http://deprecated-apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.368.s1.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Flink-project-bylaws-tp30409p30860.html
do it. That said, emeritus status simply means whether an individual is
active / inactive in the community. It does not make the merits earned to
go away. For our purpose, emeritus status is mostly just a way to make 2/3
majority possible. As you noticed, since reaching out to binding voters who
time and wait for long. However, given that 2/3 majority votings are rare,
such communication cost is probably OK. So I think we can remove that
Good point. Added.
different time zones and with different holidays, and so on. If we are
and probably needs a migration plan. It would be useful to have a formal
deprecation procedure. But that might be better to be put into somewhere
> Hi all,
>
> First of all thank you very much Becket for starting this discussion!
> I think it is a very good idea and overdue to formally define some of our
> community processes.
>
> Similar to Chesnay, I have concerns about the distinction between active
> and non-active / emeritus committers and PMC members.
> My foremost concern is that this is not in the spirit of the Apache Way [1]
> which is (among other things) based on the idea of merit which once earned,
> does not go away over time.
> I know other projects like Hadoop and Kafka have similar clauses in the
> bylaws but IMO we don't need to adopt them if we don't like them.
> For example, I don't like the idea that committers or PMC members who are
> temporarily away from the project (for whatever reason: parental leave,
> sabbatical, health issues, etc.) need the PMC approval to be "active"
> again.
> As far as I am aware, we have not seen any issues with inactive members in
> the past.
> Moreover, it would be hard to track whether somebody became inactive at
> some point in time (which we would need to do, if I understand the proposal
> correctly).
> With the approach that Becket suggested in his last email (reaching out to
> binding voters who haven't voted yet), we could drop the distinction
> between active and non-active committers and PMC members.
>
> I also have a few minor comments:
>
> 1) We should add to the requirements of the PMC [2] that they need to make
> sure the project complies with brand issues and reports misuse of ASF
> brands.
> 2) Do we want to restrict voting days to working days, i.e., a 3 day vote
> that starts on Friday 11:00am ends on Wednesday 11:00am?
> 3) Do we need a process do decide about removal of features (like the
> DataSet API for instance or the legacy DataSet/DataStream Python APIs)?
>
> Thank you,
> Fabian
>
> [1]
https://www.apache.org/theapacheway/> [2]
https://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html>
> Am So., 21. Juli 2019 um 13:22 Uhr schrieb Becket Qin <
>
[hidden email]
> >:
>
> > Hi Hequn,
> >
> > Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Please see the reply below:
> >
> > > Perhaps what Jincheng means is to hold at least one PMC in the 3
> binding
> > > votes? i.e, the vote could have 2 binding committers and 1 PMC.
> > > I think this makes sense considering a FLIP could somehow be a big
> > feature
> > > which may impacts Flink a lot. Meanwhile, there is no loss of
> flexibility
> > > as committers also have a chance to vote and participate in it.
> > A few concerns of requiring a PMC vote in all FLIPs are the following:
> >
> > 1. Generally speaking, the PMC's primary responsibility is operating the
> > project and deciding what software to release on behalf of ASF.
> Committers,
> > on the other hand, are responsible for the technical part of the project.
> > So for FLIPs, a PMC's vote probably should not outweigh a committer's
> vote.
> > Besides, I am not sure whether a single PMCs +1 is really convincing
> enough
> > to decide whether the FLIP is good to go or not. Also, if some committers
> > have concern over a FLIP, they could just veto it. To me it is actually a
> > more strict requirement to pass a FLIP than asking a PMC to vote. In
> > practice, people will usually also address the concerns even if they are
> > not from a PMC/committer before they start the voting process. So I don't
> > see much benefit of requiring a PMC's vote in this case.
> >
> > 2. The at-least-one-PMC-vote requirement makes the votes no longer
> > independent. Ideally, a vote is either binding or non-binding by itself.
> If
> > we have the at-least-one-PMC-vote requirement here, imagine there have
> been
> > 3 committers who voted +1. But the FLIP still has not passed, so those
> > votes are effectively non-binding. Now a PMC votes a +1, those votes
> > suddenly become binding, which is a little awkward.
> >
> >
> > The lazy 2/3 majority suggestion sounds reasonable to me. Some thoughts
> on
> > this:
> > 1. One reason Hadoop uses lazy 2/3 majority is probably because there are
> > 104 PMC members[1] for Hadoop which makes the 2/3 majority prohibitively
> > expensive. In our case, there are only 22 PMCs for Flink[2] and a quick
> > search shows at most 6 of them have not sent email in the recent 6 months
> > or so.
