http://deprecated-apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.368.s1.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Flink-project-bylaws-tp30409p30770.html
leaving this requirement out. As we are currently adding more committers to
> Hi Becket,
>
> Thanks for the proposal.
>
> Regarding the vote of FLIP, preferably at least includes a PMC vote.
> Because FLIP is usually a big change or affects the user's interface
> changes. What do you think? (I leave the comment in the wiki.)
>
> Best,
> Jincheng
>
> Dawid Wysakowicz <
[hidden email]> 于2019年7月17日周三 下午9:12写道：
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Sorry for joining late. I just wanted to say that I really like the
> > proposed bylaws!
> >
> > One comment, I also have the same concerns as expressed by few people
> > before that the "committer +1" on code change might be hard to achieve
> > currently. On the other hand I would say this would be beneficial for
> > the quality/uniformity of our codebase and knowledge sharing.
> >
> > I was just wondering what should be the next step for this? I think it
> > would make sense to already use those bylaws and put them to PMC vote.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Dawid
> >
> > On 12/07/2019 13:35, Piotr Nowojski wrote:
> > > Hi Aljoscha and Becket
> > >
> > > Right, 3 days for FLIP voting is fine I think.
> > >
> > >>> I’m missing this stated somewhere clearly. If we are stating that a
> > single
> > >>> committers +1 is good enough for code review, with 0 hours delay (de
> > facto
> > >>> the current state), we should also write down that this is subject to
> > the
> > >>> best judgement of the committer to respect the components expertise
> and
> > >>> ongoing development plans (also the de facto current state).
> > >> Adding the statement would help clarify the intention, but it may be a
> > >> little difficult to enforce and follow..
> > > I would be fine with that, it’s a soft/vague rule anyway, intended to
> be
> > used with your “best judgemenet". I would like to just avoid a situation
> > when someone violates current uncodified state and refers to the bylaws
> > which are saying merging with any committer +1 is always fine (like mine
> +1
> > for flink-python or flink-ml).
> > >
> > > Piotrek
> > >
> > >> On 12 Jul 2019, at 11:29, Aljoscha Krettek <
[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> @Piotr regarding the 3 days voting on the FLIP. This is just about the
> > voting, before that there needs to be the discussion thread. If three
> days
> > have passed on a vote and there is consensus (i.e. 3 committers/PMCs have
> > voted +1) that seems a high enough bar for me. So far, we have rarely see
> > any FLIPs pass that formal bar.
> > >>
> > >> According to the recent META-FLIP thread, we want to use "lazy
> > majority" for the FLIP voting process. I think that should be changed
> from
> > “consensus” in the proposed bylaws.
> > >>
> > >> Regarding the current state: do we have a current state that we all
> > agree on? I have the feeling that if we try to come up with something
> that
> > reflects the common state, according to PMCs/commiters, that might take a
> > very long time. In that case I think it’s better to adopt something that
> we
> > all like, rather than trying to capture how we do it now.
> > >>
> > >> Aljoscha
> > >>
> > >>> On 12. Jul 2019, at 11:07, Piotr Nowojski <
[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks for the proposal. Generally speaking +1 from my side to the
> > general idea and most of the content. I also see merit to the Chesney's
> > proposal to start from the current state. I think either would be fine
> for
> > me.
> > >>>
> > >>> Couple of comments:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1.
> > >>>
> > >>> I also think that requiring +1 from another committer would slow down
> > and put even more strain on the current reviewing bottleneck that we are
> > having. Even if the change clear and simple, context switch cost is quite
> > high, and that’s just one less PR that the second “cross” committer could
> > have reviewed somewhere else in that time. Besides, current setup that we
> > have (with no cross +1 from another committer required) works quite well
> > and I do not feel that’s causing troubles. On the other hand reviewing
> > bottleneck is.
> > >>>
> > >>> 2.
> > >>>
> > >>>> I think a committer should know when to ask another committer for
> > feedback or not.
> > >>> I’m missing this stated somewhere clearly. If we are stating that a
> > single committers +1 is good enough for code review, with 0 hours delay
> (de
> > facto the current state), we should also write down that this is subject
> to
> > the best judgement of the committer to respect the components expertise
> and
> > ongoing development plans (also the de facto current state).
> > >>>
> > >>> 3.
> > >>>
> > >>> Minimum length of 3 days for FLIP I think currently might be
> > problematic/too quick and can lead to problems if respected to the
> letter.
> > Again I think it depends highly on whether the committers with highest
> > expertise in the affected components managed to respond or not.
> > >>>
> > >>> Piotrek
> > >>>
> > >>>> On 12 Jul 2019, at 09:42, Chesnay Schepler <
[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm wondering whether we shouldn't first write down Bylaws that
> > reflect the current state, and then have separate discussions for
> > individual amendments. My gut feeling is that this discussion will
> quickly
> > become a chaotic mess with plenty points being discussed at once.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 11/07/2019 20:03, Bowen Li wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:38 AM Becket Qin <
[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thanks everyone for all the comments and feedback. Please see the
> > replies
> > >>>>>> below:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --------------------------------
> > >>>>>> Re: Konstantin
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> * 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.
> > >>>>>> Good point. Just added the entry.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -------------------------------
> > >>>>>> Re: Konstantin
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> * 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.
> > >>>>>> & Re: Till
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> For the case of a committer being the author and getting a +1
> from
> > a
> > >>>>>>> non-committer: I think a committer should know when to ask
> another
> > >>>>>>> committer for feedback or not. Hence, I would not enforce that we
> > >>>>>> strictly
> > >>>>>>> need a +1 from a committer if the author is a committer but of
> > course
> > >>>>>>> encourage it if capacities exist.
