Re: [DISCUSS] Flink project bylaws

Posted by Chesnay Schepler-3 on Jul 11, 2019; 1:08pm
URL: http://deprecated-apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.368.s1.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Flink-project-bylaws-tp30409p30440.html

The emeritus stuff seems like unnecessary noise.

There's a bunch of subtle changes in the draft compared to existing
"conventions"; we should find a way to highlight these and discuss them
one by one.

On 11/07/2019 14:29, Robert Metzger wrote:

> Thank you Becket for kicking off this discussion and creating a draft in
> the Wiki.
>
> I left some comments in the wiki.
>
> In my understanding this means, that a committer always needs a review and
>> +1 from another committer. As far as I know this is currently not always
>> the case (often committer authors, contributor reviews & +1s).
>
> I would agree to add such a bylaw, if we had cases in the past where code
> was not sufficiently reviewed AND we believe that we have enough capacity
> to ensure a separate committer's approval.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:49 AM Konstantin Knauf <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> thanks a lot for driving this, Becket. I have two remarks regarding the
>> "Actions" section:
>>
>> * In addition to a simple "Code Change" we could also add a row for "Code
>> Change requiring a FLIP" with a reference to the FLIP process page. A FLIP
>> will have/does have different rules for approvals, etc.
>> * For "Code Change" the draft currently requires "one +1 from a committer
>> who has not authored the patch followed by a Lazy approval (not counting
>> the vote of the contributor), moving to lazy majority if a -1 is received".
>> In my understanding this means, that a committer always needs a review and
>> +1 from another committer. As far as I know this is currently not always
>> the case (often committer authors, contributor reviews & +1s).
>>
>> I think it is worth thinking about how we can make it easy to follow the
>> bylaws e.g. by having more Flink-specific Jira workflows and ticket types +
>> corresponding permissions. While this is certainly "Step 2", I believe, we
>> really need to make it as easy & transparent as possible, otherwise they
>> will be unintentionally broken.
>>
>> Cheers and thanks,
>>
>> Konstantin
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:10 AM Becket Qin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> As it was raised in the FLIP process discussion thread [1], currently
>> Flink
>>> does not have official bylaws to govern the operation of the project.
>> Such
>>> bylaws are critical for the community to coordinate and contribute
>>> together. It is also the basis of other processes such as FLIP.
>>>
>>> I have drafted a Flink bylaws page and would like to start a discussion
>>> thread on this.
>>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=120731026
>>> The bylaws will affect everyone in the community. It'll be great to hear
>>> your thoughts.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>>
>> http://apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.1008284.n3.nabble.com/DISCUSS-META-FLIP-Sticking-or-not-to-a-strict-FLIP-voting-process-td29978.html#none
>>
>> --
>>
>> Konstantin Knauf | Solutions Architect
>>
>> [phone]
>>
>>
>> Planned Absences: 10.08.2019 - 31.08.2019, 05.09. - 06.09.2010
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ververica GmbH | Invalidenstrasse 115, 10115 Berlin, Germany
>>
>> --
>>
>> Ververica GmbH
>> Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg: HRB 158244 B
>> Managing Directors: Dr. Kostas Tzoumas, Dr. Stephan Ewen
>>