The argument of Robert & Kostas on not requiring a vote thread unless someone asks for it makes sense, mine was too much.
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Kostas Tzoumas <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for not requiring a vote thread unless someone asks for it > > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Robert Metzger <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I agree with Stephan: If somebody wants to do a major change and is > > uncertain if the community is willing to accept the change, they can ask > on > > the mailing list about it. > > > > I would rather go with Stephan's suggestion to just drop a mail on the > dev@ > > list, without a formal vote. If there is a disagreement or somebody asks > > for a vote, we can still start a vote. This is how I perceived this > project > > since it entered the incubator. > > > > I'm against the explicit requirement for a vote (this is how I understood > > Marton) because it would make things too complicated (working on Flink > > should be fun, not a highly regulated process). > > > > > > I'm against adding the community rules into the "How to Contrib". Its > such > > an important topic that we should dedicate a separate page on that (the > > internet is already so huge, this one page won't hurt). Having such a > page > > also shows the IPMC that our community is healthy. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Ufuk Celebi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > +1 but I would say not the Wiki, but the How To Contribute guide. > > > > > > @Marton: do you have a link for the mail vote befor major changes. In > any > > > case, for me it doesn't matter whether it is a vote or a light weight > > mail > > > to the dev list. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Márton Balassi < > [email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I'd prefer the mail vote before major changes (this is also the > > preferred > > > > Apache guideline if I'm not mistaken). > > > > > > > > Writing down the basics on a wiki makes it clearer and also easier > for > > > new > > > > contributors to get involved. This page is somewhat related though > (at > > > > least for voting): > > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Stephan Ewen <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > > I think part of the discussion that arose around the proposed > > > Java/Scala > > > > > and RPC/Akka changes comes from the fact that we have not clearly > > > written > > > > > down the community/committing rules anywhere yet. In particular, > how > > do > > > > we > > > > > treat proposed major changes. > > > > > > > > > > Most of us (including me) worked under the assumption that > committers > > > can > > > > > commit small fixes immediately, and those can be vetoed (reverted) > in > > > > > hind-sight by others (has not yet happened, though). > > > > > > > > > > Anything that has impact on other people goes through pull > requests, > > > and > > > > is > > > > > then discussed upon, revised, or rejected. This seems to be the > model > > > > that > > > > > many other Apache projects use (like Mahout for example, Sebastian, > > > > correct > > > > > my if I am wrong there). > > > > > > > > > > That has seemed to work so far, and in that sense, the use of Akka > > for > > > > > example is still a proposal only. > > > > > > > > > > For major refactorings like the RPC/Actor one, it makes sense to > try > > > and > > > > > reach consensus before the implementation effort, because it is too > > > much > > > > > work to do it without knowing that it will be accepted. This may > be a > > > > vote, > > > > > but I would prefer it to be rather lightweight, like dropping a > mail > > on > > > > the > > > > > dev list, giving people an early chance to voice concerns. > > > > > > > > > > Does it make sense to write these simple rules down somewhere > > (wiki?), > > > so > > > > > that it is transparent? > > > > > > > > > > Stephan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
