Re: [VOTE] Proposal to update working in spec for Geospatial type CRS. parameter
I went ahead and merged the PR. Thanks everyone! On Mon, May 18, 2026 at 11:56 AM Milan Stefanovic < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > The voting period is now closed. The vote was open for 7 days and the > proposal has passed with the following tally: > > Binding votes with +1 (total +8): > - Szehon Ho > - Ryan Blue > - Russel Spitzer > - Kevin Liu > - Steven Wu > - Eduard Tudenhöfner > - Fokko Driesprong > - Amogh Jahagirdar > > Non-binding votes with +1 (total +2) > - Huaxin Gao > - Gang Wu > > There were no -1 or +0 votes. > > Thank you to everyone who participated and provided feedback! > > Milan > > > On Fri, 15 May 2026 at 18:16, Amogh Jahagirdar <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 7:36 AM Fokko Driesprong >> wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Fokko >>> >>> On 2026/05/15 08:04:51 Eduard Tudenhöfner wrote: >>> > +1 (binding) >>> > >>> > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 8:32 PM Steven Wu >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > > +1 (binding) >>> > > >>> > > I left some minor comments regarding syntax and grammar issues. It >>> will be >>> > > good to address them before merging. >>> > > >>> > > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:47 AM huaxin gao >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > >> +1 (non-binding) >>> > >> >>> > >> On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:39 AM Kevin Liu >>> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >>> +1 (binding) >>> > >>> thanks for aligning the spec >>> > >>> >>> > >>> On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:33 AM Ryan Blue >>> wrote: >>> > >>> >>> > +1 (binding) >>> > >>> > Thanks for getting this clarification done. >>> > >>> > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 7:00 PM Gang Wu wrote: >>> > >>> > > +1 (non-binding) >>> > > >>> > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 8:33 PM Szehon Ho < >>> [email protected]> >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > >> +1 >>> > >> >>> > >> Thanks for tackling this ! >>> > >> Szehon >>> > >> >>> > >> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 1:50 PM Milan Stefanovic < >>> > >> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >>> Hi Iceberg community! >>> > >>> >>> > >>> I'd like to start a vote to update wording for the CRS >>> parameter for >>> > >>> geospatial type. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Current spec, depending on how it's read, might be interpreted >>> as >>> > >>> either being suggestive or restrictive on how a CRS field is >>> supposed to be >>> > >>> populated (whether `srid:` and `projjson:` are the only >>> allowed formats, or >>> > >>> are they just suggestions/examples). Proposal is to update the >>> wording so >>> > >>> that the purpose is clear and there is no ambiguity. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15834. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> P.S >>> > >>> >>> > >>> There has been similar proposal in parquet community as well: >>> > >>> - >>> https://lists.apache.org/thread/r5x0do8f241bpf565rx8s5s3wc9ogp0f >>> > >>> - https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/560 >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Thanks, >>> > >>> Milan >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>
Re: [VOTE] Proposal to update working in spec for Geospatial type CRS. parameter
Hi everyone, The voting period is now closed. The vote was open for 7 days and the proposal has passed with the following tally: Binding votes with +1 (total +8): - Szehon Ho - Ryan Blue - Russel Spitzer - Kevin Liu - Steven Wu - Eduard Tudenhöfner - Fokko Driesprong - Amogh Jahagirdar Non-binding votes with +1 (total +2) - Huaxin Gao - Gang Wu There were no -1 or +0 votes. Thank you to everyone who participated and provided feedback! Milan On Fri, 15 May 2026 at 18:16, Amogh Jahagirdar <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 7:36 AM Fokko Driesprong wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> Kind regards, >> Fokko >> >> On 2026/05/15 08:04:51 Eduard Tudenhöfner wrote: >> > +1 (binding) >> > >> > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 8:32 PM Steven Wu wrote: >> > >> > > +1 (binding) >> > > >> > > I left some minor comments regarding syntax and grammar issues. It >> will be >> > > good to address them before merging. >> > > >> > > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:47 AM huaxin gao >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > >> +1 (non-binding) >> > >> >> > >> On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:39 AM Kevin Liu >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> +1 (binding) >> > >>> thanks for aligning the spec >> > >>> >> > >>> On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:33 AM Ryan Blue wrote: >> > >>> >> > +1 (binding) >> > >> > Thanks for getting this clarification done. >> > >> > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 7:00 PM Gang Wu wrote: >> > >> > > +1 (non-binding) >> > > >> > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 8:33 PM Szehon Ho < >> [email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > >> +1 >> > >> >> > >> Thanks for tackling this ! >> > >> Szehon >> > >> >> > >> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 1:50 PM Milan Stefanovic < >> > >> [email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> Hi Iceberg community! >> > >>> >> > >>> I'd like to start a vote to update wording for the CRS >> parameter for >> > >>> geospatial type. >> > >>> >> > >>> Current spec, depending on how it's read, might be interpreted >> as >> > >>> either being suggestive or restrictive on how a CRS field is >> supposed to be >> > >>> populated (whether `srid:` and `projjson:` are the only allowed >> formats, or >> > >>> are they just suggestions/examples). Proposal is to update the >> wording so >> > >>> that the purpose is clear and there is no ambiguity. >> > >>> >> > >>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15834. >> > >>> >> > >>> P.S >> > >>> >> > >>> There has been similar proposal in parquet community as well: >> > >>> - >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/r5x0do8f241bpf565rx8s5s3wc9ogp0f >> > >>> - https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/560 >> > >>> >> > >>> Thanks, >> > >>> Milan >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >> >
Re: [VOTE] Proposal to update working in spec for Geospatial type CRS. parameter
+1 (binding) On Fri, May 15, 2026 at 7:36 AM Fokko Driesprong wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Kind regards, > Fokko > > On 2026/05/15 08:04:51 Eduard Tudenhöfner wrote: > > +1 (binding) > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 8:32 PM Steven Wu wrote: > > > > > +1 (binding) > > > > > > I left some minor comments regarding syntax and grammar issues. It > will be > > > good to address them before merging. > > > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:47 AM huaxin gao > > > wrote: > > > > > >> +1 (non-binding) > > >> > > >> On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:39 AM Kevin Liu > wrote: > > >> > > >>> +1 (binding) > > >>> thanks for aligning the spec > > >>> > > >>> On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:33 AM Ryan Blue wrote: > > >>> > > +1 (binding) > > > > Thanks for getting this clarification done. > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 7:00 PM Gang Wu wrote: > > > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 8:33 PM Szehon Ho > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> +1 > > >> > > >> Thanks for tackling this ! > > >> Szehon > > >> > > >> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 1:50 PM Milan Stefanovic < > > >> [email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Iceberg community! > > >>> > > >>> I'd like to start a vote to update wording for the CRS parameter > for > > >>> geospatial type. > > >>> > > >>> Current spec, depending on how it's read, might be interpreted as > > >>> either being suggestive or restrictive on how a CRS field is > supposed to be > > >>> populated (whether `srid:` and `projjson:` are the only allowed > formats, or > > >>> are they just suggestions/examples). Proposal is to update the > wording so > > >>> that the purpose is clear and there is no ambiguity. > > >>> > > >>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15834. > > >>> > > >>> P.S > > >>> > > >>> There has been similar proposal in parquet community as well: > > >>> - > https://lists.apache.org/thread/r5x0do8f241bpf565rx8s5s3wc9ogp0f > > >>> - https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/560 > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> Milan > > >>> > > >>> > > >
Re: [VOTE] Proposal to update working in spec for Geospatial type CRS. parameter
+1 (binding) Kind regards, Fokko On 2026/05/15 08:04:51 Eduard Tudenhöfner wrote: > +1 (binding) > > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 8:32 PM Steven Wu wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > I left some minor comments regarding syntax and grammar issues. It will be > > good to address them before merging. > > > > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:47 AM huaxin gao > > wrote: > > > >> +1 (non-binding) > >> > >> On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:39 AM Kevin Liu wrote: > >> > >>> +1 (binding) > >>> thanks for aligning the spec > >>> > >>> On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:33 AM Ryan Blue wrote: > >>> > +1 (binding) > > Thanks for getting this clarification done. > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 7:00 PM Gang Wu wrote: > > > +1 (non-binding) > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 8:33 PM Szehon Ho > > wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> Thanks for tackling this ! > >> Szehon > >> > >> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 1:50 PM Milan Stefanovic < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Iceberg community! > >>> > >>> I'd like to start a vote to update wording for the CRS parameter for > >>> geospatial type. > >>> > >>> Current spec, depending on how it's read, might be interpreted as > >>> either being suggestive or restrictive on how a CRS field is supposed > >>> to be > >>> populated (whether `srid:` and `projjson:` are the only allowed > >>> formats, or > >>> are they just suggestions/examples). Proposal is to update the > >>> wording so > >>> that the purpose is clear and there is no ambiguity. > >>> > >>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15834. > >>> > >>> P.S > >>> > >>> There has been similar proposal in parquet community as well: > >>> - https://lists.apache.org/thread/r5x0do8f241bpf565rx8s5s3wc9ogp0f > >>> - https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/560 > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Milan > >>> > >>> >
Re: [VOTE] Proposal to update working in spec for Geospatial type CRS. parameter
