The voting requirements are enumerated in https://spark.apache.org/improvement-proposals.html Is there something unclear there?
On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 2:51 PM Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm not sure the voting process for SPIP is intentionally enabling the veto. > It follows the voting process of "code change", but we have non code change > being scoped as SPIP. > > To PMC members - is it intentional for any SPIP including non-code change to > follow the voting process of "code change", or did we imply SPIP only applies > to eventual code change and this topic doesn't warrant SPIP? > > On Sat, Jan 31, 2026 at 7:03 AM Tian Gao <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> A difference between what Dongjoon proposed and my proposal is - during this >> "test phase", is it allowed to submit PRs that are linked to github issues, >> instead of JIRA? If it's a yes, then I'm totally fine if we want to extend >> this to 3-6 months. If it's a no, I still believe it's a significant >> improvement, but we may miss some data about if people feel more comfortable >> using github vs JIRA. >> >> If we only allow github issues to be a discussion forum, then I don't think >> it deserves an SPIP - let's just open it. >> >> If we want to have both work at the same time (at least start building infra >> around github issues), we need to sort out some details - majorly the >> procedural differences. What information in JIRA tickets do we really need >> so we have to require an equivalent component in github issues. Can we still >> do release notes properly. Maybe enforce (highly encourage) committers to >> use JIRA during that phase so we still have all the major pieces the same? >> >> I believe PMC members have the right to veto any SPIP, so I want to find a >> common ground here to make some progress. >> >> Tian Gao >> >> On Fri, Jan 30, 2026 at 1:35 PM Jungtaek Lim <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> > Speaking as an occasional contributor, I would expect this to be more >>> > effort than it’s worth. A phased migration is appealing because it feels >>> > safer and more gradual, but I think everyone will be better off in the >>> > long run with a speedy and clear cutover from Jira to GitHub. >>> >>> My main proposal is to construct a way to prove the proposal by ourselves >>> instead of just arguing around which one is better from experience with >>> other projects', individual's preference of UI/UX, etc. Everyone talks from >>> their experience and no one can be on behalf of artificial potential >>> contributors and other existing contributors (including committers and PMC >>> members). I'm not sure we don't have good evidence about changing it as a >>> whole - if all of us had the same preference, this discussion thread should >>> have just simply been filled with a wave of +1. That didn't happen. The >>> first phase would give data, at least for how many issues will be filed >>> from non-code-contributors, which we collect the accounts and consider >>> these accounts to have been something we should have handled ASF account >>> creation, or even aggressively, consider these issues to be non-existed if >>> we didn't migrate. >>> >>> Also if you look at SPIP doc, the plan is already phased. It's just that 2 >>> weeks is incredibly short for many PMC members, which has a high chance for >>> them to work nothing about Apache Spark during the time, and they have a >>> binding vote to make a decision. IMHO it should be much longer than that, a >>> quarter or a half year. >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 31, 2026 at 3:27 AM Nicholas Chammas >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> > On Jan 30, 2026, at 9:27 AM, Szehon Ho <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > In my experience, because I see few committers discussing anything >>>> > technical on Spark JIRA for years as you mentioned (and other Hadoop >>>> > project JIRAs too), I feel like nobody will reply if I do, so I will >>>> > make a Github PR directly and ping for feedback there. So in addition >>>> > to the UX problem Tian mentioned, it's worsened by cause and effect. So >>>> > it's become a procedure, and we still don't have a good place to discuss >>>> > without jumping to code. >>>> >>>> This has often been my experience as well. The eyes are mainly on GitHub >>>> and not Jira. >>>> >>>> > On Jan 30, 2026, at 12:12 AM, Jungtaek Lim >>>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Why can't we do this in two phases instead of trying to build Rome in a >>>> > day? >>>> >>>> Speaking as an occasional contributor, I would expect this to be more >>>> effort than it’s worth. A phased migration is appealing because it feels >>>> safer and more gradual, but I think everyone will be better off in the >>>> long run with a speedy and clear cutover from Jira to GitHub. The longer >>>> the transitional phase lasts, the more confusing it will be to new and >>>> occasional contributors who are not following the dev process’s evolution >>>> closely. >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe e-mail: [email protected] >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe e-mail: [email protected]
