> With regards to CEPs, I personally don't see any value in voting to start
one.
Agree with this, and I'd go even further - requiring a vote in order to
propose an idea runs so counter to the idea of a CEP that it would default
the purpose of even having them. The CEP is the _proposal_ for a chan
> maybe I just missed it
Haha, delicate __
This is what I get for trying to participate while aggressively time-boxing so
I can achieve other things. I imagined it entirely, and have confused
everyone; sorry Jordan and Josh.
On 05/06/2020, 00:03, "Joshua McKenzie" wrote:
Oh, interesti
Oh, interesting. I checked the doc and didn't see a time frame on the roll
call but maybe I just missed it.
I'll open it up for comments either way.
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 5:51 PM Benedict Elliott Smith
wrote:
> I think the 24 hours point that was raised was pointed to being too short
> was jus
I think the 24 hours point that was raised was pointed to being too short was
just for the roll-call; I personally that think for closing down a discussion,
24 hours is acceptable in order to assist progress, since it should only be
called when it's clear the discussion has halted or consensus h
I think the doc is a great place to reach agreement on things that are easily
agreed - the final form will be moved to the wiki anyway, and voted on here.
Anything that isn't readily agreed should be moved here for further discussion,
in my opinion, to widen participation.
On 04/06/2020, 22:4
Also - would everyone like the doc opened up for comments so we can have
localized feedback and discussion there? I think this ML thread might get
hard to follow rapidly but I want to be mindful of apache policies
surrounding things happening on the ML. I think closing out w/final time
window and l
On the topic of CEP's, I'd advocate for us trying a couple/few out first
and seeing what uncertainties arise as being troublesome and see if we
can't codify a best practice around them. To date we've had only a couple
CEP's actively move and a few in draft pre-move pending more progress on
4.0 so I
> A link to the current draft of the governance doc is here:
>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wOrJBkgudY2BxEVtubq9IbiFFC3d3efJSj9OIrGcqQ8/edit#
>
> The doc is only 2 pages long; if you're interested in engaging in a
> discussion about how we evolve and collaborate as a project, please take
> s
> It seems all rules on voting are predicated on the question being binary
ASF votes are meant to be - as far as possible - a formality confirming
consensus, or something to resolve irreconcilable disagreements. The
discussion section describes how to build consensus when there are multiple
o
I missed the end of Josh's email that suggested engaging here and the doc
doesn't allow comments anyways so some more questions / thoughts here:
- Regarding the PMC roll call, is there any definition of "active on the
project and want to participate"?
- Will the PMC roll call apply to the PMC its
Glad to see the PMC has been discussing these topics and is making efforts
towards improving on the status quo. Thanks for sharing the draft. I'll
leave more detailed questions/comments on the doc itself but as a whole its
encouraging to see the PMC rely more heavily on the community and make an
ef
A couple of thoughts:
1. It seems all rules on voting are predicated on the question being
binary. Perhaps we should also tack on a section for cases where we have to
pick among multiple options (a simple plurality, maybe).
2. Should this itself be a CEP? (E.g., Python's governance model was
propo
Hello project!
The pmc has been discussing how we make decisions as a pmc, how we make
decisions as a project of committers and contributors, what decisions are
made where, and how those decisions are ratified and by whom. We came to
the conclusion that there's value in having a more formal (thoug
Hi,
as per Beta lifecycle doc instructions I wanted to check with the ML
about marking this test with xfail as per the PR in the ticket.
The root cause has been found and there have been previous attempts at
fixing it like CASSANDRA-1471. Still there is room for failure as I
found in CASSANDRA-15
14 matches
Mail list logo
