Once again, a vote procedure is not a procedural vote. This is unarguably a code change vote: the whole point of the vote is to free you to change the 4.0 branch to include migration logic code present in 3.5. We are not voting on whether a package is ready to release, nor are we voting on a procedural matter separable from code changes and enduring beyond this specific code change proposal.
Your code change proposal has received a -1 vote from a qualified voter. That vote has been accompanied by a claimed technical justification. The code change has been vetoed. Full stop. At this point there are only two ways to get beyond the veto and proceed with the proposed code change: 1) Dongjoon can withdraw his veto (which he has not done to my knowledge at this point); 2) The PMC can decide that the purported technical justification is not valid, and thus the claimed veto is invalid and has no weight. The validity of the technical justification has been called into doubt, and ASF Voting Process provides that "[i]n case of doubt, deciding whether a technical justification is valid is up to the PMC." Absent either of those, the proposal remains vetoed. On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 5:52 AM Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