+1 (binding) On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 8:32 PM Steven Wu wrote: > +1 (binding) > > I left some minor comments regarding syntax and grammar issues. It will be > good to address them before merging. > > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:47 AM huaxin gao > wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:39 AM Kevin Liu wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> thanks for aligning the spec >>> >>> On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:33 AM Ryan Blue wrote: >>> +1 (binding) Thanks for getting this clarification done. On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 7:00 PM Gang Wu wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 8:33 PM Szehon Ho > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Thanks for tackling this ! >> Szehon >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 1:50 PM Milan Stefanovic < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Iceberg community! >>> >>> I'd like to start a vote to update wording for the CRS parameter for >>> geospatial type. >>> >>> Current spec, depending on how it's read, might be interpreted as >>> either being suggestive or restrictive on how a CRS field is supposed >>> to be >>> populated (whether `srid:` and `projjson:` are the only allowed >>> formats, or >>> are they just suggestions/examples). Proposal is to update the wording >>> so >>> that the purpose is clear and there is no ambiguity. >>> >>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15834. >>> >>> P.S >>> >>> There has been similar proposal in parquet community as well: >>> - https://lists.apache.org/thread/r5x0do8f241bpf565rx8s5s3wc9ogp0f >>> - https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/560 >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Milan >>> >>>
Re: [VOTE] Proposal to update working in spec for Geospatial type CRS. parameter
+1 (binding) I left some minor comments regarding syntax and grammar issues. It will be good to address them before merging. On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:47 AM huaxin gao wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:39 AM Kevin Liu wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> thanks for aligning the spec >> >> On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:33 AM Ryan Blue wrote: >> >>> +1 (binding) >>> >>> Thanks for getting this clarification done. >>> >>> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 7:00 PM Gang Wu wrote: >>> +1 (non-binding) On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 8:33 PM Szehon Ho wrote: > +1 > > Thanks for tackling this ! > Szehon > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 1:50 PM Milan Stefanovic < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Iceberg community! >> >> I'd like to start a vote to update wording for the CRS parameter for >> geospatial type. >> >> Current spec, depending on how it's read, might be interpreted as >> either being suggestive or restrictive on how a CRS field is supposed to >> be >> populated (whether `srid:` and `projjson:` are the only allowed formats, >> or >> are they just suggestions/examples). Proposal is to update the wording so >> that the purpose is clear and there is no ambiguity. >> >> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15834. >> >> P.S >> >> There has been similar proposal in parquet community as well: >> - https://lists.apache.org/thread/r5x0do8f241bpf565rx8s5s3wc9ogp0f >> - https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/560 >> >> Thanks, >> Milan >> >>
Re: [VOTE] Proposal to update working in spec for Geospatial type CRS. parameter
+1 (non-binding) On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:39 AM Kevin Liu wrote: > +1 (binding) > thanks for aligning the spec > > On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:33 AM Ryan Blue wrote: > >> +1 (binding) >> >> Thanks for getting this clarification done. >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 7:00 PM Gang Wu wrote: >> >>> +1 (non-binding) >>> >>> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 8:33 PM Szehon Ho >>> wrote: >>> +1 Thanks for tackling this ! Szehon On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 1:50 PM Milan Stefanovic < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Iceberg community! > > I'd like to start a vote to update wording for the CRS parameter for > geospatial type. > > Current spec, depending on how it's read, might be interpreted as > either being suggestive or restrictive on how a CRS field is supposed to > be > populated (whether `srid:` and `projjson:` are the only allowed formats, > or > are they just suggestions/examples). Proposal is to update the wording so > that the purpose is clear and there is no ambiguity. > > PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15834. > > P.S > > There has been similar proposal in parquet community as well: > - https://lists.apache.org/thread/r5x0do8f241bpf565rx8s5s3wc9ogp0f > - https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/560 > > Thanks, > Milan > >
Re: [VOTE] Proposal to update working in spec for Geospatial type CRS. parameter
