Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[bened...@apache.org]

Thanks everyone. With


  1.  24 +1
  2.  18 +1
  3.  18 +1

and no -1, the votes pass.

(To those committers who indicated “nb”, your votes were all binding for vote 
(1))

From: J. D. Jordan 
Date: Sunday, 17 October 2021 at 16:05
To: dev@cassandra.apache.org 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions
1. +1(nb)
2. +1(nb)
3. +1(nb)

> On Oct 17, 2021, at 5:19 AM, Gary Dusbabek  wrote:
>
> +1 for all three.
>
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:31 AM bened...@apache.org 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions,
>> as discussion has been circular for some time.
>>
>> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
>> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
>> Cassandra?
>> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in
>> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
>>
>> The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and third
>> however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority votes
>> of the PMC.
>>
>> Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you
>> reject the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal.
>> If a majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will
>> halt for the time being.
>>
>> This vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[J. D. Jordan]

1. +1(nb)
2. +1(nb)
3. +1(nb)

> On Oct 17, 2021, at 5:19 AM, Gary Dusbabek  wrote:
> 
> +1 for all three.
> 
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:31 AM bened...@apache.org 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions,
>> as discussion has been circular for some time.
>> 
>> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
>> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
>> Cassandra?
>> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in
>> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
>> 
>> The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and third
>> however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority votes
>> of the PMC.
>> 
>> Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you
>> reject the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal.
>> If a majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will
>> halt for the time being.
>> 
>> This vote will be open for 72 hours.
>> 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Gary Dusbabek]

+1 for all three.

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:31 AM bened...@apache.org 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions,
> as discussion has been circular for some time.
>
> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
> Cassandra?
> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in
> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
>
> The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and third
> however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority votes
> of the PMC.
>
> Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you
> reject the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal.
> If a majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will
> halt for the time being.
>
> This vote will be open for 72 hours.
>

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Ekaterina Dimitrova]

1. +1(nb)
2. +1(nb)
3. +1(nb)

On Sat, 16 Oct 2021 at 7:55, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 23:07, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>
> > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> >> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
> >> Cassandra?
> >> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in
> >> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
> >>
> >
> >
> > 1.  -1
> >
> > There's discussions still ongoing around this CEP. I support the CEP but
> > believe it is important that the community takes the patience to let
> > everyone say their piece and feel that they have been heard. I do not see
> > that waiting a week, or two, before another vote risks the inclusion of
> > this CEP in this release cycle. I've certainly appreciated reading
> through
> > every question raised, and wouldn't object to the CEP page being updated
> to
> > include even more (but this is not a blocker for me).
> >
>
>
> With the changes to the CEP resulting from the "Moving CEP-15 forward"
> thread, I am changing my vote.
>
> 1. +1
> 2. +1
> 3. +1
>

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Mick Semb Wever]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 23:07, Mick Semb Wever  wrote:

> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
>> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
>> Cassandra?
>> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in
>> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
>>
>
>
> 1.  -1
>
> There's discussions still ongoing around this CEP. I support the CEP but
> believe it is important that the community takes the patience to let
> everyone say their piece and feel that they have been heard. I do not see
> that waiting a week, or two, before another vote risks the inclusion of
> this CEP in this release cycle. I've certainly appreciated reading through
> every question raised, and wouldn't object to the CEP page being updated to
> include even more (but this is not a blocker for me).
>


With the changes to the CEP resulting from the "Moving CEP-15 forward"
thread, I am changing my vote.

1. +1
2. +1
3. +1

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Jonathan Ellis]

I am satisfied with the addition of modularity as a requirement for this
CEP.  I change my vote to +1.

