> That's the reason why you proposed the vote procedure and we agreed. Didn’t you see the part “we agreed”? Who is we in the context?
I don’t think he answered my questions - he explained his reasoning of his proposal which majorly does not agree with. You even said uou are not persuaded and I want to ask you now you were persuaded from his last post. Again I haven’t heard my answers. He showed his reasoning but there is nothing about the evidence of the validity of “technical” objection. I think I have asked people who judged his -1 as veto for their reasoning of how this could be “technical” objection and I don’t think I heard anything. I can be corrected if you can point out what is the “technical” objection. If you or Dongjoon do not provide this to the end of the week, I have to consider I haven’t heard about that and the veto (although Dongjoon stated it is not a veto) will be ignored. 2025년 3월 15일 (토) 오후 8:19, Mark Hamstra <markhams...@gmail.com>님이 작성: > 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 > >
