Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:54 AM Marcus Eriksson wrote: > +1 > > > On 22 June 2020 at 08:37:39, Mick Semb Wever (m...@apache.org) wrote: > > > - Vote will run through 6/24/20 > > - pmc votes considered binding > > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > > - committer and community votes considered advisory > > > > +1 (binding) > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 -- Sylvain On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:48 AM Benjamin Lerer wrote: > +1 > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:54 AM Marcus Eriksson > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > > > On 22 June 2020 at 08:37:39, Mick Semb Wever (m...@apache.org) wrote: > > > > > - Vote will run through 6/24/20 > > > - pmc votes considered binding > > > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > > > - committer and community votes considered advisory > > > > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 > On 22 Jun 2020, at 08:54, Sylvain Lebresne wrote: > > +1 > -- > Sylvain > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:48 AM Benjamin Lerer > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 8:54 AM Marcus Eriksson >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> On 22 June 2020 at 08:37:39, Mick Semb Wever (m...@apache.org) wrote: >>> - Vote will run through 6/24/20 - pmc votes considered binding - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote - committer and community votes considered advisory >>> >>> >>> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> - >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >>> >>> >> - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
If you read the clauses literally there's no conflict - not all committers that +1 the change need to review the work. It just means that two committers have indicated they are comfortable with the patch being merged. One of the +1s could be based on another pre-existing review and trust in both the contributor's and reviewer's knowledge of the area; and/or by skimming the patch. Though they should make it clear that they did not review the patch when +1ing, so there's no ambiguity. Perhaps we should elaborate on the document to avoid this confusion, as this has come up multiple times. On 22/06/2020, 02:56, "Joshua McKenzie" wrote: The way I've heard it articulated (and makes sense to me) is that a 2nd committer skimming a contribution to make sure everything looks reasonable should be sufficient. It's a touch more rigor than we do now (1 contrib + 1 committer) without slowing things down too much. If we can develop a healthy relationship with git revert on the project as well, this model should further be de-risked. Also, on my personal docket is for us to discuss how one becomes a committer and charting that course in the near future, so hopefully we'll see our committer pool expand in diversity and count to make this less of a burden. On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 7:32 PM Joseph Lynch wrote: > +1 (nb). > > Thank you Josh for advocating for these changes! > > I am curious about how Code Contribution Guideline #2 reading "Code > modifications must have been reviewed by at least one other > contributor" and Guideline #3 reading "Code modifications require two > +1 committer votes (can be author + reviewer)" will work in practice. > Specifically, if a contributor submits a ticket reporting a bug with a > patch attached and then it is reviewed by a committer and committed > that would appear sufficient under Code Contribution Guideline #2 but > insufficient under Code Contribution Guideline #3? I'm sorry if this > was discussed before I just want to make sure going forward I properly > follow the to be adopted guidelines. > > Thanks again! > -Joey > > > On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 8:34 AM Jon Haddad wrote: > > > > +1 binding > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 11:24 AM Jordan West wrote: > > > > > +1 (nb) > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:13 AM Jonathan Ellis > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie < > jmcken...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Link to doc: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > > > > > > > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > > > > > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for > > > votes > > > > > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added > to the > > > > > calculation." > > > > > > > > > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low > water > > > mark > > > > > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of > stall > > > > due > > > > > to low participation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >- Vote will run through 6/24/20 > > > > >- pmc votes considered binding > > > > >- simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > > > > >- committer and community votes considered advisory > > > > > > > > > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as > our > > > > > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > > > > > calculation on subsequent votes. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the > time > > > > and > > > > > collaboration on this. > > > > > > > > > > ~Josh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jonathan Ellis > > > > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > > > > @spyced > > > > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
Also, +1 On 22/06/2020, 11:23, "Benedict Elliott Smith" wrote: If you read the clauses literally there's no conflict - not all committers that +1 the change need to review the work. It just means that two committers have indicated they are comfortable with the patch being merged. One of the +1s could be based on another pre-existing review and trust in both the contributor's and reviewer's knowledge of the area; and/or by skimming the patch. Though they should make it clear that they did not review the patch when +1ing, so there's no ambiguity. Perhaps we should elaborate on the document to avoid this confusion, as this has come up multiple times. On 22/06/2020, 02:56, "Joshua McKenzie" wrote: The way I've heard it articulated (and makes sense to me) is that a 2nd committer skimming a contribution to make sure everything looks reasonable should be sufficient. It's a touch more rigor than we do now (1 contrib + 1 committer) without slowing things down too much. If we can develop a healthy relationship with git revert on the project as well, this model should further be de-risked. Also, on my personal docket is for us to discuss how one becomes a committer and charting that course in the near future, so hopefully we'll see our committer pool expand in diversity and count to make this less of a burden. On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 7:32 PM Joseph Lynch wrote: > +1 (nb). > > Thank you Josh for advocating for these changes! > > I am curious about how Code Contribution Guideline #2 reading "Code > modifications must have been reviewed by at least one other > contributor" and Guideline #3 reading "Code modifications require two > +1 committer votes (can be author + reviewer)" will work in practice. > Specifically, if a contributor submits a ticket reporting a bug with a > patch attached and then it is reviewed by a committer and committed > that would appear sufficient under Code Contribution Guideline #2 but > insufficient under Code Contribution Guideline #3? I'm sorry if this > was discussed before I just want to make sure going forward I properly > follow the to be adopted guidelines. > > Thanks again! > -Joey > > > On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 8:34 AM Jon Haddad wrote: > > > > +1 binding > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020, 11:24 AM Jordan West wrote: > > > > > +1 (nb) > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:13 AM Jonathan Ellis > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie < > jmcken...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Link to doc: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > > > > > > > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > > > > > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for > > > votes > > > > > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added > to the > > > > > calculation." > > > > > > > > > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low > water > > > mark > > > > > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of > stall > > > > due > > > > > to low participation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >- Vote will run through 6/24/20 > > > > >- pmc votes considered binding > > > > >- simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > > > > >- committer and community votes considered advisory > > > > > > > > > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as > our > > > > > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > > > > > calculation on subsequent votes. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the > time > > > > and > > > > > collaboration on this. > > > > > > > > > > ~Josh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jonathan Ellis > > > > co-founder, http://www.datastax.com > > > > @spyced > > > > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > --
