I have similar concerns for it. Some PIPs might not get enough attention. Generally I agree with the proposal that a PIP should be treated as "approved" if - there is at least 1 binding +1 vote - there is no binding -1 vote - the vote has started for over a month
Additionally, if a PMC member gave a -1 vote, he/she should be responsible to actively respond to the proposal changes or explanations from the author. If the PMC member never respond to the PIP author for a long time, this binding -1 vote should also be invalidated. Thanks, Yunze On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 7:52 AM Rajan Dhabalia <rdhaba...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I have created this PIP a few months back and it is having relatively a > simple and non-breaking change, and voting is open for a while but this PIP > still has not received the required number of binding VOTE to move forward. > Another recent example is PIP-271 which is a very useful and simple api > change and we also would like to use it but VOTE is open for more than a > year now and not moving forward even after reminding multiple times. I > understand contributors of the projects would be busy and they also have > priorities to review specific PIPs which is part of their organization > interest but due to lack of bandwidth to review other PIPs, we are not able > to move forward with PIP and implementation even though those PIPs already > have partial approval with binding VOTE. > Therefore, I think we should improve the PIP process to encourage such > useful PIPs which are sitting for a long time to wait for complete > approval, and those PIP can be unblocked and move forward. So, we should > also add max waiting time for any PIP which has partial binding VOTE (at > least 1 binding VOTE) and non-negative binding VOTE can move forward after > waiting for max 1 month. This way , we can still have an approved review > from binding VOTE and max time can give contributors hope to get their > change available to get the benefit of Pulsar for their organization. > We should really improve the process as it is really painful for the org or > contributors who have to wait such long for useful changes in Pulsar. > > Thanks, > Rajan > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2024 at 8:08 AM Lari Hotari <lhot...@apache.org> wrote: > > > +1 (binding) > > > > -Lari > > > > On 2024/09/04 04:38:01 Rajan Dhabalia wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I would like to start a voting thread for PIP-326 to support the admin > > API > > > to read schema metadata and display in readable format. > > > > > > PIP design PR: > > > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/22913 > > > > > > > > > Thread: > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/8s8m6k7oprmkn3jpblgxqkdh6d8z43x2 > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Rajan > > > > >
