@Sid, perhaps defining a cool-off window before a scheduler change can be
committed. That way, everyone that cares can have a look at it? Also,
having more than one +1 seems OK with me for scheduler changes. We will
have to decide what "scheduler change" means, though.

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Jakob Homan <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hey Sid-
>    Thanks for the discussion.  It's a good chance to the new
> contributors to get more experience with the ASF.
>
>    Unfortunately, what you propose is not possible in ASF.  As a
> meritocracy, ASF does not recognize individual's employers (or lack
> thereof).  Merit is earned by the individual and follows them as they
> move from organization to organization.  This is true even for
> podlings.  Employees of certain organizations are not given extra
> power over a project or vote due to their relationship with the
> employer.
>
>    ASF does recognize that at times people will be representing their
> employer (with my $EMPLOYER hat on, is a common way of expressing
> this), but expects that everyone is acting in the best interest of the
> project.
>
> -Jakob
>
> On 12 May 2016 at 12:58, Siddharth Anand <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Folks!As many of you know, Apache Airflow (incubating) came from
> Airbnb, where it currently still represents the largest Airflow deployment.
> Airflow entered the Apache Incubator shortly over a month ago but still
> depends on Airbnb's production deployment to vet its release candidates. As
> Airflow's adoption increases, we expect to leverage multiple companies in
> conjunction with Apache Infra resources to vet some of the more performance
> critical pieces of the code base (e.g. scheduler). We're not there yet.
> > So, for future commits and PRs involving the scheduler (and possibly
> other components, e.g. executors), I propose a 2 vote system : at least 1
> vote from an Airbnb committer and at least 1 vote from a non-Airbnb
> committer, separate from the PR author. This will more readily stabilize
> the Airbnb production system that we rely on to vet and cut releases,
> speeding up our release cycle.
> > Please share your thoughts on the matter along with a vote for/against.
> > -s
>

Reply via email to