You know, back when I wrote that line I actually felt a bit guilty about
it and nearly dropped it, since it implicitly accused _someone_ of
actually being capable/willing to push something through despite voiced
concerns while no ones looking.
Turns out things are a lot worse that I thought. You're actually
doubling down on it and even insult me.
As I haven't had a time to revisit the discussion and afaict my concerns
weren't addressed, I hereby vote -1 (binding).
Please be aware that since I'm effectively only back from vacation
tomorrow and need to catch up on things in general, I may not be able to
revisit the discussion this week. In part because I guess I now need to
double-check everything.
CC'ing the private ML because I find this very troubling behavior.
On 11/01/2023 16:20, Martijn Visser wrote:
Hi Jark,
I disagree with your statement that someone doesn't care about the FLIP,
especially since that person participated in the initial FLIP discussion
and mentioned explicitly "Since I'm on holidays soon, just so no one tries
to pull a fast one on me, if this were to go to a vote as-is I'd be against
it.".
Anyway: I can't tell when Chesnay exactly will participate, but I do expect
that this week.
Best regards,
Martijn
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 4:11 PM Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Martijn,
Thanks for helping us to find Chesnay.
Could you clarify how "soon" will Chesnay participate? A day or a week?
I agree with your improvement proposal and Hang exactly follows your
points.
The last-call-for-discussion for Chensay has been sent for more than 72
hours,
even after the Christmas holiday. Therefore, from my point of view, this
FLIP
should have been passed. On the other hand, the Flink Bylaws[1] don't
require
voting to begin until a specific person responds. The 3 days (even work
days) voting
length already considers the committers' reaction time. If someone doesn't
vote -1
during the time period, which means he/she doesn't have concerns about the
proposal.
If you care about the proposal, PLEASE VOTE and explain the reasons. This
is how
the 200+ FLIPs work until today. I'm just very disappointed and surprised
we have to
wait for someone to vote for the FLIP who doesn't care about the FLIP for
more than a month.
Best,
Jark
[1]: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Bylaws
On Wed, 11 Jan 2023 at 21:14, Martijn Visser <martijnvis...@apache.org>
wrote:
Hi Jark and Dong,
I fully understand your concerns in this case. I also think that this
situation is an exception. This discussion started just before the
holiday
season in Europe started. The request to Chesnay if he had more comments
was sent just a couple of days before Christmas.
From my perspective, given how the discussion started in the discussion
thread and the context that was provided, I would have sent an email that
if there are no more comments in the next 72 hours, you would open a vote
thread. Especially if someone raised a concern first. That has happened a
lot on other discussion threads as well, even when there were no more
open
discussion topics.
While I fully understand the disappointment from your point of view, the
other way around it feels disappointing that this was brought to a vote.
So
let's use the disappointments from both ends to learn and to improve
overall. Something like:
* If someone raises concerns during a discussion, of course first try to
resolve all concerns.
* If that person no longer participates in the discussion, send a
last-call-for-discussions in the discussion thread for 72 hours and else
you will open a vote thread
* Follow the regular voting process
For this specific FLIP, I've briefly talked to Chesnay offline and I'm
sure
he will participate soon to unblock it.
Best regards,
Martijn
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 1:47 PM Dong Lin <lindon...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Martijn,
A collaborative and active community is very important for any
open-source
project. Flink can succeed today because we have many experienced and
passionate developers who collaborate together to develop Flink. It is
important that developers can give constructive feedback and help each
other be productive.
I find it kind of surprising and disappointing that we have to wait for
one
particular developer for more than 30 days to get a reply before being
allowed forward and making progress. It is hard to image what would
happen
if every committer can take 30+ days to reply to a FLIP and still
expects
the FLIP to wait for the reply. Flink community will likely be dead if
this
is the culture that Flink community uses to treat contributors.
Could you explain how long we have to wait before making progress for
this
FLIP? And in the future, what would be the resonable timeframe to wait
for
a reply before we can open the voting thread?
Thanks,
Dong
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 4:17 PM Martijn Visser <
martijnvis...@apache.org
wrote:
-1 (binding) currently: I don't think this should have gone to a vote
yet
given that Chesnay deliberately mentioned that he would vote against
it
as-is. The discussion should have been settled first.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 10:51 AM Zhu Zhu <reed...@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 (binding)
Thanks,
Zhu
Jark Wu <imj...@gmail.com> 于2023年1月10日周二 17:43写道：
+1 (binding)
Best,
Jark
2023年1月10日 12:02，Qingsheng Ren <renqs...@gmail.com> 写道：
Thanks for the FLIP!
+1 (binding)
Best,
Qingsheng
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:08 AM Hang Ruan <
ruanhang1...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for all the feedback so far.
Based on the discussion[1], we have come to a consensus, so I
would
like to
start a vote on FLIP-274: Introduce metric group for
OperatorCoordinator[2].
The vote will last for at least 72 hours (Jan 7th at 11:00
GMT)
unless
there is an objection or insufficient votes.
[1]
https://lists.apache.org/thread/63m9w60rndqnrqvgb6qosvt2bcbww53k
[2]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/FLIP-274%3A+Introduce+metric+group+for+OperatorCoordinator
Best,
Hang
