Also my vote is same as Jeff. d but would slightly prefer b. It is important we make progress as we have been discussing this since April!!
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 1:52 PM sankalp kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> wrote: > The last email on the thread was 3 days ago and I made it clear days back > that we should vote on it to make progress. Without this vote, I am not > sure we will make progress. > Many people want to contribute on this and hence we are voting so we can > make progress. > > My vote is d > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 1:36 PM Jonathan Haddad <j...@jonhaddad.com> wrote: > >> This voting process feels a bit rushed and frankly not well thought out. >> In addition to Sylvain's valid points, which you (Sankalp) didn't address >> at all, the discussion in the other threads seemed to be ongoing. The >> last >> email you wrote on one of them was asking for additional feedback, that >> indicates the discussion is still open. >> >> Out of principal I vote for none of the options (inaction). You're >> deliberately trying to ram *something* through, and that's not how this is >> supposed to work. >> >> For those of you unfamiliar with the process - please read >> https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. >> >> I'd like to ask those of you that are +1'ing, are you willing to >> contribute >> or are you just voting we start an admin tool from scratch because you >> think it'll somehow produce a perfect codebase? >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:50 PM sankalp kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi Sylvain, >> > I would appreciate if we can give feedback on the >> > discussion threads and not wait for vote threads. I made it clear in the >> > discussion thread that we will start a vote!! >> > Thanks, >> > Sankalp >> > >> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:47 PM Jeff Jirsa <jji...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:41 PM Sylvain Lebresne <lebre...@gmail.com >> > >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > That's probably a stupid question, and excuse me if it is, but what >> > does >> > > > those votes on the dev mailing list even mean? >> > > > >> > > > How do you count votes at the end? Just by counting all votes cast, >> > > > irregardless of whomever cast it? Or are we intending to only count >> PMC >> > > > members, or maybe committers votes? >> > > > >> > > >> > > I believe the intent is to try to see if there exists consensus. >> > > Ultimately, PMC is going to matter more than random email addresses >> from >> > > people nobody recognizes. This should be in public, though, not >> private, >> > so >> > > seeing what feedback is beyond the PMC is useful (primarily because it >> > will >> > > matter when it comes time to extend and maintain it - if people >> strongly >> > > prefer one or the other, then maintenance is going to be a problem). >> > > >> > > If there's 100 random non-contributor votes for one option and 20 pmc >> > votes >> > > for another options, I think the real answer will be "we don't have >> > > consensus, and either we don't do it, or we do it the way the PMC >> thinks >> > is >> > > best", for all of the reasons you describe in the paragraphs below. >> > > >> > > >> > > > If the former, that is a bit weird to me because we simply don't >> know >> > who >> > > > votes. And I don't mean to be rude towards anyone, but 1) someone >> could >> > > > easily create 10 email addresses to vote 10 times (and sure, you >> could >> > > > invoke trust, and I'm not entirely against trust in general, but >> it's >> > the >> > > > internet...) and 2) this kind of decision will have non-trivial >> > > > consequences for the project, particularly on those that maintain >> it, >> > so >> > > I >> > > > admit I'm not entirely comfortable with "anyone's voice has the same >> > > > weight". >> > > > If the latter, then this makes more sense to me (why are we even >> > > bothering >> > > > voting PMC members in if it's not to handle these kinds of >> decisions, >> > > which >> > > > are very "project management" related), but we should be very clear >> > about >> > > > this from the get go (we could still use the dev list for >> transparency >> > > > sake, that I don't mind)? We should probably also have some >> deadline to >> > > the >> > > > vote, one that isn't too short. >> > > > >> > > >> > > Like releases, I think PMC votes count >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Anyway, fwiw, my opinion on this vote is not far from the one on the >> > > golang >> > > > driver acceptance vote (for which my remark above also apply btw): >> no >> > yet >> > > > 100% convinced adding more pieces and scope to the project is what >> the >> > > > project needs just right now, but not strongly opposed if people >> really >> > > > wants this (and this one makes more sense to me than the golang >> driver >> > > > actually). But if I'm to pick between a) and b), I'm leaning b). >> > > > >> > > >> > > FWIW, two of the main reasons I'm in favor is as a way to lower >> barrier >> > to >> > > entry to both using the software AND contributing to the project, so I >> > > think your points are valid (both on gocql thread and on this note >> > above), >> > > but I think that's also part of why we should be encouraging both. >> > > >> > > - Jeff >> > > >> > >> >> >> -- >> Jon Haddad >> http://www.rustyrazorblade.com >> twitter: rustyrazorblade >> >
