I would actually consider someone who contributes to both communities at the same time to be a worthwhile addition to both projects. In my active years, we have mostly voted people into both projects; the order was not clear, though.
Being a committer/PMC means that you want to bring the community around a project forward in the Apache way (with parquet-cpp this is given as it is part of the parquet community and also still in a project that is residing within the Apache org). > he told me that the contribution to > parquet-cpp is no longer considered when promoting committers to > Apache Parquet PMC. As a Parquet PMC, I would strongly object to that and would be supportive of also making them a Parquet committer/PMC. Best Uwe On Thu, May 16, 2024, at 2:19 PM, Gang Wu wrote: > Hi, > > I share the same feeling with Antoine that parquet-cpp seems to be fully > governed by Apache Arrow PMC, not the Apache Parquet PMC. I have > once discussed this with Xinli and he told me that the contribution to > parquet-cpp is no longer considered when promoting committers to > Apache Parquet PMC. > > Best, > Gang > > On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 4:29 PM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, 16 May 2024 10:08:42 +0200 >> "Uwe L. Korn" <uw...@xhochy.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, May 14, 2024, at 6:30 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> > > AFAIK, the only Parquet implementation under the Apache Parquet project >> > > is parquet-mr :-) >> > >> > This is not true. The parquet-cpp that resides in the arrow repository >> is still controlled by the Apache Parquet PMC. Back then, we only merged >> the codebases but kept control of it with the Apache Parquet project. I >> know, it is hard to understand, but at least I have never seen a vote that >> would move it out of the Apache Parquet's project "control". >> >> Ahah. Unfortunately, this doesn't match actual community practices. For >> example, when it is decided to give (Arrow) commit rights to a frequent >> Parquet C++ contributor, that decision is made among the Arrow PMC, not >> the Parquet PMC. >> >> Perhaps there would be value in aligning the legal situation on the >> _de facto_ situation? >> >> Regards >> >> Antoine. >> >> >> > >> > Best >> > Uwe >> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, 14 May 2024 10:58:58 +0200 >> > > Rok Mihevc <rok.mih...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> Second Raphael's point. >> > >> Would it be reasonable to say specification change requires >> implementation >> > >> in two parquet implementations within Apache Parquet project? >> > >> >> > >> Rok >> > >> >> > >> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 10:50 AM Gang Wu < >> ustcwg-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > IMHO, it looks more reasonable if a reference implementation is >> required >> > >> > to support most (not all) elements from the specification. >> > >> > >> > >> > Another question is: should we discuss (and vote for) each candidate >> > >> > one by one? We can start with parquet-mr which is most well-known >> > >> > implementation. >> > >> > >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Gang >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 4:41 PM Raphael Taylor-Davies >> > >> > <r.taylordav...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > Potentially it would be helpful to flip the question around. As >> Andrew >> > >> > > articulates, a reference implementation is required to implement >> all >> > >> > > elements from the specification, and therefore the major >> consequence of >> > >> > > labeling parquet-mr thusly would be that any specification change >> would >> > >> > > have to be implemented within parquet-mr as part of the >> standardisation >> > >> > > process. It would be insufficient for it to be implemented in, for >> > >> > > example, two of the parquet implementations maintained by the >> arrow >> > >> > > project. I personally think that would be a shame and likely >> exclude >> > >> > > many people who would otherwise be interested in evolving the >> parquet >> > >> > > specification, but think that is at the core of this question. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Kind Regards, >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Raphael >> > >> > > >> > >> > > On 13/05/2024 20:55, Andrew Lamb wrote: >> > >> > > > Question: Should we label parquet-mr or any other parquet >> > >> > implementations >> > >> > > > "reference" implications"? >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > This came up as part of Vinoo's great PR to list different >> parquet >> > >> > > > reference implementations[1][2]. >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > The term "reference implementation" often has an official >> connotation. >> > >> > > For >> > >> > > > example the wikipedia definition is "a program that implements >> all >> > >> > > > requirements from a corresponding specification. The reference >> > >> > > > implementation ... should be considered the "correct" behavior >> of any >> > >> > > other >> > >> > > > implementation of it."[3] >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > Given the close association of parquet-mr to the parquet >> standard, it >> > >> > is >> > >> > > a >> > >> > > > natural candidate to label as "reference implementation." >> However, it >> > >> > is >> > >> > > > not clear to me if there is consensus that it should be thusly >> labeled. >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > I have a strong opinion that a consensus on this question would >> be very >> > >> > > > helpful. I don't actually have a strong opinion about the answer >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > Andrew >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > [1]: >> > >> > > >> https://github.com/apache/parquet-site/pull/53#discussion_r1582882267 >> > >> > > > [2]: >> > >> > > >> https://github.com/apache/parquet-site/pull/53#discussion_r1598283465 >> > >> > > > [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_implementation >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>
