This is a good initiative, especially when the community is still small and growing and the product is evolving rapidly! I would also like to propose extension of this to the DISCUSS phase of a PIP. The intention is to have some guidelines about replies and follow ups from both the author of the PIP and any reviewers that participate during the discussion phase.
What do you think? Is this needed or the voting phase makes it moot? Regards On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 5:26 AM Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Girish Sharma
