I love to hear what is the reasonable time here. If you say 1 week, it doesn't make sense at all. So what time do you suggest on the deadline? Will you be fine by the end of this week?
Don't leave the status to be ambiguous. We already spent 3 weeks there. I don't want to let this be dragged. On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 1:37 PM Mark Hamstra <markhams...@gmail.com> wrote: > The relevant time window is since Dongjoon's veto was challenged, not > any other that you choose to assert. It has been less than a day since > that challenge. > > Dongjoon presented a prima facie correct veto to the proposal. The > technical justification he gave was challenged or asserted to be > invalid. We should either see his response to the challenge or at > least wait a reasonable time for that response before declaring the > veto invalid. > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 8:43 PM Jungtaek Lim > <kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I am open to waiting for a day, but please be sure to remember that 3 > weeks have passed and he had plenty of time to persuade people like I did. > > > > Also, I'd like to remind you that I did not attempt "just one time" to > get his voice (yeah, persuade, actually). > > > > This is the post I sent to ask for revisiting the decision. > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/v35ld522hgtsrghfzkbk8bhf6sopw1kn > > > > This is what I got. > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/ty8svwbp7hqqd325dhd0gohxrpybd2fk > > > > I don't see the feedback to be something that leads to productive > discussion. I feel like discussion is just blocked. > > > > My greatest worry is, we might be in a situation where we have another > cycle of discussion/debate based on his feedback. We have 3 week already > and I think I got users' feedback as well. The people who will be hitting > this are users, not contributors, committers, and PMC members. Even PMC > members need to respect users. That's what the project is for. Likewise > veto, PMC members can't override it. > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 12:26 PM Mark Hamstra <markhams...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Characterizing Dongjoon's position as just "agree to disagree" without > >> any valid technical issue is your position. I have not seen any > >> endorsement from him on list that this is a correct characterization > >> of his position. > >> > >> I see recent questioning of whether Dongjoon's veto is justified by a > >> valid technical issue. I see no response yet to that challenge. There > >> is little to no harm in giving him some more time to respond to the > >> recent challenge to his veto. > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 8:17 PM Jungtaek Lim > >> <kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > Actually, this has been initially triggered from 3 weeks ago, not > just a week we have spent. > >> > https://github.com/apache/spark/pull/49983#issuecomment-2676531485 > >> > > >> > Mark, do you still want me to persuade Dongjoon while I clearly saw > his stance on this on the VOTE thread? He can correct me, but from what I > understand, he just wanted to leave the status to "agree to disagree", and > I'm OK with that as long as I'm not blocked. > >> > > >> > We have asked about the rationale of being against the proposal, > like, what is the ASF policy he is referring to. I don't hear anything. > It's not just happen in a day or so, and I think he had enough time to > discuss it with us if he wanted to persuade the others, like, influencing > the opposite direction. > >> > > >> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 11:58 AM Sean Owen <sro...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> This has been ongoing for a week, the vote has been open for 3 days, > Dongjoon has replied today (not sure if you saw it), and I think this is > all around in circles; I don't see any basis for waiting 24 hours (? where > is this from?) I don't know if this is a code change vote - there is no > code changing. But if it were, I think everyone's still missing the > technical justification part, so, same result. I think this is definitely > the correct result by spirit and letter of policy. > >> >> > >> >> It's not like we can't all change minds if some new legitimate > concern or angle comes out, but, I'd say it's better not to keep > entertaining this conversation if there is no movement on the substance of > the discussion. There is just clear support for the position in this vote. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 9:42 PM Mark Hamstra <markhams...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> This vote has not passed. > >> >>> > >> >>> The proposed code change has been vetoed by a qualified voter. The > >> >>> validity of that veto has been called into question since "the voter > >> >>> must provide with the veto a technical justification showing why the > >> >>> change is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects > >> >>> performance, etc. )." It has been less than 24 hours since > Dongjoon's > >> >>> veto was called into question. He should be given a chance to > explain > >> >>> why there is technical justification for it. > >> >>> > >> >>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 7:21 PM Jungtaek Lim > >> >>> <kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> > > >> >>> > The vote passes with 7 +1s (3 binding +1s) and 1 -1s (1 binding > -1s). > >> >>> > Thanks to all who helped with the vote! > >> >>> > > >> >>> > I'm going to make a code change in branch-4.0 quickly so that we > don't have to trigger another RC for Spark 4.0.0 just because of this. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > (* = binding) > >> >>> > +1: > >> >>> > - Sean R. Owen * > >> >>> > - Jungtaek Lim > >> >>> > - Nicholas Chammas > >> >>> > - Wenchen Fan * > >> >>> > - Adam Binford > >> >>> > - Russell Jurney > >> >>> > - Yang Jie * > >> >>> > > >> >>> > -1: > >> >>> > - Dongjoon Hyun * > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Thanks, > >> >>> > Jungtaek Lim (HeartSaVioR) > >> >>> > >> >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >>> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >> >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org > >