> >
> > 2. 2/3 majority votes are supposed to be very rare. It is designed in
> > particular for the cases that broad opinions are important, more
> > specifically new codebase adoption or modification to the bylaws.
> Therefore
> > such vote by its nature favors consensus over convenience. That means any
> > alternative voting type reducing the coverage worth a careful thinking.
> >
> > 3. I do agree that it does not make sense to have 2/3 majority if such
> > requirement is no-longer doable over time. But I am a little hesitant to
> > lower the threshold to lazy 2/3 majority in our case. What do you think
> > about doing the following:
> > - After the voting started, there will be at least 6 days for people
> to
> > cast their votes.
> > - After 6 days, if the result of the vote is still not determined,
> the
> > person who started the vote should reach out to the binding voters who
> have
> > not voted yet for at least 3 times and at least 7 days between each time.
> > If a binding voter still did not respond, the vote from that voter will
> be
> > excluded from the 2/3 majority counting.
> > This would ensure the coverage at our best effort while still let the 2/3
> > majority vote make progress.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> >
> >
> > [1]
https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?hadoop> > [2]
https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?flink> >
> > On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 1:39 PM Xu Forward <
[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Big +1 on this.
> > >
> > >
> > > best
> > >
> > > forward
> > >
> > > Hequn Cheng <
[hidden email]> 于2019年7月21日周日 下午1:30写道：
> > >
> > > > Hi Becket,
> > > >
> > > > Big +1 on this.
> > > >
> > > > > Regarding the vote of FLIP, preferably at least includes a PMC
> vote.
> > > > Perhaps what Jincheng means is to hold at least one PMC in the 3
> > binding
> > > > votes? i.e, the vote could have 2 binding committers and 1 PMC.
> > > > I think this makes sense considering a FLIP could somehow be a big
> > > feature
> > > > which may impacts Flink a lot. Meanwhile, there is no loss of
> > flexibility
> > > > as committers also have a chance to vote and participate in it.
> > > >
> > > > ========Seperator========
> > > >
> > > > For the nice bylaws, I agree with the general idea and most of the
> > > content.
> > > > Only share some thoughts about the "2/3 Majority". The main concern
> is
> > I
> > > am
> > > > not sure if it is doable in practice. The reasons are:
> > > >
> > > > 1. If we follow the bylaws strictly, it means a committer or a PMC
> > member
> > > > is active if he or she sends one email to the mailing list every 6
> > > months.
> > > > While the minimum length of the vote is only 6 days. There are
> chances
> > > that
> > > > during the vote, some of the active members are still offline of the
> > > > community.
> > > > 2. The code of Flink is changing fast and not everyone fully
> > understands
> > > > every part. We don't need to force people to vote if they are not
> sure
> > > > about it. It may also make the final result less credible.
> > > >
> > > > Given the above reasons, perhaps we can change the 2/3 Majority to
> lazy
> > > 2/3
> > > > Majority, just as the Hadoop bylaws[1]. It makes a higher threshold,
> > > > however, more practical.
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > [1]
https://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 12:00 AM Becket Qin <
[hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Jincheng,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the comments. I replied on the wiki page. Just a brief
> > > > summary,
> > > > > the current bylaws do require some of the FLIPs to get PMC approval
> > if
> > > > > their impact is big enough. But it leaves majority of the technical
> > > > > decisions to the committers who are supposed to be responsible for
> > > making
> > > > > such decisions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Re: Robert,
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree we can simply remove the requirement of +1 from a
> non-author
> > > > > committer and revisit it in a bit. After all, it does not make
> sense
> > to
> > > > > have a bylaw that we cannot afford. I have just updated the bylaws
> > > wiki.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 11:17 PM Robert Metzger <
>
[hidden email]
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > I agree with Aljoscha that trying to reflect the current status
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > bylaws, and then implementing changes one by one is a very
> involved
> > > > task.
> > > > > > Unless there's somebody who's really eager to drive this, I would
> > > stick
> > > > > to
> > > > > > Becket's initiative to come up with Bylaws for Flink, even if
> this
> > > > means
> > > > > > some changes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The cross-review requirement is the last big open point in this
> > > > > discussion.
> > > > > > It seems that a there is a slight tendency in the discussion that
> > > this
> > > > is
> > > > > > not feasible given the current pull request review situation.
> > > > > > For the sake of bringing this discussion to a conclusion, I'm
> fine
> > > with
> > > > > > leaving this requirement out. As we are currently adding more
> > > > committers
> > > > > to
> > > > > > the project, we might be able to revisit this discussion in 3 - 6
> > > > months.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 4:30 AM jincheng sun <
> > >
[hidden email]
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>