Thanks Paolo for clarifying this. Much appreciated On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 at 19:23, Toni Rikkola <trikk...@redhat.com> wrote:
> The following page talks about finding and building consensus. For the > items you brought up, I personally tried to make it clear what the process > is with discussion-proposal-vote mechanism and as you said this was ignored > and went straight to vote. So consensus building was skipped and it was > asked for directly. > https://community.apache.org/committers/decisionMaking.html > > The page states: > "The word “consensus” is a bit ambiguous in English, and so can lead to > some misunderstandings of intent when we use it in the context of project > decisions. Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees on all details. > Rather, it means that the project, as a whole, has arrived a decision, or > at least a compromise, that everyone can live with." > > So the community needs to itself figure out how to agree to disagree. > Please do not think I see you being wrong. My previous view was that we > could find consensus with the classic democratic votes and not using -1 as > a veto. Now you are stating the -1 were a veto. So let's forget the > subjects that we were voting about, it is clear we are failing to find the > consensus on just the voting process. > > I intentionally left out the voting process from the > discussion-proposal-vote guideline since I knew it would have been too big > of a step to take. I will start a discussion thread for how we can find a > way to vote and agree on a mixed result and then walk through the process > to get us a guideline for voting. Now how voting works is something we can > vote on, since it does not change code. (Well I guess everything is a code > change if you write it down somewhere). > > I can start the discussion after you get feedback from Brian, if you want > to check that first. My understanding is that we need to figure this out > ourselves or why would the Apache bother to mature us? We are failing at > the basics. > The latest info we got from Brian however stated that -1 only blocks > releases. > https://lists.apache.org/thread/sofswb9ol7srncj6fqwz1ohtq2x550ky > > I will ping you with a DM tomorrow. Let's get the voting rules/guidelines > cleared. > > Toni > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 6:02 PM Paolo Bizzarri <pibi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Toni > > > > There were multiple technical objections, repeated again and again. I > won't > > go through them again, but let's say that there were no -1 "just in > case". > > I hope we can agree at least on that. > > > > There was and there is no "consensus", there is just people tired of > > discussing and seeing their objections ignored or answered by people in a > > patronizing way. > > > > You linked Apache Kafka rules. I appreciate that they have decided > > something together, but again, this is not Apache Kafka. This is Apache > > Kie. And unless we decide that Kafka rules are our rules, they are > somehwat > > irrelevant. Good as ideas, good as a starting point but again, WE, as a > > community, have to decide to adopt those rules. or not. > > > > And on a side note - consensus means that we all agree on something > > relevant for the topic and there is a status where there is no consensus, > > otherwise the word is meaningless. Let's try not to redefine words. > > > > Regards > > > > P. > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 4:19 PM Toni Rikkola <trikk...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > > It says: > > > > > > "To prevent vetoes from being used capriciously, the voter must provide > > > with the veto a technical justification showing why the change is bad > > > (opens a security exposure, negatively affects performance, etc. ). A > > veto > > > without a justification is invalid and has no weight." > > > > > > But it is up to the project to find consensus with the methods they > > select. > > > For example Kafka has presets for voting and what type of voting is > > > required for each change type. > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=34019842#Bylaws-Actions > > > > > > So now the question is what does this community think justifies a veto? > > > > > > --- > > > > > > "At least we should have tried to discuss the objections and move to > some > > > form of consensus." > > > > > > Yes! The method where we go directly to a vote is not optimal for a > > healthy > > > community, but I was under the impression we still formed a consensus. > > > Consensus does not mean we all agree. It means we agree on how we > > disagree. > > > > > > Toni > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 3:15 PM Paolo Bizzarri <pibi...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Tony, > > > > > > > > thank you for your reply. > > > > > > > > The Apache policy however DOES NOT says this. > > > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > > > > > > > At least we should have tried to discuss the objections and move to > > some > > > > form of consensus. > > > > > > > > I can't see how htis has happened. > > > > > > > > Probably I am missing something fundamental. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > P. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 1:47 PM Toni Rikkola <trikk...@redhat.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > For everything that has been proposed there has not been a clear > > > security > > > > > risk or performance issue, so following the original Apache > guideline > > > -1 > > > > is > > > > > a vote against it, not a veto. Every +1 has a justification on the > > same > > > > > level as the -1 have. Both sides have had pros and cons, but > neither > > > > > solution breaks anything for the project. We might be swapping one > > > > problem > > > > > to another, but that is I guess how the world works. > > > > > > > > > > Toni > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 12:39 PM Paolo Bizzarri <pibi...@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for the answer. > > > > > > > > > > > > this is surprising to me, since these are clearly code > > modifications > > > > and > > > > > > they should fall under the rules for code modifications. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > > > > > > > > > > > I will speak with the mentors. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > P. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 11:15 AM Alex Porcelli < > > porce...@apache.org> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paolo, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Both proposals passed, as for proposals -1 see not veto. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The first proposal is already under development. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please reach out to mentors to clarify about Apache policies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 4:33 AM Paolo Bizzarri < > > pibi...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am talking about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Including Docs, Examples, and Website(s) in Apache KIE 10.1 > > and > > > > > > beyond > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Removing `build-chain`, the custom Jenkins framework, and > > > > > structuring > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > codebase in a duo-repo setup for 10.2 onwards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that both these two proposals have been > > > > rejected, > > > > > > > since > > > > > > > > they had got both binding -1 and these are the Apache rules. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But there was no explicit mention that they got rejected and > > > people > > > > > > got a > > > > > > > > bit uncertain. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we confirm? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > P. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
