Since the vote was cancelled and PR #4816 merged immediately afterward, I do not think the public record should be read as consensus on the exact API shape. I may be missing a separate consensus signal, but I think we should follow up before release with explicit beta/Ossie wording, endpoint-discovery cleanup, and payload-shape review.
Robert On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 7:27 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Yufei, > > I agree with your suggestion. We can begin the preparatory steps to host > Ossie models now and proceed with the integration as soon as the Ossie > specification becomes available. > > Regards, > JB > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 6:55 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > JB, waiting for Ossie makes sense to me. That said, I'd suggest we work > in > > parallel where possible. > > > > From my understanding, the main dependency on Ossie is the JSON > validator, > > which will arrive a bit later. Most of the other work can proceed > > independently in the meantime. > > > > I'm also OK moving forward without a formal vote if that's the preferred > > approach. I would keep the API explicitly in **beta** and make it clear > > that we intend to transition to the Ossie specification once it becomes > > available. That gives us a path to make progress now while remaining > > aligned with the future direction. > > > > Yufei > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 5:38 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > It might be worth waiting for Apache Ossie to bootstrap before > > proceeding. > > > While I agree with the intent, I want to avoid duplicative work where > we > > > implement the OSI spec first and the Apache Ossie spec as a follow-up. > > > Since the OSI spec is transitioning into the Ossie spec, and an initial > > > Apache Ossie spec release is expected soon, I suggest we pause this > vote. > > > > > > Additionally, I would prefer to find a consensus rather than holding a > > > vote, as voting is typically reserved for when consensus is difficult > to > > > reach. This vote could likely be considered a code modification under > > > Apache voting guidelines ( > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html > > ). > > > > > > My recommendation is to pause the vote for now and leverage Apache > Ossie, > > > which I am currently working on. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Regards, > > > JB > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 12:51 AM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Beta sounds good to me. We can clarify the beta status in a follow-up > > doc > > > > change. > > > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 3:27 PM Dmitri Bourlatchkov < > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Yufei, > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to understand the impact of this vote better. > > > > > > > > > > Are you proposing to accept this new API without first going > through > > a > > > > > "beta" phase? > > > > > > > > > > I think the beta process is pretty standard for new APIs in Polaris > > > these > > > > > days (e.g. the Metrics API). > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Dmitri. > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 1:38 PM Yufei Gu <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to call a vote on accepting the OSI Semantic Model API > > > > > > specification proposed in PR #4816( > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/polaris/pull/4816) > > > > > > > > > > > > This proposal introduces the initial scaffolding for the Open > > > Semantic > > > > > > Interchange (OSI) Semantic Model API in Polaris. The primary goal > > is > > > to > > > > > > establish the REST API surface and associated specification, > while > > > > > leaving > > > > > > the implementation intentionally minimal. This provides a stable > > > > > foundation > > > > > > for future work while allowing the community to iterate on the > > > > > > implementation independently. > > > > > > > > > > > > This vote will remain open for 72 hours. Please vote: > > > > > > > > > > > > [ ] +1 Accept the proposal > > > > > > [ ] 0 No opinion > > > > > > [ ] -1 Do not accept the proposal (please provide reasoning) > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks to everyone who participated in the design discussions and > > > > > reviews. > > > > > > Yufei > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