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 > On 20 Jun 2020, at 16:12, Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > Link to doc: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the > calculation." > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due > to low participation. > > > - Vote will run through 6/24/20 > - pmc votes considered binding > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > - committer and community votes considered advisory > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > calculation on subsequent votes. > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and > collaboration on this. > > ~Josh - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+0 On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > Link to doc: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the > calculation." > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due > to low participation. > > >- Vote will run through 6/24/20 >- pmc votes considered binding >- simple majority of binding participants passes the vote >- committer and community votes considered advisory > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > calculation on subsequent votes. > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and > collaboration on this. > > ~Josh -- Eric Evans john.eric.ev...@gmail.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 (nb) On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 17:15, Eric Evans wrote: > +0 > > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:12 AM Joshua McKenzie > wrote: > > > > Link to doc: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes > > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the > > calculation." > > > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark > > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall > due > > to low participation. > > > > > >- Vote will run through 6/24/20 > >- pmc votes considered binding > >- simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > >- committer and community votes considered advisory > > > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our > > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > > calculation on subsequent votes. > > > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time > and > > collaboration on this. > > > > ~Josh > > > > -- > Eric Evans > john.eric.ev...@gmail.com > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 3:23 AM Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > > If you read the clauses literally there's no conflict - not all committers > that +1 the change need to review the work. It just means that two > committers have indicated they are comfortable with the patch being merged. > One of the +1s could be based on another pre-existing review and trust in > both the contributor's and reviewer's knowledge of the area; and/or by > skimming the patch. Though they should make it clear that they did not > review the patch when +1ing, so there's no ambiguity. Ah, I understand now, thank you Benedict for explaining. If I understand correctly the intention is that all patches must be ~"deeply understood" by at least two contributors (author + reviewer) and one of those contributors must be a comitter. In addition, at least two committers must support the patch being merged not necessarily having done a detailed review. I like the phrase "+1. I support this patch" vs a "+1 I have reviewed this patch and support it". I suppose that if the +1 is coming from a person in the reviewer field the "I have reviewed it" is perhaps implicit. > Perhaps we should elaborate on the document to avoid this confusion, as this > has come up multiple times. I was confused but now I think I understand it and agree with you that the wording is not in conflict. After the document is finalized I can add a FAQ section and, if people think it reasonable, to https://cassandra.apache.org/doc/latest/development/how_to_commit.html . -Joey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 > On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie wrote: > > Link to doc: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance > > Change since previous cancelled vote: > "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes > in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the > calculation." > > This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark > to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due > to low participation. > > > - Vote will run through 6/24/20 > - pmc votes considered binding > - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote > - committer and community votes considered advisory > > Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our > initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark > calculation on subsequent votes. > > Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and > collaboration on this. > > ~Josh - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 On 22.06.20 20:12, Blake Eggleston wrote: +1 On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie wrote: Link to doc: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance Change since previous cancelled vote: "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the calculation." This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due to low participation. - Vote will run through 6/24/20 - pmc votes considered binding - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote - committer and community votes considered advisory Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark calculation on subsequent votes. Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and collaboration on this. ~Josh - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Project governance wiki doc (take 2)
+1 non-binding > On Jun 22, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Stefan Podkowinski wrote: > > +1 > >> On 22.06.20 20:12, Blake Eggleston wrote: >> +1 >> On Jun 20, 2020, at 8:12 AM, Joshua McKenzie wrote: >>> >>> Link to doc: >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance >>> >>> Change since previous cancelled vote: >>> "A simple majority of this electorate becomes the low-watermark for votes >>> in favour necessary to pass a motion, with new PMC members added to the >>> calculation." >>> >>> This previously read "super majority". We have lowered the low water mark >>> to "simple majority" to balance strong consensus against risk of stall due >>> to low participation. >>> >>> >>> - Vote will run through 6/24/20 >>> - pmc votes considered binding >>> - simple majority of binding participants passes the vote >>> - committer and community votes considered advisory >>> >>> Lastly, I propose we take the count of pmc votes in this thread as our >>> initial roll call count for electorate numbers and low watermark >>> calculation on subsequent votes. >>> >>> Thanks again everyone (and specifically Benedict and Jon) for the time and >>> collaboration on this. >>> >>> ~Josh >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
Notes from Cassandra Kubernetes SIG 2020-06-18
Hi everyone, Video and notes uploaded here. The tl;dr is that John Sanda has been working on a common CRD and advancing the conversation. We'll be meeting again this Thursday for another round of discussion. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/2020-06-18+Cassandra+Kubernetes+SIG Patrick
Contributor Meeting 2020-06-23
Yes! That is tomorrow at 10AM PST. Zoom: https://datastax.zoom.us/j/390839037 Add any agenda items here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/2020-06-23+Apache+Cassandra+Contributor+Meeting I think it would be great to get an update on the governance doc under vote right now. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Apache+Cassandra+Project+Governance Thanks and see you tomorrow, Patrick
