Once again, I have to object. Dongjoon said that the vote is a time limited procedure, not that the vote itself is a procedural vote as distinct from a code change vote or a package release vote.
Frankly, this feels like you are trying to manipulate the vote procedure by misrepresenting Dongjoon, and you are quickly losing my confidence in your ability to administer a fair voting procedure. I still consider the proposal to be vetoed. On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 6:11 PM Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > UPDATE: > > We were having a discussion about the type of VOTE, since Dongjoon's -1 > should be considered as a veto if we see this as a code change VOTE. > Dongjoon clarified that he does not see this VOTE as a code change, hence he > gave -1 but not intended to block the VOTE. > > That said, we have confirmed that Dongjoon's -1 is not a veto. I think the > VOTE result is correct as it is. I'll proceed with the next steps. > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 11:19 AM 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
