Hi Dan Yes, I saw you merged it, that's great.
I will move forward on the "stale bot" stuff. Thanks ! Regards JB On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:48 PM Daniel Weeks <dwe...@apache.org> wrote: > > 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.
