Sure, that sounds good to me. +1 On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 1:50 PM Holden Karau <hol...@pigscanfly.ca> wrote:
> > > 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 >>> >>
