If you think vote is being forced, why not reply to my email on another thread when I said we should vote? Why was the thread dead for months and someone comes back with a contribution and then people starts talking?
I would have happily waited for few more days!! On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 2:09 PM Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > It is important we make progress as we have been discussing this since > > April!! > > > The discussion was making progress. Just because you want things to happen > faster is no reason to force an early vote. > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:04 PM sankalp kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > 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 > > >> > > > > > >
