+1 to the dissociated transports proposal On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 11:14 AM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 from me as before > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024, at 18:06, Matt Topol wrote: > >> There is a word doc with no implementation or PR. I think there could > > be an implementation / PR. > > > > In the word doc there is a link to a POC implementation[1] showing this > > protocol working with a flight service, ucx and libcudf. The key piece > here > > is that we're voting on adopting this protocol spec (i.e. I'll add it to > > the documentation website) rather than us explicitly providing full > > implementations or abstractions around it. We can provide reference > > implementations like the POC, but I don't think they should be in the > Arrow > > monorepo or else we run the risk of a lot of the same issues that Flight > > has: i.e. Adding anything to Flight in C++ requires fully wrapping the > > grpc/flight primitives with Arrow equivalents to export which increases > the > > maintenance burden on us and makes it more difficult for users to > leverage > > the underlying knobs and dials. > > > >> For example, does any ADBC client respect this protocol today? If a > > flight server responds with an S3/HTTP URI will the ADBC client download > > the files from the correct place? Will it at least notice that the URI > is > > not a GRPC URI and give a "I don't have a connector for downloading from > > HTTP/S3" error? > > > > I've split the S3/HTTP URI flight pieces out into a separate document and > > separate thing to vote on at the request of several people who wanted to > > view these as two separate proposals to vote on. So this vote *only* > covers > > adopting the protocol spec as an "Experimental Protocol" so we can start > > seeing real world usage to help refine and improve it. That said, I > believe > > all clients currently would reject any non-grpc URI. > > > >> I was speaking with someone yesterday and they explained that > > they ended up not choosing Flight for an internal project because Flight > > didn't support something called "cloud fetch" which I have now learned is > > > > I was reading through that link, and it seems like it's pretty much > > *identical* to Flight as it currently exists, except that it is using > cloud > > storage (S3, GCS, etc.) URIs containing Arrow IPC *files*, rather than a > > service sitting in front of those serving up Arrow IPC *streams*. Which > has > > been requested by others in the community, hence the second proposal that > > was split out [2]. > > > >> So a big +1 for the idea of disassociated transports but I'm not sure > why > > we need a vote to start working on it (but I'm not opposed if a vote > helps) > > > > Mostly I found that the google doc was easier for iterating on the > protocol > > specification than a markdown PR for the Arrow documentation as I could > > more visually express things without a preview of the rendered markdown. > If > > it would get people to be more likely to vote on this, I can write up the > > documentation markdown now and create a PR rather than waiting until we > > decide we're even going to adopt this protocol as an "official" arrow > > protocol. > > > > Lemme know if there's any other unanswered questions! > > > > --Matt > > > > [1]: https://github.com/zeroshade/cudf-flight-ucx > > [2]: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-x7tHWDzpbgmsjtTUnVXeEO4b7vMWDHTu-lzxlK9_hE/edit#heading=h.ub6lgn7s75tq > > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 4:53 PM Weston Pace <weston.p...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> I'm sorry for the very late reply. Until yesterday I had no real > concept > >> of what this was talking about and so I had stayed out. > >> > >> I'm +0 only because it isn't clear what we are voting on. There is a > word > >> doc with no implementation or PR. I think there could be an > implementation > >> / PR. For example, does any ADBC client respect this protocol today? > If a > >> flight server responds with an S3/HTTP URI will the ADBC client download > >> the files from the correct place? Will it at least notice that the URI > is > >> not a GRPC URI and give a "I don't have a connector for downloading from > >> HTTP/S3" error? In general, I think we do want this in Flight (see > >> comments below) and I am very supportive of the idea. However, if > adopting > >> this as an experimental proposal helps move this forward then I think > >> that's fine. > >> > >> That being said, I do want to express support for the proposal as a > >> concept, at least the "disassociated transports" portion (I can't speak > to > >> UCX/etc.). I was speaking with someone yesterday and they explained > that > >> they ended up not choosing Flight for an internal project because Flight > >> didn't support something called "cloud fetch" which I have now learned > is > >> [1]. I had recalled looking at this proposal before and this person > seemed > >> interested and optimistic to know this was being considered for Flight. > >> This proposal, as I understand it, should make it possible for cloud > >> servers to support a cloud fetch style API. From the discussion I got > the > >> impression that this cloud fetch approach is useful and generally > >> applicable. > >> > >> So a big +1 for the idea of disassociated transports but I'm not sure > why > >> we need a vote to start working on it (but I'm not opposed if a vote > helps) > >> > >> [1] > >> > >> > https://www.databricks.com/blog/2021/08/11/how-we-achieved-high-bandwidth-connectivity-with-bi-tools.html > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 1:04 PM Matt Topol <zotthewiz...