I agree that this is a problem. We need to resolve it. It's also good to note that Apache Pulsar is an Apache project run by volunteers. There's no paid staff processing PIPs. It's the responsibility of everyone in the community to contribute to the common administrative work of running the project. If very few people care about the health of the project and maintenance, things won't improve.
I'd suggest proceeding with lazy consensus decisions in cases where nobody shows interest to vote or there isn't a sufficient amount of binding votes. The maximum time to wait for a lazy consensus for a PIP should be around 7 days and no longer. If someone asks for more time for a valid reason, I think that could extend this waiting period. PIPs aren't final, and if there's a need to change a decision later, that can always be handled. Each change gets included as Pull Requests, so that's where details can be addressed besides follow up discussions on the dev mailing list. -Lari On Tue, 24 Sept 2024 at 02:52, 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 > > > > >
