Sure, feel free to close the vote. Thanks for bearing with me. -Flavio
> On 06 Jun 2017, at 18:07, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org > <mailto:f...@apache.org>> wrote: > >> >>> On 05 Jun 2017, at 18:30, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 2:53 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Ok, so why don't we make clear what we are voting for? >>> >>> If this vote is approved, then the outcome is that the community is going >>>> to work on a plan to move to github issues, and that plan will be voted? >>> >>> >>> I believed that I made the clarification on what to vote in this thread. >>> >> >> This is probably where we are not converging. I don't know what passing >> this vote entails other than a wish to move to github issues in the case it >> passes. I'd much rather vote on a proposal that includes the precise steps >> so that we can assess whether that's a good move or not. But wait, you say >> something interesting next... >> >>> Implementing the new github workflow would be a separated bookkeeper >>> proposal and that implementation will follow bookkeeper proposal process >> to >>> vote, which is a lazy majority vote from committers. >>> >>> Anyone are welcome to work on implementing the workflow. >>> >> >> I see, we aren't really voting on a change or committing to anything, you >> just want to assess preferences. >> >>> >>>> Or is it going to be considered a code change and require just a +1 >> from a >>>> committer? The reason I'm insisting is that I like the idea of moving to >>>> github issues, but I'm not sure what we are voting for precisely. >>>> >>>> As for the approval process, it is not clear from the list of actions >>>> which one is the one to take as not a single one is a good match. When >> this >>>> is the case, the binding votes should be the PMC ones, and given that >> this >>>> is a pretty significant change, I'd be more comfortable with lazy >>>> consensus. Also, note that the shared resources of the project are >>>> responsibility of the PMC. While we can do it in the open to gather >>>> feedback from the community, and in fact, I'd say that this makes a lot >> of >>>> sense to do it, it is the PMC responsibility. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks for pointing it out. Yes, the binding votes for this will be >> active >>> PMC members. >>> >>> Although I have a different personal opinion on the responsibility on >>> shared resources. My feel is the shared resources are more developer >>> resources, which committers/developers should own more responsibilities. >> We >>> can discuss it separately. >> >> It is not really my preference, this is in the bylaws of the project. It >> is a responsibility of the PMC to maintain shared resources. I think that >> the issue tracking application is a shared resource. >> >>> >>> >>>> My recommendation is that we clarify what we are voting for and call a >>>> second vote. I'd happy to help out if it comes to that. >>>> >>> >>> Let me know if the clarification is good to you or not. >> >> Possibly, if this vote is about declaring intention rather than >> committing, then I'm totally good with that. >> > > Flavio, if you are good with that, I would like to close this vote, so that > we can move forward to make it happen. > > If you have a proposal on the workflow, feel free to raise it up as a BP. > > - Sijie > > >> >> -Flavio >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -Flavio >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 03 Jun 2017, at 19:29, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Flavio Junqueira <f...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for pushing this through, Sijie. I have a couple of concerns >>>> about >>>>>> this proposal: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1- There is a proposal, but I'm not seeing a workflow defined for >> github >>>>>> issues. Should we define one and make that part of the vote? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Defining a workflow requires efforts and putting attentions into the >>>>> community. The vote carries the proposal from last sync up to achieve a >>>>> consensus in the community - "shall we try out github issues". If the >>>>> community agrees on this, we can call for volunteers to drive the >>>>> discussion on defining a workflow and help with logistics (e.g. works >>>> with >>>>> INFRA team) to make it happen. >>>>> >>>>> If the community isn't interested in moving forward, it doesn't make >> any >>>>> sense to put the efforts on it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 2- I'm not sure what the binding votes are and what the approval >> process >>>>>> is. Are we following the project bylaws here? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://bookkeeper.apache.org/bylaws.html >>>>> >>>>> This is related to development/release workflow, is counted as "Release >>>>> Plan". It follows the "Lazy majority" approval process, any votes from >>>>> committers are binding votes. >>>>> >>>>> The voting period is 3 days. >>>>> >>>>> - Sijie >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> -Flavio >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 01 Jun 2017, at 21:59, Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Per the community meeting >>>>>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BOOKKEEPER/ >>>>>> 2017-06-01+Meeting+notes> >>>>>>> this morning, JV proposed to start use Github issues for issue >> tracking >>>>>> for >>>>>>> a few months and see how does it work out. I am starting this email >>>>>> thread >>>>>>> to vote for this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The vote will be: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Start using Github issues/pull requests for issue tracking for 3 >>>>>> months. >>>>>>> - During this 3 months, we will continue using both JIRA and Github >>>>>> issues. >>>>>>> - After 3 months, if the community decides whether we should continue >>>>>> using >>>>>>> Github issues or moving from JIRA to Github issues. (The final >> decision >>>>>>> will be a separate vote in 3 months) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please vote +1 if in favor of trying out Github issues and -1 if not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> See below thread and community meeting notes >>>>>>> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BOOKKEEPER/ >>>>>> 2017-06-01+Meeting+notes> >>>>>>> for reference: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/bookkeeper-dev/ >> 201705.mbox/% >>>>>> 3CCAO2yDyYKmUiSfGfkGCKtfP8mmQtcJubGoMO-KsWsjM9_3pOd0Q%40mail >> .gmail.com >>>> %3E >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Sijie