+1 (binding) thanks for aligning the spec On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 10:33 AM Ryan Blue wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Thanks for getting this clarification done. > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 7:00 PM Gang Wu wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 8:33 PM Szehon Ho >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> Thanks for tackling this ! >>> Szehon >>> >>> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 1:50 PM Milan Stefanovic < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Iceberg community! I'd like to start a vote to update wording for the CRS parameter for geospatial type. Current spec, depending on how it's read, might be interpreted as either being suggestive or restrictive on how a CRS field is supposed to be populated (whether `srid:` and `projjson:` are the only allowed formats, or are they just suggestions/examples). Proposal is to update the wording so that the purpose is clear and there is no ambiguity. PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15834. P.S There has been similar proposal in parquet community as well: - https://lists.apache.org/thread/r5x0do8f241bpf565rx8s5s3wc9ogp0f - https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/560 Thanks, Milan
Re: [VOTE] Proposal to update working in spec for Geospatial type CRS. parameter
+1 (binding) On Thu, May 14, 2026 at 12:33 PM Ryan Blue wrote: > +1 (binding) > > Thanks for getting this clarification done. > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 7:00 PM Gang Wu wrote: > >> +1 (non-binding) >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 8:33 PM Szehon Ho >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> Thanks for tackling this ! >>> Szehon >>> >>> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 1:50 PM Milan Stefanovic < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Iceberg community! I'd like to start a vote to update wording for the CRS parameter for geospatial type. Current spec, depending on how it's read, might be interpreted as either being suggestive or restrictive on how a CRS field is supposed to be populated (whether `srid:` and `projjson:` are the only allowed formats, or are they just suggestions/examples). Proposal is to update the wording so that the purpose is clear and there is no ambiguity. PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15834. P.S There has been similar proposal in parquet community as well: - https://lists.apache.org/thread/r5x0do8f241bpf565rx8s5s3wc9ogp0f - https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/560 Thanks, Milan
Re: [VOTE] Proposal to update working in spec for Geospatial type CRS. parameter
+1 (binding) Thanks for getting this clarification done. On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 7:00 PM Gang Wu wrote: > +1 (non-binding) > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 8:33 PM Szehon Ho wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Thanks for tackling this ! >> Szehon >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 1:50 PM Milan Stefanovic < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Iceberg community! >>> >>> I'd like to start a vote to update wording for the CRS parameter for >>> geospatial type. >>> >>> Current spec, depending on how it's read, might be interpreted as either >>> being suggestive or restrictive on how a CRS field is supposed to be >>> populated (whether `srid:` and `projjson:` are the only allowed formats, or >>> are they just suggestions/examples). Proposal is to update the wording so >>> that the purpose is clear and there is no ambiguity. >>> >>> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15834. >>> >>> P.S >>> >>> There has been similar proposal in parquet community as well: >>> - https://lists.apache.org/thread/r5x0do8f241bpf565rx8s5s3wc9ogp0f >>> - https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/560 >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Milan >>> >>>
Re: [VOTE] Proposal to update working in spec for Geospatial type CRS. parameter
+1 (non-binding) On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 8:33 PM Szehon Ho wrote: > +1 > > Thanks for tackling this ! > Szehon > > On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 1:50 PM Milan Stefanovic < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Iceberg community! >> >> I'd like to start a vote to update wording for the CRS parameter for >> geospatial type. >> >> Current spec, depending on how it's read, might be interpreted as either >> being suggestive or restrictive on how a CRS field is supposed to be >> populated (whether `srid:` and `projjson:` are the only allowed formats, or >> are they just suggestions/examples). Proposal is to update the wording so >> that the purpose is clear and there is no ambiguity. >> >> PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15834. >> >> P.S >> >> There has been similar proposal in parquet community as well: >> - https://lists.apache.org/thread/r5x0do8f241bpf565rx8s5s3wc9ogp0f >> - https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/560 >> >> Thanks, >> Milan >> >>
Re: [VOTE] Proposal to update working in spec for Geospatial type CRS. parameter
+1 Thanks for tackling this ! Szehon On Mon, May 11, 2026 at 1:50 PM Milan Stefanovic < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Iceberg community! > > I'd like to start a vote to update wording for the CRS parameter for > geospatial type. > > Current spec, depending on how it's read, might be interpreted as either > being suggestive or restrictive on how a CRS field is supposed to be > populated (whether `srid:` and `projjson:` are the only allowed formats, or > are they just suggestions/examples). Proposal is to update the wording so > that the purpose is clear and there is no ambiguity. > > PR: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/15834. > > P.S > > There has been similar proposal in parquet community as well: > - https://lists.apache.org/thread/r5x0do8f241bpf565rx8s5s3wc9ogp0f > - https://github.com/apache/parquet-format/pull/560 > > Thanks, > Milan > >
