On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 7:39 AM Imran Rashid < iras...@apache.org > wrote:
> Hi Holden, > > thanks for leading this discussion, I'm in favor in general. I have one > specific question -- these two sections seem to contradict each other > slightly: > > > If there is a -1 from a non-committer, multiple committers or the PMC > should be consulted before moving forward. > > > >If the original person who cast the veto can not be reached in a > reasonable time frame given likely holidays, it is up to the PMC to decide > the next steps within the guidelines of the ASF. This must be decided by a > consensus vote under the ASF voting rules. > > I think the intent here is that if a *committer* gives a -1, then the PMC > has to have a consensus vote? And if a non-committer gives a -1, then > multiple committers should be consulted? How about combining those two > into something like > > "All -1s with justification merit discussion. A -1 from a non-committer > can be overridden only with input from multiple committers. A -1 from a > committer requires a consensus vote of the PMC under ASF voting rules". > I can work with that although it wasn’t quite what I was originally going for. I didn’t intend to have committer -1s be eligible for override. I believe committers have demonstrated sufficient merit; they are the same as PMC member -1s in our project. My aim was just if something weird happens (like say I had a pending -1 before my motorcycle crash last year) we go to the PMC and take a binding vote on what to do, and most likely someone on the PMC will reach out to the ASF for understanding around the guidelines. What about: All -1s with justification merit discussion. A -1 from a non-committer can be overridden only with input from multiple committers and suitable time for any committer to raise concerns. A -1 from a committer who can not be reached requires a consensus vote of the PMC under ASF voting rules to determine the next steps within the ASF guidelines for vetos. > > > thanks, > Imran > > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 3:41 PM Holden Karau <hol...@pigscanfly.ca> wrote: > >> Hi Spark Developers, >> >> There has been a rather active discussion regarding the specific vetoes >> that occured during Spark 3. From that I believe we are now mostly in >> agreement that it would be best to clarify our rules around code vetoes & >> merging in general. Personally I believe this change is important to help >> improve the appearance of a level playing field in the project. >> >> Once discussion settles I'll run this by a copy editor, my grammar isn't >> amazing, and bring forward for a vote. >> >> The current Spark committer guide is at https://spark.apache.org/ >> committers.html. I am proposing we add a section on when it is OK to >> merge PRs directly above the section on how to merge PRs. The text I am >> proposing to amend our committer guidelines with is: >> >> PRs shall not be merged during active on topic discussion except for >> issues like critical security fixes of a public vulnerability. Under >> extenuating circumstances PRs may be merged during active off topic >> discussion and the discussion directed to a more appropriate venue. Time >> should be given prior to merging for those involved with the conversation >> to explain if they believe they are on topic. >> >> Lazy consensus requires giving time for discussion to settle, while >> understanding that people may not be working on Spark as their full time >> job and may take holidays. It is believed that by doing this we can limit >> how often people feel the need to exercise their veto. >> >> For the purposes of a -1 on code changes, a qualified voter includes all >> PMC members and committers in the project. For a -1 to be a valid veto it >> must include a technical reason. The reason can include things like the >> change may introduce a maintenance burden or is not the direction of Spark. >> >> If there is a -1 from a non-committer, multiple committers or the PMC >> should be consulted before moving forward. >> >> >> If the original person who cast the veto can not be reached in a >> reasonable time frame given likely holidays, it is up to the PMC to decide >> the next steps within the guidelines of the ASF. This must be decided by a >> consensus vote under the ASF voting rules. >> >> These policies serve to reiterate the core principle that code must not >> be merged with a pending veto or before a consensus has been reached (lazy >> or otherwise). >> >> It is the PMC’s hope that vetoes continue to be infrequent, and when they >> occur all parties take the time to build consensus prior to additional >> feature work. >> >> >> Being a committer means exercising your judgement, while working in a >> community with diverse views. There is nothing wrong in getting a second >> (or 3rd or 4th) opinion when you are uncertain. Thank you for your >> dedication to the Spark project, it is appreciated by the developers and >> users of Spark. >> >> >> It is hoped that these guidelines do not slow down development, rather by >> removing some of the uncertainty that makes it easier for us to reach >> consensus. If you have ideas on how to improve these guidelines, or other >> parts of how the Spark project operates you should reach out on the dev@ >> list to start the discussion. >> >> >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Holden >> >> -- >> Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau >> Books (Learning Spark, High Performance Spark, etc.): https://amzn.to/ >> 2MaRAG9 <https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9> >> YouTube Live Streams: https://www.youtube.com/user/holdenkarau >> >
