“ Only that it locks out of the conversation anyone without a Jira login” Very valid point I forgot about - since recently people need invitation in order to create account… Then I would say C until we clarify the scope. Thanks
On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 at 8:54, Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > I think lazy consensus is fine for all of these things. If a DISCUSS > thread is crickets, or just positive responses, then definitely it can > proceed without further ceremony. > > I think “with heads-up to the mailing list” is very close to B? Only that > it locks out of the conversation anyone without a Jira login. > > On 2 Feb 2023, at 13:46, Ekaterina Dimitrova <e.dimitr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > While I do agree with you, I am thinking that if we include many things > that we would expect lazy consensus on I would probably have different > preference. > > I definitely don’t mean to stall this though so in that case: > I’d say combination of A+C (jira with heads up on the ML if someone is > interested into the jira) and regular log on API changes separate from > CHANGES.txt or we can just add labels to entries in CHANGES.txt as some > other projects. (I guess this is a detail we can agree on later on, how to > implement it, if we decide to move into that direction) > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 at 8:12, Benedict <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I think it’s fine to separate the systems from the policy? We are >> agreeing a policy for systems we want to make guarantees about to our users >> (regarding maintenance and compatibility) >> >> For me, this is (at minimum) CQL and virtual tables. But I don’t think >> the policy differs based on the contents of the list, and given how long >> this topic stalled for. Given the primary point of contention seems to be >> the *policy* and not the list, I think it’s time to express our opinions >> numerically so we can move the conversation forwards. >> >> This isn’t binding, it just reifies the community sentiment. >> >> On 2 Feb 2023, at 13:02, Ekaterina Dimitrova <e.dimitr...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> “ So we can close out this discussion, let’s assume we’re only >> discussing any interfaces we want to make promises for. We can have a >> separate discussion about which those are if there is any disagreement.” >> May I suggest we first clear this topic and then move to voting? I would >> say I see confusion, not that much of a disagreement. Should we raise a >> discussion for every feature flag for example? In another thread virtual >> tables were brought in. I saw also other examples where people expressed >> uncertainty. I personally feel I’ll be able to take a more informed >> decision and vote if I first see this clarified. >> >> I will be happy to put down a document and bring it for discussion if >> people agree with that >> >> >> >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2023 at 7:33, Aleksey Yeshchenko <alek...@apple.com> wrote: >> >>> Bringing light to new proposed APIs no less important - if not more, for >>> reasons already mentioned in this thread. For it’s not easy to change them >>> later. >>> >>> Voting B. >>> >>> >>> On 2 Feb 2023, at 10:15, Andrés de la Peña <adelap...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> If it's a breaking change, like removing a method or property, I think >>> we would need a DISCUSS API thread prior to making changes. However, if the >>> change is an addition, like adding a new yaml property or a JMX method, I >>> think JIRA suffices. >>> >>> >>>
