Maybe I will just update the VOTE result, since the rationale of this VOTE, and the VOTE result is public.
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 10:00 PM Jungtaek Lim <kabhwan.opensou...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm definitely OK with modifying migration logic to exclude "databricks" > if people think it is better. I'm even having a code change locally. > > The reason I didn't ask killing the VOTE despite I have the other way > around is, I think we made a huge mistake/fault w.r.t. this event, and I > don't want my workaround to be abused to just get away from that event. > Also, I am still willing to claim, "We should really avoid thinking that we > take control of users, and if we have no workaround or it's arguably > uneasy, we should consider this as paying a huge cost" - this was put aside > because the vendor name topic was too noisy and got everyone's eyes, but, I > really think this topic is much more important than the vendor name. There > isn't just one difference between the two proposals. > > Since the VOTE Mark initiated is passed, and now the my VOTE has > effectively no -1 (Mark's VOTE takes effect to remove the VETO), I can > update the VOTE RESULT of the original VOTE, and figure out the better > alternative (like submitting my PR and see whether the community thinks > it's good enough). But if we don't really want to emphasize that the > community decided someone's VETO to be invalid, maybe I can just leave the > previous VOTE result as it is. The process tells me I should update the > VOTE RESULT, but I just want to hear others' voices. > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 2:43 PM Mark Hamstra <markhams...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> As you noted previously, this does allow the original vote to proceed >> without a valid veto, but I will also note that this does not preclude >> modifying the migration logic later to avoid explicitly including >> “databricks” in the code if people think that is important and an >> agreeable, technically sound alternative is proposed. >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 3:37 PM Hyukjin Kwon <gurwls...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >>> The vote passes with 5 +1s (4 binding +1s) and 3 -1s (3 binding -1s). >>> >>> (* = binding) >>> +1: >>> - Mark Hamstra * >>> - Jungtaek Lim >>> - Wenchen Fan * >>> - Reynold Xin * >>> - Yuanjian Li * >>> >>> -1: >>> - Holden Karau * >>> - Hyukjin Kwon * >>> - Dongjoon Hyun * >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>>
