Thanks for driving this, Rajan. -Lari
On 2024/10/01 23:47:36 Rajan Dhabalia wrote: > Thank you everyone for providing the feedback to improve the PIP process > that will definitely help contributors to move faster without facing > unnecessary delay. I guess we followed this practice for PIP-381 ( > https://lists.apache.org/thread/qzbhnnqxxbmmr2bhdh10vn3pn7l5yy0w) and it > definitely shows that positive involvement and faster voting could help the > community to move faster and efficiently. > > I have created a PR to update the PIP process with the same criteria: > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/23387 > > Thanks, > Rajan > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 8:46 AM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Il giorno mar 24 set 2024 alle ore 17:31 Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> ha > > scritto: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 23, 2024, at 8:07 PM, Yunze Xu <x...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > I have similar concerns for it. Some PIPs might not get enough > > > > attention. Generally I agree with the proposal that a PIP should be > > > > treated as "approved" if > > > > - there is at least 1 binding +1 vote > > > > - there is no binding -1 vote > > > > - the vote has started for over a month > > > > > > > > Additionally, if a PMC member gave a -1 vote, he/she should be > > > > responsible to actively respond to the proposal changes or > > > > explanations from the author. If the PMC member never respond to the > > > > PIP author for a long time, this binding -1 vote should also be > > > > invalidated. > > > > > > A -1 without a technical reason should be considered invalid. Please see > > > this standard advice from the ASF: > > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto > > > > > > An -1 from a PMC member on a PIP must stand if they provide a valid > > > technical reason. Ones that don’t should be immediately be considered > > > invalid. > > > > > > > I think that in general anyone who reviews/VOTEs and gives a -1 must follow > > up and stay around. > > If you decide to participate as a voter or reviewer you become responsible > > for it, otherwise you must not cast your vote. > > > > I apologize if I have left some PRs in "Request changes" state for long > > time, feel free to "Dismiss" my review if it is outdated > > > > my 2 cents > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Yunze > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 7:52 AM Rajan Dhabalia <rdhaba...@apache.org> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hi, > > > >> > > > >> I have created this PIP a few months back and it is having relatively > > a > > > >> simple and non-breaking change, and voting is open for a while but > > this > > > PIP > > > >> still has not received the required number of binding VOTE to move > > > forward. > > > >> Another recent example is PIP-271 which is a very useful and simple > > api > > > >> change and we also would like to use it but VOTE is open for more > > than a > > > >> year now and not moving forward even after reminding multiple times. I > > > >> understand contributors of the projects would be busy and they also > > have > > > >> priorities to review specific PIPs which is part of their organization > > > >> interest but due to lack of bandwidth to review other PIPs, we are not > > > able > > > >> to move forward with PIP and implementation even though those PIPs > > > already > > > >> have partial approval with binding VOTE. > > > >> Therefore, I think we should improve the PIP process to encourage such > > > >> useful PIPs which are sitting for a long time to wait for complete > > > >> approval, and those PIP can be unblocked and move forward. So, we > > should > > > >> also add max waiting time for any PIP which has partial binding VOTE > > (at > > > >> least 1 binding VOTE) and non-negative binding VOTE can move forward > > > after > > > >> waiting for max 1 month. This way , we can still have an approved > > review > > > >> from binding VOTE and max time can give contributors hope to get their > > > >> change available to get the benefit of Pulsar for their organization. > > > >> We should really improve the process as it is really painful for the > > > org or > > > >> contributors who have to wait such long for useful changes in Pulsar. > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> Rajan > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 8:08 AM Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> +1 (binding) > > > >>> > > > >>> -Lari > > > >>> > > > >>> On 2024/09/04 04:38:01 Rajan Dhabalia wrote: > > > >>>> Hi, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I would like to start a voting thread for PIP-326 to support the > > admin > > > >>> API > > > >>>> to read schema metadata and display in readable format. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> PIP design PR: > > > >>>> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/22913 > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Thread: > > > >>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/8s8m6k7oprmkn3jpblgxqkdh6d8z43x2 > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Thanks, > > > >>>> Rajan > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >
