Hey JB, apologies for combining these two things in the same thread, but we got enough eyes on the first PR and I went ahead and merged i
If you want to put together the PR for your proposed changes, we can get looking at that. We'll also need to backfill the existing proposals and update the website to have a link to the label. (Will work with you and Bits on that) Thanks, -Dan On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 10:01 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > Hi Fokko > > I think combining Dan's proposal about "proposal process" and this > proposal about "PR flows" would be helpful for the project (to track > the proposals and avoid "stale" PRs/proposals). > > If PMC members are OK, I'm ready to help to set this up :) > > Thanks > Regards > JB > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 12:27 PM Fokko Driesprong <fo...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > Hey everyone, > > > > This is a gentle bump from my end on this thread since I like the idea. > Several people have already approved Dan's PR about formalizing the > proposal process. Are there any questions or concerns from the PMC before > adopting this? > > > > Kind regards, > > Fokko Driesprong > > > > Op wo 13 mrt 2024 om 13:17 schreef Renjie Liu <liurenjie2...@gmail.com>: > >> > >> Hi, JB: > >> > >> Your proposal looks great to me. We should definitely have a vote for a > proposal impacting the spec, and the model is great. > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 10:55 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi > >>> > >>> I think a vote would be necessary only if we don't have consensus on a > >>> proposal. If anyone is OK with the proposal (no clear "concern" in the > >>> doc and/or the GitHub issue), a vote is not required. > >>> That said, any proposal impacting a spec should be voted (as part of > >>> the spec proposal). > >>> > >>> I think it's fair to identify a proposal vote as a "code modification" > vote. > >>> It means that it follows this model: a negative vote constitutes a > >>> veto , which the voting group (generally the PMC of a project) cannot > >>> override. Again, this model may be modified by a lazy consensus > >>> declaration when the request for a vote is raised, but the full-stop > >>> nature of a negative vote does not change. Under normal (non-lazy > >>> consensus) conditions, the proposal requires three positive votes and > >>> no negative votes in order to pass; if it fails to garner the > >>> requisite amount of support, it doesn't. Then the proposer either > >>> withdraws the proposal or modifies the code and resubmits it, or the > >>> proposal simply languishes as an open issue until someone gets around > >>> to removing it. > >>> > >>> We can link to https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html. > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> JB > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 2:21 AM Renjie Liu <liurenjie2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > Hi, Daniel: > >>> > > >>> > Thanks for this summary. > >>> > > >>> > I think one thing missing is that do we need a vote for the proposal > to be accepted or rejected? If required, what should the voting process be? > >>> > > >>> > On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 9:04 AM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> Hey everyone, I synced up with JB about the proposal process and > wanted to see if we could make some initial progress. > >>> >> > >>> >> Based on some of the earlier discussions, we want to leverage as > much of the informal process as possible, but improve discoverability and a > little structure. This probably means using github for tracking, google > docs where possible for the early proposal implementation comments, and the > dev list for discussion threads, awareness and voting. > >>> >> > >>> >> That said, I propose we adopt the following: > >>> >> > >>> >> 1. A simple issue template for initiating a proposal and applying a > 'proposal' label to the issue > >>> >> 2. Use a github search link to document current proposals (based on > the 'proposal' label) > >>> >> 3. Continue using google docs for proposals documentation/comments > (referenced from the github issue) > >>> >> 4. Continue to create DISCUSS threads on the dev list for > communication > >>> >> 4. Backfill current proposals by creating issues for them > >>> >> > >>> >> I've created this PR to capture the initial template and docs. > >>> >> > >>> >> I think we want to introduce this with as little overhead as > possible. Please follow up with questions/comments so we can close this > out. > >>> >> > >>> >> Thanks, > >>> >> Dan > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 11:30 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Hi Manu > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Yup, it's on my TODO. Thanks for the reminder, I will be back on > this > >>> >>> one this week :) > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Regards > >>> >>> JB > >>> >>> > >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 4:07 AM Manu Zhang < > owenzhang1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > Hi JB, > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > Are you still working on this nice proposal? > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > Regards, > >>> >>> > Manu > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 3:35 PM Fokko Driesprong < > fo...@apache.org> wrote: > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> Nice! I fully agree with the abovementioned. I originally set > up the stalebot for the issues because I noticed that there were many > issues around old Spark versions that weren't even maintained anymore. I > feel it is better to either close or take action on an issue. For me, it > makes sense to extend this to PRs as well. > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> Same as Amogh said, always feel free to ping me when either a > PR or issue lingering and you need some eyes on it. > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> Kind regards, > >>> >>> >> Fokko > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> Op do 4 jan 2024 om 07:42 schreef Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > j...@nanthrax.net>: > >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> Hi > >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> That's also the purpose of the reviewers file: having multiple > >>> >>> >>> reviewers per tag. > >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> Thanks guys for your feedback, I will move forward with the PR > :) > >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> Regards > >>> >>> >>> JB > >>> >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 6:38 AM Ajantha Bhat < > ajanthab...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>> >>> > > >>> >>> >>> > +1, > >>> >>> >>> > > >>> >>> >>> > Some of my PRs have been open for a long time and sometimes > it doesn't get the attention it requires. > >>> >>> >>> > Notifying both the reviewer and the author can help expedite > the review process and facilitate quicker handling of new contributions. > >>> >>> >>> > I think having more than one committer assigned for PR can > also definitely help in speeding up the process if one of the committer is > busy or on holiday. > >>> >>> >>> > > >>> >>> >>> > But we also need to think on the next steps. What if we > still don't receive the necessary response even after sending notifications? > >>> >>> >>> > Should we have a slack channel for those PRs to conclude by > discussing (or some guidelines on how to take it further). > >>> >>> >>> > > >>> >>> >>> > We can have a trial run for some days and see how it goes. > >>> >>> >>> > > >>> >>> >>> > Thanks, > >>> >>> >>> > Ajantha > >>> >>> >>> > > >>> >>> >>> > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 8:19 AM Amogh Jahagirdar < > am...@tabular.io> wrote: > >>> >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >>> >> +1, I think this is a step in the right direction. One > other consideration I wanted to bring up was dependabot and if there's any > unique handling we want to do there because I've noticed that PRs from > dependabot tend to pile up. I think with the proposal we won't really need > to do anything unique and just treat it as a normal PR (it would be a build > label with its own set of reviewers) and we'll get notified the same way. > >>> >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >>> >> I'll also say for reviews (speaking for myself, but I think > many others probably feel this way as well), always feel free to ping on > Slack and follow up :) But overall I do like having more of a mechanism. >