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > I'll keep this new vote open for at least the next 72 hours. As before > >> > please reply with: > >> > > >> > [ ] +1 Accept this Proposal > >> > [ ] +0 > >> > [ ] -1 Do not accept this proposal because... > >> > > >> > Thanks everyone! > >> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 7:51 PM Benjamin Kietzman < > bengil...@gmail.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > +1 > >> > > > >> > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024, 18:36 Matt Topol <zotthewiz...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Should I start a new thread for a new vote? Or repeat the original > >> vote > >> > > > email here? > >> > > > > >> > > > Just asking since there hasn't been any responses so far. > >> > > > > >> > > > --Matt > >> > > > > >> > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 11:46 AM Matt Topol < > zotthewiz...@gmail.com> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Absolutely, it will be marked experimental until we see some > people > >> > > using > >> > > > > it and can get more real-world feedback. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > There's also already a couple things that will be followed-up on > >> > after > >> > > > the > >> > > > > initial adoption for expansion which were discussed in the > >> comments. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, 11:42 AM David Li <lidav...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> I think let's try again. Would it be reasonable to declare this > >> > > > >> 'experimental' for the time being, just as we did with > >> Flight/Flight > >> > > > >> SQL/etc? > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> On Tue, Mar 19, 2024, at 15:24, Matt Topol wrote: > >> > > > >> > Hey All, It's been another month and we've gotten a whole > bunch > >> of > >> > > > >> feedback > >> > > > >> > and engagement on the document from a variety of individuals. > >> > Myself > >> > > > >> and a > >> > > > >> > few others have proactively attempted to reach out to as many > >> > third > >> > > > >> parties > >> > > > >> > as we could, hoping to pull more engagement also. While it > would > >> > be > >> > > > >> great > >> > > > >> > to get even more feedback, the comments have slowed down and > we > >> > > > haven't > >> > > > >> > gotten anything in a few days at this point. > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > If there's no objections, I'd like to try to open up for > voting > >> > > again > >> > > > to > >> > > > >> > officially adopt this as a protocol to add to our docs. > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > Thanks all! > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > --Matt > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 6:43 PM Paul Whalen < > pgwha...@gmail.com> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> >> Agreed that it makes sense not to focus on in-place updating > >> for > >> > > this > >> > > > >> >> proposal. I’m not even sure it’s a great fit as a “general > >> > > purpose” > >> > > > >> Arrow > >> > > > >> >> protocol, because of all the assumptions and restrictions > >> > required > >> > > as > >> > > > >> you > >> > > > >> >> noted. > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> I took another look at the proposal and don’t think there’s > >> > > anything > >> > > > >> >> preventing in-place updating in the future - ultimately the > >> data > >> > > body > >> > > > >> could > >> > > > >> >> just be in the same location for subsequent messages. > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> Thanks! > >> > > > >> >> Paul > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 5:28 PM Matt Topol < > >> > zotthewiz...@gmail.com> > >> > > > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > > @pgwhalen: As a potential "end user developer," (and > >> aspiring > >> > > > >> >> > contributor) this > >> > > > >> >> > immediately excited me when I first saw it. > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > Yay! Good to hear that! > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > @pgwhalen: And it wasn't clear to me whether updating > >> batches > >> > > in > >> > > > >> >> > place (and the producer/consumer coordination that comes > with > >> > > that) > >> > > > >> was > >> > > > >> >> > supported or encouraged as part of the proposal. > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > So, updating batches in place was not a particular > use-case > >> we > >> > > were > >> > > > >> >> > targeting with this approach. Instead using shared memory > to > >> > > > produce > >> > > > >> and > >> > > > >> >> > consume the