+1 to having two threads for APEs being an overkill. I propose that we send an explicit APE acceptance on the discussion thread when one of the acceptance criteria is met rather than the APE being accepted by default. This should give a clear indication to the discussion participants and also gives them a chance to highlight any open questions that should still be discussed.
- Murtadha On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 12:18 AM Hussain Towaileb <htowai...@apache.org> wrote: > +1 > > I think best to phrase is for threads that have no on-going discussions, > and all trailing replies are either looks good to me or +1s. > > On 2024/10/30 19:30:49 Mike Carey wrote: > > +1 for this change. (We may just want to be sure we only do this for > > things where there isn't ongoing discussion like UPDATE, where we're > > still finalizing the exact syntax based on input from the dev > > community? I'm not sure how to phrase that - e.g., "if the discussion > > is clearly positive and there aren't open issues"? I would characterize > > UPDATE's discussion as positive but still converging on the final > details.) > > > > On 10/30/24 10:23 AM, Ian Maxon wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > There has been a great influx of APEs lately, and that is wonderful to > see. > > > I also think many of them are not very controversial; the discussion > thread > > > is pretty much just +1 or agreement on the feature being a great > addition. > > > > > > When the PMC voted on adopting the APE process in 2023, the process we > > > agreed on was having a [DISCUSS] thread and then a [VOTE] thread. I > think > > > this is overkill in the case where the change is clearly a shoo-in. I > > > therefore propose the process be amended such that: > > > - IF the discussion is clearly positive after 72 hours, AND > > > -the change is not breaking or deprecating existing functionality, AND > > > -3 or more PMC members have expressed positive sentiment at the change > > > > > > the APE is by default accepted. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > -Ian > > > >