> > >>>>>> I am with Robert and Aljoscha on this.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I completely understand the concern here. TBH, in Kafka
> occasionally
> > >>>>>> trivial patches from committers are still merged without following
> > the
> > >>>>>> cross-review requirement, but it is rare. That said, I still think
> > an
> > >>>>>> additional committer's review makes sense due to the following
> > reasons:
> > >>>>>> 1. The bottom line here is that we need to make sure every patch
> is
> > >>>>>> reviewed with a high quality. This is a little difficult to
> > guarantee if
> > >>>>>> the review comes from a contributor for many reasons. In some
> > cases, a
> > >>>>>> contributor may not have enough knowledge about the project to
> make
> > a good
> > >>>>>> judgement. Also sometimes the contributors are more eagerly to
> get a
> > >>>>>> particular issue fixed, so they are willing to lower the review
> bar.
> > >>>>>> 2. One byproduct of such cross review among committers, which I
> > personally
> > >>>>>> feel useful, is that it helps gradually form consistent design
> > principles
> > >>>>>> and code style. This is because the committers will know how the
> > other
> > >>>>>> committers are writing code and learn from each other. So they
> tend
> > to
> > >>>>>> reach some tacit understanding on how things should be done in
> > general.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Another way to think about this is to consider the following two
> > scenarios:
> > >>>>>> 1. Reviewing a committer's patch takes a lot of iterations. Then
> > the patch
> > >>>>>> needs to be reviewed even if it takes time because there are
> things
> > >>>>>> actually needs to be clarified / changed.
> > >>>>>> 2. Reviewing a committer's patch is very smooth and quick, so the
> > patch is
> > >>>>>> merged soon. Then reviewing such a patch does not take much time.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Letting another committer review the patch from a committer falls
> > either in
> > >>>>>> case 1 or case 2. The best option here is to review the patch
> > because
> > >>>>>> If it is case 1, the patch actually needs to be reviewed.
> > >>>>>> If it is case 2, the review should not take much time anyways.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> In the contrast, we will risk encounter case 1 if we skip the
> > cross-review.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> ------------------------
> > >>>>>> Re: Robert
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I replied to your comments in the wiki and made the following
> > modifications
> > >>>>>> to resolve some of your comments:
> > >>>>>> 1. Added a release manager role section.
> > >>>>>> 2. changed the name of "lazy consensus" to "consensus" to align
> with
> > >>>>>> general definition of Apache glossary and other projects.
> > >>>>>> 3. review board -> pull request
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> -------------------------
> > >>>>>> Re: Chesnay
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> The emeritus stuff seems like unnecessary noise.
> > >>>>>> As Till mentioned, this is to make sure 2/3 majority is still
> > feasible in
> > >>>>>> practice.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> 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.
> > >>>>>> That is a good suggestion. I am not familiar enough with the
> > current Flink
> > >>>>>> convention. Will you help on this? I saw you commented on some
> part
> > in the
> > >>>>>> wiki. Are those complete?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --------------------------
> > >>>>>> Re: Aljoscha
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> How different is this from the Kafka bylaws? I’m asking because I
> > quite
> > >>>>>>> like them and wouldn’t mind essentially adopting the Kafka
> bylaws.
> > I
> > >>>>>> mean,
> > >>>>>>> it’s open source, and we don’t have to try to re-invent the wheel
> > here.
> > >>>>>> Ha, you got me on this. The first version of the draft was almost
> > identical
> > >>>>>> to Kafka. But Robert has already caught a few inconsistent places.
> > So it
> > >>>>>> might still worth going through it to make sure we truly agree on
> > them.
> > >>>>>> Otherwise we may end up modifying them shortly after adoption.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Thanks again folks, for all the valuable feedback. These are great
> > >>>>>> discussion.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:55 PM Aljoscha Krettek <
> >
[hidden email]>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Big +1
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> How different is this from the Kafka bylaws? I’m asking because I
> > quite
> > >>>>>>> like them and wouldn’t mind essentially adopting the Kafka
> bylaws.
> > I
> > >>>>>> mean,
> > >>>>>>> it’s open source, and we don’t have to try to re-invent the wheel
> > here.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I think it’s worthwhile to discuss the “committer +1”
> requirement.
> > We
> > >>>>>>> don’t usually have that now but I would actually be in favour of
> > >>>>>> requiring
> > >>>>>>> it, although it might make stuff more complicated.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Aljoscha
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 11. Jul 2019, at 15:31, Till Rohrmann <
[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Thanks a lot for creating this draft Becket.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I think without the notion of emeritus (or active vs. inactive),
> > it
> > >>>>>> won't
> > >>>>>>>> be possible to have a 2/3 majority vote because we already have
> > too
> > >>>>>> many
> > >>>>>>>> inactive PMCs/committers.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> For the case of a committer being the author and getting a +1
> > from a
> > >>>>>>>> non-committer: I think a committer should know when to ask
> another
> > >>>>>>>> committer for feedback or not. Hence, I would not enforce that
> we
> > >>>>>>> strictly
> > >>>>>>>> need a +1 from a committer if the author is a committer but of
> > course
> > >>>>>>>> encourage it if capacities exist.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Cheers,
> > >>>>>>>> Till
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 3:08 PM Chesnay Schepler <
> >
[hidden email]>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> 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
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> +49 160 91394525
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> 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
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >
>