The votes to grant commit access that you refer to are votes to appoint committers or PMC members. Those votes are conducted in private to prevent embarrassment in case the vote fails, or if the vote passes and the individual declines the offer.
I don’t see any such potential embarrassment here, so I think the vote should be public. > On Aug 19, 2018, at 5:43 AM, Uwe L. Korn <uw...@xhochy.com> wrote: > > Hello Wes, > > I think we should have a vote on this. I expect that, as previously mentioned > in this debate, there is a large overlap between the two projects as it's on > the C++ side basically the same community but as it is an issue concerning > both projects, the vote shall also be done in the two projects. Additionally, > granting commit access to individuals is done always on private, thus it is > probably also at least good manner to follow the same ASF process here with > the group as if it were a single new contributor. > > Uwe > > On Thu, Aug 16, 2018, at 4:11 PM, Wes McKinney wrote: >> hi folks, >> >> I have just started a vote on the Parquet dev@ mailing list about >> merging development process of the Parquet C++ codebase + Arrow >> integration to a single repository, i.e. the Arrow one: >> >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/53f77f9f1f04b97709a0286db1b73a49b7f1541d8f8b2cb32db5c922@%3Cdev.parquet.apache.org%3E >> >> I want to make sure that Arrow is in favor of this. It is the same >> committers/PMC members affected working on both projects (myself, Uwe >> Korn, Phillip Cloud, Antoine Pitrou, Kouhei Sutou) but I wanted to >> double check on this list. >> >> Questions where feedback is needed: >> >> 1) Do we need to hold an Arrow vote about this? >> >> 2) Commit access will need to be given to Parquet committers who are >> working on the C++ code. This may need to be discussed on private@, >> but I am in favor of giving push access to such individuals so long as >> they do not overstep boundaries (e.g. merging patches wholly unrelated >> to Parquet) >> >> Thank you, >> Wes