buffers/batches without having to physically > copy > >> > the > >> > > > >> data. > >> > > > >> >> > Trying to update a batch in place is a dangerous prospect > >> for a > >> > > > >> number of > >> > > > >> >> > reasons, but as you've mentioned it can technically be > made > >> > safe > >> > > if > >> > > > >> the > >> > > > >> >> > shape is staying the same and you're only modifying > >> fixed-width > >> > > > data > >> > > > >> >> types > >> > > > >> >> > (i.e. not only is the *shape* unchanged but the sizes of > the > >> > > > >> underlying > >> > > > >> >> > data buffers are also remaining unchanged). The > >> > producer/consumer > >> > > > >> >> > coordination that would be needed for updating batches in > >> place > >> > > is > >> > > > >> not > >> > > > >> >> part > >> > > > >> >> > of this proposal but is definitely something we can look > into > >> > as > >> > > a > >> > > > >> >> > follow-up to this for extending it. There's a number of > >> > > discussions > >> > > > >> that > >> > > > >> >> > would need to be had around that so I don't want to add on > >> > > another > >> > > > >> >> > complexity to this already complex proposal. > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > That said, if you or anyone see something in this proposal > >> that > >> > > > would > >> > > > >> >> > hinder or prevent being able to use it for your use case > >> please > >> > > let > >> > > > >> me > >> > > > >> >> know > >> > > > >> >> > so we can address it. Even though the proposal as it > >> currently > >> > > > exists > >> > > > >> >> > doesn't fully support the in-place updating of batches, I > >> don't > >> > > > want > >> > > > >> to > >> > > > >> >> > make things harder for us in such a follow-up where we'd > end > >> up > >> > > > >> requiring > >> > > > >> >> > an entirely new protocol to support that. > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > @octalene.dev: I know of a third party that is > interested > >> in > >> > > > >> Arrow for > >> > > > >> >> > HPC environments that could be interested in the proposal > >> and I > >> > > can > >> > > > >> see > >> > > > >> >> if > >> > > > >> >> > they're interested in providing feedback. > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > Awesome! Thanks much! > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > For reference to anyone who hasn't looked at the document > in > >> a > >> > > > while, > >> > > > >> >> since > >> > > > >> >> > the original discussion thread on this I have added a full > >> > > > >> "Background > >> > > > >> >> > Context" page to the beginning of the proposal to help > anyone > >> > who > >> > > > >> isn't > >> > > > >> >> > already familiar with the issues this protocol is trying > to > >> > solve > >> > > > or > >> > > > >> >> isn't > >> > > > >> >> > already familiar with ucx or libfabric transports to > better > >> > > > >> understand > >> > > > >> >> > *why* I'm > >> > > > >> >> > proposing this and what it is trying to solve. The point > of > >> > this > >> > > > >> >> background > >> > > > >> >> > information is to help ensure that anyone who might have > >> > thoughts > >> > > > on > >> > > > >> >> > protocols in general or APIs should still be able to > >> understand > >> > > the > >> > > > >> base > >> > > > >> >> > reasons and goals that we're trying to achieve with this > >> > protocol > >> > > > >> >> proposal. > >> > > > >> >> > You don't need to already understand managing GPU/device > >> memory > >> > > or > >> > > > >> ucx to > >> > > > >> >> > be able to have meaningful input on the document. > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > Thanks again to all who have contributed so far and please > >> > spread > >> > > > to > >> > > > >> any > >> > > > >> >> > contacts that you think might be interested in this for > their > >> > > > >> particular > >> > > > >> >> > use cases. > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > --Matt > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 1:39 AM Aldrin > >> > > <octalene....@pm.me.invalid > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> wrote: > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > > I am interested in this as well, but I haven't gotten > to a > >> > > point > >> > > > >> where > >> > > > >> >> I > >> > > > >> >> > > can have valuable input (I haven't tried other > >> transports). I > >> > > > know > >> > > > >> of a > >> > > > >> >> > > third party that is interested in Arrow for HPC > >> environments > >> > > that > >> > > > >> could > >> > > > >> >> > be > >> > > > >> >> > > interested in the proposal and I can see if they're > >> > interested > >> > > in > >> > > > >> >> > providing > >> > > > >> >> > > feedback. > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > I glanced at the document before but I'll go through > again > >> to > >> > > see > >> > > > >> if > >> > > > >> >> > there > >> > > > >> >> > > is anything I can comment on. > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > # ------------------------------ > >> > > > >> >> > > # Aldrin > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > https://github.com/drin/ > >> > > > >> >> > > https://gitlab.com/octalene > >> > > > >> >> > > https://keybase.io/octalene > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > On Tuesday, February 27th, 2024 at 17:43, Paul Whalen < > >> > > > >> >> > pgwha...