wave4d...@comcast.net> wrote:
> You asked. Here it is. > > 1. You brushed aside Enrico’s concerns with that comment. It was not > subtle. > I don't understand. Enrico wrote: "+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" I changed it from required to optional. So why do you say I brushed aside? > > 2. I think the project should pay more attention to Rajan’s concerns about > new contributors being either ignored or told they need a PIP for what > seems to them a trivial change. We lose contributors. We need to handle > that more gently by helping them figure how to better make their PR. > > Rajan did not reply on the suggestion for vote checklist. Are you referring to something else? > 3. For minor PIPs this is too much. Minor PIPs should be easy. > Do you refer to the PIP template we recently merged? I don't have any ideas how to tackle this. I think it's ok for people to write a very short description for each section and delete a section which seems unrelated, especially if it's a small PIP. > > 4. For master PIPs like your OTel nothing here is enough. Experience with > PIP-45 and PIP-192 is that there will be breakage, divergence, and not > everyone will agree on the result. You worked for 11 months in apparent > secrecy, yet seemingly ignored Lari’s similar open discussion about scaling > which occurred in the same time frame. > I personally haven't seen a single mail about scaling *metrics* to handle a massive amount of topics or the multitude of problems. I did see emails about trying to solve Pulsar's ability to handle 1M topics, but it's tangent since Metrics has to be fixed unrelated to which solution is chosen. Secrecy? - I posted a big Google Doc to the community detailing all the existing problems I found with existing metric system, and pitched my idea to solve it there. I posted it in Slack as well since I really needed feedback on it. This happened 4 months after I started (out of the 11 months). - I talked about it twice I believe in the Pulsar Summit bi-weekly meetings. - I conducted a huge POC for all the months after that trying to see if my ideas would actually hold, and if OpenTelemetry community can pitch and go in the direction I wasn thinking of. I didn't want to post anything until I was sure it was a valid direction. So nothing was secret about it. Back to the topic: The checklist is not aimed at anomalies of PIPs but to the majority of them. > > Being overly dependent on rules is not a replacement for open discussion. > My suggestion was to make the checklist optional, so it's not a rule, but just a suggestion. > > Sorry if this seems harsh, but this is what I think as an individual. > > The ASF has a saying “Community over Code” > > I'm trying to suggest ways which in my opinion would make the community better. I'm ok with getting concrete feedback why those ways do not achieve that. > Best, > Dave > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On May 7, 2023, at 9:55 AM, Asaf Mesika <asaf.mes...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >
