Sure, I don't read anyone making these statements though? Let's assume good intent, that "foo should happen" as "my opinion as a member of the community, which is not solely up to me, is that foo should happen". I understand it's possible for a person to make their opinion over-weighted; this whole style of decision making assumes good actors and doesn't optimize against bad ones. Not that it can't happen, just not seeing it here.
I have never seen any vote on a feature list, by a PMC or otherwise. We can do that if really needed I guess. But that also isn't the authoritative process in play here, in contrast. If there's not a more specific subtext or issue here, which is fine to say (on private@ if it's sensitive or something), yes, let's move on in good faith. On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 3:45 PM Mark Hamstra <m...@clearstorydata.com> wrote: > There is nothing wrong with individuals advocating for what they think should > or should not be in Spark 3.0, nor should anyone shy away from explaining why > they think delaying the release for some reason is or isn't a good idea. What > is a problem, or is at least something that I have a problem with, are > declarative, pseudo-authoritative statements that 3.0 (or some other release) > will or won't contain some feature, API, etc. or that some issue is or is not > blocker or worth delaying for. When the PMC has not voted on such issues, I'm > often left thinking, "Wait... what? Who decided that, or where did that > decision come from?" --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