@gmail.com> > >> > > > >> >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > As a potential "end user developer," (and aspiring > >> > > contributor) > >> > > > >> this > >> > > > >> >> > > > immediately excited me when I first saw it. > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > I work at a trading firm, and my team has developed an > >> IPC > >> > > > >> mechanism > >> > > > >> >> > for > >> > > > >> >> > > > efficiently transmitting pandas dataframes both > remotely > >> > via > >> > > > TCP > >> > > > >> and > >> > > > >> >> > > > locally via shared memory, where the interface for the > >> > > > >> application > >> > > > >> >> > > > developer is the same for both. The data in the > >> dataframes > >> > > may > >> > > > >> change > >> > > > >> >> > > > rapidly, so when communicating locally via shared > memory, > >> > if > >> > > > the > >> > > > >> >> shape > >> > > > >> >> > of > >> > > > >> >> > > > the dataframe doesn't change, we update the memory in > >> > place, > >> > > > >> >> > coordinating > >> > > > >> >> > > > between the producer and consumer via TCP. > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > We intend to move away from our remote TCP mechanism > >> > towards > >> > > > >> Arrow > >> > > > >> >> > > Flight, > >> > > > >> >> > > > or a lighter-weight version of Arrow IPC. For the > local > >> > > shared > >> > > > >> memory > >> > > > >> >> > > > mechanism which we previously did not have a good > answer > >> > for, > >> > > > it > >> > > > >> >> seems > >> > > > >> >> > > like > >> > > > >> >> > > > Disassociated Arrow IPC maps quite well to our > problem. > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > So some features that enable our use case are: > >> > > > >> >> > > > - Updating existing batches in place is supported > >> > > > >> >> > > > - The interface is pretty similar to Flight > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > I'd imagine we're not the only financial firm to > >> implement > >> > > > >> something > >> > > > >> >> > like > >> > > > >> >> > > > this, given how widespread pandas usage is, so that > could > >> > be > >> > > a > >> > > > >> place > >> > > > >> >> to > >> > > > >> >> > > > seek feedback. > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > As I was reading the proposal initially, I gleaned > that > >> the > >> > > > most > >> > > > >> >> > > important > >> > > > >> >> > > > audience was those writing interfaces to GPUs/remote > >> > > > >> >> > memory/non-standard > >> > > > >> >> > > > transports/etc. And it wasn't clear to me whether > >> updating > >> > > > >> batches in > >> > > > >> >> > > > place (and the producer/consumer coordination that > comes > >> > with > >> > > > >> that) > >> > > > >> >> was > >> > > > >> >> > > > supported or encouraged as part of the proposal. But > >> > > > regardless, > >> > > > >> as > >> > > > >> >> an > >> > > > >> >> > > end > >> > > > >> >> > > > user, this seems like an easier and more efficient > way to > >> > > glue > >> > > > >> pieces > >> > > > >> >> > in > >> > > > >> >> > > > the Arrow ecosystem together if it was adopted > broadly. > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > Paul > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 6:05 PM Matt Topol > >> > > > >> zotthewiz...@gmail.com > >> > > > >> >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > I'll continue my efforts of trying to reach out to > >> other > >> > > > >> interested > >> > > > >> >> > > > > parties, but if anyone else here has any contacts or > >> > > > >> connections > >> > > > >> >> that > >> > > > >> >> > > they > >> > > > >> >> > > > > think might be interested please forward them the > link > >> to > >> > > the > >> > > > >> >> Google > >> > > > >> >> > > doc. > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > I really do want to get as much engagement and > feedback > >> > as > >> > > > >> possible > >> > > > >> >> > on > >> > > > >> >> > > > > this. > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > Thanks! > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024, 6:38 PM Wes McKinney > >> > > > wesmck...@gmail.com > >> > > > >> >> > wrote: > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > Have there been efforts to proactively reach out > to > >> > other > >> > > > >> third > >> > > > >> >> > > parties > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > that might have an interest in this or be a > potential > >> > > user > >> > > > at > >> > > > >> >> some > >> > > > >> >> > > point? > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > There are a lot of interested parties in Arrow > that > >> may > >> > > not > >> > > > >> >> > actively > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > follow > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > the mailing list. > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > Seems like folks from the Dask, Ray, RAPIDS > >> (especially > >> > > > >> folks at > >> > > > >> >> > > NVIDIA > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > or > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > working on UCX), or other communities like that > might > >> > > have > >> > > > >> >> > > constructive > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > thoughts about this. DLPack ( > >> > > > >> >> https://dmlc.github.io/dlpack/latest/ > >> > > > >> >> > ) > >> > > > >> >> > > also > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > seems adjacent and worth reaching out to. Other > ideas > >> > for > >> > > > >> >> projects > >> > > > >> >> > or > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > companies that could be reached out to for > feedback. > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 5:23 PM Antoine Pitrou > >> > > > >> >> anto...