-1 (binding) — to me it doesn’t matter that the cost is low if the objection is technical then I think we need to respect the veto. There is a fundamental disagreement as to what the correct technical way to address this problem is (removal + documentation vs legacy config) and a PMC member has vetoed the legacy config option.
I think I disagree with Mark on the assertion that the veto needs to have “substantial technical concern,” but rather a valid concern. I think in addition to the veto they’ve also gone above and beyond providing alternative ways to accomplish this. On a personal level: I am optimistic we can unblock the release but I think it’s important to err on the side of respecting the veto here in the interest of perceived fairness *especially* because of vendor aspects. To be clear I’ve worked at most of these companies (and many of the people) and I’m not ascribing malice to anyone in this, I think mistakes happen (god knows I’ve had a fair share). I think we’re all doing our best here and would ask that we show everyone understanding regardless of the outcome. Sending hugs and good vibes to y’all. Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau Fight Health Insurance: https://www.fighthealthinsurance.com/ <https://www.fighthealthinsurance.com/?q=hk_email> Books (Learning Spark, High Performance Spark, etc.): https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9 <https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9> YouTube Live Streams: https://www.youtube.com/user/holdenkarau Pronouns: she/her On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 5:07 PM Holden Karau <holden.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: > Given it’s the weekend maybe let’s give folks at least one full work day. > > Twitter: https://twitter.com/holdenkarau > Fight Health Insurance: https://www.fighthealthinsurance.com/ > <https://www.fighthealthinsurance.com/?q=hk_email> > Books (Learning Spark, High Performance Spark, etc.): > https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9 <https://amzn.to/2MaRAG9> > YouTube Live Streams: https://www.youtube.com/user/holdenkarau > Pronouns: she/her > > > On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 4:44 PM Mark Hamstra <markhams...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Quick administrative note: I don't see any reason why this vote should >> take a long time, so I expect to close the process and tally the votes >> in not much more than 48 hours. >> >> On Sat, Mar 15, 2025 at 4:35 PM Mark Hamstra <markhams...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > There has been enough discussion on this topic already, so I think >> > that an immediate vote on the validity of Dongjoon's technical >> > justification for his veto of the "Retain migration logic ... in Spark >> > 4.0.x" proposal is in order. That technical justification has been >> > called into question, and the guidance at >> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#Veto leaves it to the >> > PMC to determine whether the technical justification is valid: "In >> > case of doubt, deciding whether a technical justification is valid is >> > up to the PMC." As such, only PMC votes will decide the outcome of >> > this vote. This is neither a vote on a code change itself not a vote >> > on whether a package is ready for release, so it a procedural vote on >> > whether the technical justification is valid. As such, the vote will >> > be decided by a simple majority where +1 votes hold that the technical >> > justification is not valid and -1 votes hold that the technical >> > justification is valid. >> > >> > I would request that at least PMC members post more than just a naked >> > vote, but instead endeavor to give some reason why they have assessed >> > the technical justification as they have. I'll start: >> > >> > Despite all of the discussion related to Dongjoon's -1 vote, I must >> > confess to still not being entirely clear on what is his technical >> > justification for that veto. I see claims that including an admonition >> > in the Spark 4.0.x release notes that a prior upgrade to 3.5.5 is >> > required to maintain the integrity of already existing data streams, >> > and I see assertions about the maintenance burden that including the >> > migration logic would impose on future Spark versions, but I don't >> > think that I see any other technical objections. I do not believe that >> > the claimed technical justification is valid. >> > >> > In requiring that a veto of a code change be accompanied by a >> > technical justification for the veto, the Apache Voting Process states >> > that: "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must >> > provide with the veto a technical justification showing why the change >> > is bad (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, >> > etc. ). A veto without a justification is invalid and has no weight." >> > This strongly implies that there must be something objectively wrong >> > with the proposed code change in that it causes significant harm in >> > the way of opening a security exposure, negatively affecting >> > performance, or presumably other significant user harms or perhaps >> > even developer burdens. >> > >> > The proposed addition of the migration logic to Spark 4.0.x does not >> > cause any harm to Spark's users. For many users, those not using >> > streaming data, the change will have no effect. For streaming users >> > the change will be beneficial, not harmful. >> > >> > Neither do I find the claim of excessive, ongoing developer burden to >> > be persuasive. The changes are tiny and easily maintained -- in fact, >> > it wouldn't surprise me if no further changes to this migration logic >> > would be needed for a very long time. >> > >> > Some of what we are left with is just an expression of preference for >> > a technical alternative to the migration logic -- i.e. including in >> > the release notes an admonition to first upgrade to 3.5.5. But the >> > Apache Voting Process does not say that in the face of code >> > alternatives A and B, a qualified voter is justified in vetoing A if >> > they prefer B. Instead, the Voting Process strongly implies that >> > something more is needed to justify a veto, as I've already covered. >> > Thus I don't find Dongjoon's preference for the release notes option >> > to be adequate justification for the veto. >> > >> > The only remaining question I see is whether including "databricks" in >> > the Apache Code is ever allowed or if any such instance must be >> > expunged as soon as possible. I am not aware of any ASF policy that >> > strictly forbids the mention of a vendor in Apache code for any >> > reason, even if that vendor has a product based on Apache code, even >> > if that vendor enjoys a uniquely influential position vis a vis some >> > Apache code or project. Certainly the PMC has a duty to see to it that >> > neither Databricks nor any other vendor exercises influence or control >> > over Apache Spark outside of the established Apache process, but the >> > proposed migration code changes do not advantage Databricks -- if >> > anything they remove a minor avenue of influence, and simply need to >> > mention "databricks" once in order match and transform a configuration >> > into a vendor neutral equivalent. While not optimal, I can't find such >> > a one-time inclusion of "databricks" to be truly offensive to any >> > non-technical policy concern -- certainly not offensive to the point >> > that it outweighs the user advantage of including the migration logic >> > in Spark 4.0.x. >> > >> > In summary, I do not find Dongjoon's given technical justification to >> > be valid relative to the Apache requirements for a veto of a code >> > change, so I must vote... >> > >> > +1 >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org >> >>
