-user list for this FWIW confidence intervals were not mentioned before the poll was launched, but in fact it was pretty explicitly just votes <= 5%.
If we require that the 95% confidence interval falls under 5% we either need 2000 respondents (not going to happen) at current proportions or for a more reasonable 300 respondents the actual proportion would be ~2.3% which is 7 votes, while we already have 9 votes. In other words, the poll is already effectively done if that is the standard. But I would favor tilting the bias the other way. I'm not just trying to make the data fit the desired conclusion. If the original proposal had talked about confidence intervals, or the implied result that we keep Java 7 support for 3% of responses (out of expected ~500 or less) I would have said the balance was off. Kenn On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Eugene Kirpichov <[email protected]> wrote: > Intermediate update: right now it's 219 votes on Twitter (and 0 on this > thread: seems that people find Twitter a more convenient medium!), with 96% > who are either on Java 8 or can easily switch, vs. 4% who can not easily > switch. > > Using a proportion confidence interval calculator, so far we're looking at > between 1.9 and 7.7% of users (at 95% confidence) needing Java 7 support :) > > Willing users can help gather more votes by RT'ing the poll or chiming in > on this thread! > > So: for now we don't yet have enough confidence that Java 7 support can be > dropped from the SDK (to remind, we'll conclude the vote on January 7th; > since people so overwhelmingly vote on Twitter, we may consider doing 3 > more rounds of the same poll?..), however: > - It may be enough confidence to resolve to *build* the Beam SDK using > JDK8 (at Java 7 source language level), which is something +Ismaël Mejía > <[email protected]> and +Daniel Oliveira <[email protected]> once > requested as part of building Java 9 support. I suspect that the sets > "users who need to build their own Beam SDK" and "users who can not upgrade > to Java 8" have a vanishingly small intersection. > - Then, we may consider also start building *tests* at Java 8 language > level, which will give the bulk of the benefit of encouraging > Java8-friendly APIs. > Thoughts on the above? > > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 6:22 PM Eugene Kirpichov <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> A Twitter poll has been sent out too https://twitter.com/Apache >> Beam/status/938926195910905857 >> However, due to limitations of Twitter it can only be open for 7 days. I >> encourage people who are late to the poll to comment on this thread instead. >> >> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:50 PM Eugene Kirpichov <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Followup: we would like to keep this poll open for 2 weeks, however some >>> people have expressed concern that this is too short. >>> Let us keep this poll open for 1 month starting today. So far the >>> agreed-upon decision has been to move forward with the plan if fewer than >>> 5% of all respondents choose option 3. >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 3:48 PM Eugene Kirpichov <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> This is a follow-up on a previous similar thread >>>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/2e1890c62d9f022f >>>> 09b20e9f12f130fe9f1042e391979087f725d2e0@%3Cuser.beam.apache.org%3E in >>>> which the community consistently expressed support for transitioning Beam >>>> Java to Java8-only. >>>> >>>> Now that the release of Beam 2.2.0 has completed, we are considering >>>> performing this change specifically in the immediate next release: Beam >>>> 2.3.0, i.e. dropping support for Java 7 without a bump in the major version >>>> of Beam. >>>> >>>> The reasons for switching to Java 8 in general are considered in the >>>> thread above. >>>> The reasons in favor of making the switch in Beam 2.3.0 are as follows: >>>> - It is believed that usage of Java 7 in production is already >>>> vanishingly small. >>>> - Since Java 7 has not been receiving even security updates for years, >>>> helping perpetuate its usage would be a bad idea >>>> - A major version bump is a major step and would likely happen only >>>> after a large number of other major changes in Beam accumulate - i.e. many >>>> months. Maintaining Java 7 compatibility for that long would have costs, >>>> including the awkward possibility of switching Beam to Java 8 after Java >>>> 8's end of life (September 2018 AFAIK) >>>> - Updating to Java 8 would lead to Beam more quickly gaining more >>>> Java8-friendly APIs, because Beam SDK authors and contributors would have >>>> more liberty, more responsibility and more experience with working in the >>>> context of Java8. Delaying until Beam 3.0 would delay this as well. >>>> >>>> With that in mind, we'd like to poll the Beam community to gather >>>> information about usage of Java 7 and Java 8 in production. Please vote: >>>> >>>> Option 1. I am already using only Java 8+ for building my production >>>> Beam code. >>>> >>>> Option 2. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, but I >>>> would have no trouble with the switch to Java 8 [e.g. my transition to Java >>>> 8 would be easy and/or I don't expect that I'll have strong reasons to >>>> upgrade to Beam 2.3 anyway]. >>>> >>>> Option 3. I am using Java 7 for building my production Beam code, and >>>> dropping Java 7 would be a blocker or hindrance to adopting the new release >>>> for me [e.g. I expect that I'll have strong reasons to update to Beam 2.3, >>>> but I expect that it will be difficult because of lack of Java 7 support] >>>> >>>>