@python.org > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > If there's no engagement, then I'm afraid it > might > >> > mean > >> > > > >> that > >> > > > >> >> > third > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > parties have no interest in this. I don't really > >> have > >> > > any > >> > > > >> >> > solution > >> > > > >> >> > > for > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > generating engagement except nagging and pinging > >> > people > >> > > > >> >> > explicitly > >> > > > >> >> > > :-) > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > Le 27/02/2024 à 19:09, Matt Topol a écrit : > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I would like to see the same Antoine, > currently > >> > given > >> > > > the > >> > > > >> >> lack > >> > > > >> >> > of > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engagement (both for OR against) I was going > to > >> > take > >> > > > the > >> > > > >> >> > silence > >> > > > >> >> > > as > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > assent > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > and hope for non-Voltron Data PMC members to > vote > >> > in > >> > > > >> this. > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > If anyone has any suggestions on how we could > >> > > > potentially > >> > > > >> >> > > generate > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > more > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > engagement and discussion on this, please let > me > >> > know > >> > > > as > >> > > > >> I > >> > > > >> >> want > >> > > > >> >> > > as > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > many > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > parties in the community as possible to be > part > >> of > >> > > > this. > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Thanks everyone. > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > --Matt > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 12:48 PM Antoine > Pitrou > >> > > > >> >> > > anto...@python.org > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hello, > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I'd really like to see more engagement and > >> > > criticism > >> > > > >> from > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > non-Voltron > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Data parties before this is formally > adopted as > >> > an > >> > > > >> Arrow > >> > > > >> >> > spec. > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Regards > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Antoine. > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Le 27/02/2024 à 18:35, Matt Topol a écrit : > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Hey all, > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose a vote for us to > >> officially > >> > > > >> adopt the > >> > > > >> >> > > protocol > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > described in the google doc[1] for > >> Dissociated > >> > > > Arrow > >> > > > >> IPC > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Transports. > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > This > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > proposal was originally discussed at 2. > Once > >> > this > >> > > > >> >> proposal > >> > > > >> >> > is > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > adopted, > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > will work on adding the necessary > >> documentation > >> > > to > >> > > > >> the > >> > > > >> >> > Arrow > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > website > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > along > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > with examples etc. > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > The vote will be open for at least 72 > hours. > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Accept this Proposal > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [ ] +0 > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [ ] -1 Do not accept this proposal > because... > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Thank you everyone! > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > --Matt > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > [1]: > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHbnyK1r6KHpMOtEdIg1EZKNzHx-MVgUMOzB87GuXyk/edit#heading=h.38515dnp2bdb > >> > > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> >
