Il giorno mar 24 set 2024 alle ore 17:31 Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> ha scritto:
> > > > On Sep 23, 2024, at 8:07 PM, Yunze Xu <x...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > 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. > > A -1 without a technical reason should be considered invalid. Please see > this standard advice from the ASF: > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html#Veto > > An -1 from a PMC member on a PIP must stand if they provide a valid > technical reason. Ones that don’t should be immediately be considered > invalid. > I think that in general anyone who reviews/VOTEs and gives a -1 must follow up and stay around. If you decide to participate as a voter or reviewer you become responsible for it, otherwise you must not cast your vote. I apologize if I have left some PRs in "Request changes" state for long time, feel free to "Dismiss" my review if it is outdated my 2 cents Enrico > > Best, > Dave > > > > > 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 > >>>> > >>> > >
