I definitely understand the concerns about moving issue tracking to GitHub. It feels like keeping our processes consistent across the whole project is the best way to ensure a smooth experience for contributors. Using a separate system just for the cassandra-ecosystem might make things a bit fragmented.
If GitHub is a platform we’d like to explore, it would be great to discuss it as a broader topic for the entire project. Finding a consistent approach together would really help reduce friction and benefit our community. On Wed, Jul 8, 2026 at 11:10 AM Francisco Guerrero <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree here with the concerns. Moving to GH infrastructure > also feels orthogonal to the CEP, and as Benedict mentioned > can be separated out of the proposal and have its own dedicated > discussion. > > On 2026/07/08 17:49:06 Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > > Several people have expressed concern about this part of the proposal, > whereas the rest is uncontentious. > > > > My view is that the projects should not diverge in issue tracking > procedure, as this is confusing for users and contributors. Others have > expressed other reservations. > > > > The point is that this requires a dedicated discussion with an > appropriate subject to invite participation exploring these concerns. > Without this I would vote against the CEP as it stands, but if this part of > the proposal were split out I’m sure the CEP could progress uncontested. > > > > On 2026/07/08 17:16:53 Josh McKenzie wrote: > > > > This has implications for the project as a whole > > > Could you elaborate? > > > > > > > I do worry that moving discussion from ASF-controlled infrastructure > > > > ... > > > > us moving closer instead seems directionally wrong to me. > > > The CEP now explicitly proposes moving issue tracking to github, not > project discussions, and auto-forwarding conversation to a ML. There's > little difference to our existing dependency for PR reviews, and the ASF > has blessed it as an approved space to do our work. > > > > > > Active contributors to these projects on this thread are in favor of > these changes; before we split out this aspect of things let's make sure > we're all aligned and our reasoning is on the table. > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2026, at 6:07 AM, Aleksey Yeshchenko wrote: > > > > This ^ > > > > > > > > And this: > > > > > > > > > I do worry that moving discussion from ASF-controlled > infrastructure > > > > > to Microsoft-controlled infrastructure will prove to be unwise in > the > > > > > future. > > > > > > > > With more high profile OSS projects moving away from GitHub, > > > > and its availability and reliability on the decline, us moving closer > > > > instead seems directionally wrong to me. But it should really be > > > > a separate discussion, and perhaps a different CEP. > > > > > > > > > On 8 Jul 2026, at 09:53, Benedict Elliott Smith < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Please separate out the proposal to migrate to GitHub issue > tracker etc. into its own discussion and vote, as this was flying under the > radar. This has implications for the project as a whole, and should be > considered in isolation. > > > > > > > > > > On 2026/07/08 03:22:46 Bernardo Botella wrote: > > > > >> Let’s vote! > > > > >> > > > > >> El El mar, 7 jul 2026 a las 21:26, Josh McKenzie < > [email protected]> > > > > >> escribió: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Thanks everyone for all the feedback. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> This thread has been open for just over 2 weeks and it doesn't > look like > > > > >>> we have any further outstanding major issues or concerns. Are we > ready to > > > > >>> bring this to a vote? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2026, at 2:36 AM, Jon Haddad wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I am an extremely enthusiastic +1 for this. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I added support for EC2 role credentials recently which was a > serious > > > > >>> headache due to the separation of the two projects. Having them > together > > > > >>> will make these kinds of future improvements a lot easier. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Thanks Josh for taking the lead on this. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Jon > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 1:46 PM Josh McKenzie < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I revised section 7 to try and make the intended split between > the > > > > >>> tactical (GitHub) and strategic (dev ML) more clear: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> 7. Issue tracking, technical discussions, and code review: move > to GitHub > > > > >>> This CEP *formally proposes that **cassandra-ecosystem** use > GitHub > > > > >>> Issues, GitHub Discussions, and GitHub Pull Requests* as its > tracker, > > > > >>> discussion forum, and code-review surface - rather than creating > a new JIRA > > > > >>> project (the previously-floated CASSECO). Discussion on github > should be > > > > >>> constrained to tactical / technical topics (feature design, > implementation, > > > > >>> testing, etc). For strategic topics (project governance, roadmap, > > > > >>> architecture, releases, etc) discussion should be kept to the > dev ML. > > > > >>> Rationale: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> - It keeps issues, technical discussions, code review, and > code in one > > > > >>> place, lowering friction for the external contributors and > downstream > > > > >>> consumers who already interact with these projects via GitHub. > > > > >>> - When we moved from code collaboration happening in JIRA > comments to > > > > >>> happening in github PR’s years ago, our discussion around work > fragmented. > > > > >>> The majority of that discussion already happens in github on > PR’s; if we > > > > >>> move to using github discussions, projects, milestones, and > centralize our > > > > >>> project management in github, we will have a more modern, > feature-rich, and > > > > >>> interconnected platform for people to collaborate on. > > > > >>> - The vast majority of the industry and thus new contributors > to the > > > > >>> cassandra ecosystem will be familiar with github; having to > split their > > > > >>> workflows between github and JIRA presents a hurdle on both > integrating > > > > >>> with the community and on longer-term collaboration. > > > > >>> - A brand-new repository is the natural, low-cost moment to > adopt this > > > > >>> workflow; there is no legacy of in-flight JIRA process to > disrupt within > > > > >>> the new repo. > > > > >>> - GitHub Discussions gives design conversations a durable, > searchable > > > > >>> home (the [DISCUSS] mailing-list thread still governs the > *CEP* process > > > > >>> and is used for the official system-of-record; Github > discussions > > > > >>> complement it for implementation-level design). > > > > >>> - Note: all strategic project level discussions (architecture, > > > > >>> roadmap, releases, etc) should happen on the dev list. The > intent is to > > > > >>> have tactical discussions (implementation, technical > details, etc) > > > > >>> centralized in one location > > > > >>> - All conversation on GitHub will be reflected to a mailing > list using > > > > >>> notifications > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Sun, Jul 5, 2026, at 8:42 AM, Mick wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> On 5 Jul 2026, at 14:37, Mick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>>>> On 30 Jun 2026, at 19:38, Brandon Williams <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >>>>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 12:18 PM Josh McKenzie < > [email protected]> > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> So. In case this triggers anything for anyone, figured I'd > raise it > > > > >>> here. :) > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> I do worry that moving discussion from ASF-controlled > infrastructure > > > > >>>>> to Microsoft-controlled infrastructure will prove to be unwise > in the > > > > >>>>> future. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> This is in a way a hard requirement from the ASF. > > > > >>>> All decision making must be _recorded_ on ASF-controller > infrastructure. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> It is solved by sending all notifications to a mailing list. > > > > >>>> e.g. we can create a new read-only mailing list we all ecosystem > > > > >>> discussions are copied to. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> This is why all other github activities are being sent to a ml, > and > > > > >>> which I believe is enforced by the .asf.yml > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> It would also be possible, as a number of other apache projects > have > > > > >>> done, to migrate all our existing sidecar and analytics jira > tickets to > > > > >>> github issues. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> And all binding votes need to still happen on the mailing list, > like > > > > >>> releases. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
