http://deprecated-apache-flink-mailing-list-archive.368.s1.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Flink-project-bylaws-tp30409p31050.html
> Hi folks,
>
> Thanks for all the feedback.
>
> It seems that there are a few concerns over the emeritus status after 6
> months of inactivity. Given that the main purpose is just to make sure 2/3
> majority can pass and we sort of have a solution for that, I just updated
> the draft with the following changes:
>
> 1. Removed the inactivity term for emeritus committers / PMCs. A committer
> / PMC will only be considered emeritus by their own claim.
> 2. Removed the approval process for reinstatement of the emeritus
> committers / PMCs. An emeritus committer / PMC will be reinstated when they
> send an email to the
[hidden email].
> 3. Adde the term to ensure 2/3 majority voting is still doable when there
> are non-emeritus committers / PMCs who do not cast the vote.
>
> Please let me know if you have any further thoughts.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 10:18 AM Becket Qin <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Fabian,
> >
> > Thanks for the feedback.
> >
> > I agree that if we don't like emeritus committers / PMCs, we don't have
> to
> > 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
> > have not voted can achieve the same goal, the emeritus status is more of
> an
> > optimization so we don't have to ping the inactive binding voters every
> > 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
> > emeritus part from the bylaws.
> >
> > 1) We should add to the requirements of the PMC that they need to make
> >> sure the project complies with brand issues and reports misuse of ASF
> >> brands.
> >
> > Good point. Added.
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > This might be a little tricky because people are from countries in
> > different time zones and with different holidays, and so on. If we are
> > worrying about 3 days minimum length is not enough for those who want to
> > give feedback, we can make it 5 days.
> >
> > 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)?
> >
> > I assume such action should be covered by FLIP as it is a change to the
> > API 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 else because the bylaws are primarily focusing on the
> > non-technical rules, whereas the deprecation seems more on the technical
> > side.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:42 PM Fabian Hueske <
[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>