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:57 AM Jonathan Ellis  wrote:

> My votes:
>
> 1. -1 for a minor and a major reason.  The minor reason is that I believe
> we reached consensus in the discussion that allowing the equivalent of
> LOCAL_SERIAL should be part of the CEP, but the CEP has not been updated to
> reflect this.  The major reason is that there is not a clear path from the
> simple CAS operations supported by Accord to full SQL support with
> interactive transactions, or even to Calvin-style deterministic
> transactions with richer semantics.
>
> 2. -1, I'm not convinced that we want a one-size-fits-all approach and if
> we do that Accord is the best one size.
>
> 3. +1, although obviously the devil is in the details.  I would support,
> for instance, exposing any interfaces necessary in Cassandra to make it
> feasible to maintain and use Accord as an out-of-tree plugin for the time
> being. This lets work on Accord continue while not closing the door on
> alternatives that make different tradeoffs.  I would also support, in that
> world, CQL extensions that only work with Accord or other “next-gen”
> transaction managers to start evolving our APIs past what LWT can handle.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:44 AM Jonathan Ellis  wrote:
>
>> Point of order: our project governance states
>> 
>> ,
>>
>> "Once the proposal is finalized and any major committer dissent
>> reconciled, call a [VOTE] on the ML to have the proposal adopted. The
>> criteria for acceptance is consensus (3 binding +1 votes and no binding
>> vetoes). The vote should remain open for 72 hours."
>>
>> No provision is made for declaring a CEP, or part of it, to be subject to
>> a simple majority vote simply by claiming it's directional.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:32 AM bened...@apache.org 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three
>>> sub-decisions, as discussion has been circular for some time.
>>>
>>> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
>>> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
>>> Cassandra?
>>> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in
>>> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
>>>
>>> The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and
>>> third however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority
>>> votes of the PMC.
>>>
>>> Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you
>>> reject the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal.
>>> If a majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will
>>> halt for the time being.
>>>
>>> This vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Ellis
>> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
>> @spyced
>>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Ellis
> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
> @spyced
>


-- 
Jonathan Ellis
co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
@spyced

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Benjamin Lerer]

I agree with Jeff that the ideal would be to reach a point where the -1 are
withdrawn

Le ven. 15 oct. 2021 à 16:13, Jeff Jirsa  a écrit :

> I support adopting this CEP, and the transaction semantics, and the
> incremental approach to developing transactions, so I'm +1 on all three
>
> I also think that it is preferrable that we get to a point where the -1 be
> withdrawn, because I think it's a bad precedent to force the PMC to try to
> navigate the ambiguity of some of the words in the process/procedure
> documents.
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 2:08 PM Mick Semb Wever  wrote:
>
> > >
> > > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> > > 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
> > > Cassandra?
> > > 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in
> > > Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
> > >
> >
> >
> > 1.  -1
> >
> > There's discussions still ongoing around this CEP. I support the CEP but
> > believe it is important that the community takes the patience to let
> > everyone say their piece and feel that they have been heard. I do not see
> > that waiting a week, or two, before another vote risks the inclusion of
> > this CEP in this release cycle. I've certainly appreciated reading
> through
> > every question raised, and wouldn't object to the CEP page being updated
> to
> > include even more (but this is not a blocker for me).
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Jeff Jirsa]

I support adopting this CEP, and the transaction semantics, and the
incremental approach to developing transactions, so I'm +1 on all three

I also think that it is preferrable that we get to a point where the -1 be
withdrawn, because I think it's a bad precedent to force the PMC to try to
navigate the ambiguity of some of the words in the process/procedure
documents.

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 2:08 PM Mick Semb Wever  wrote:

> >
> > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> > 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
> > Cassandra?
> > 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in
> > Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
> >
>
>
> 1.  -1
>
> There's discussions still ongoing around this CEP. I support the CEP but
> believe it is important that the community takes the patience to let
> everyone say their piece and feel that they have been heard. I do not see
> that waiting a week, or two, before another vote risks the inclusion of
> this CEP in this release cycle. I've certainly appreciated reading through
> every question raised, and wouldn't object to the CEP page being updated to
> include even more (but this is not a blocker for me).
>

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Jon Meredith]

+1 to all (nb)

I think this CEP is valuable because it improves on the existing
shortcomings in performance and ability to execute queries that can be
expressed in CQL statements and provides a foundation for future work.
Adding interactive transactions is not in the original scope of the
CEP, nor is a path to full SQL support and is unhelpful to couple
those things in a downvote.

This is only a vote that the community agrees to review changes that
support the CEP, and there is still community review to validate the
changes including other aspects like operability.

The engagement on this thread show there's an appetite for evolving
Cassandra which should be done through future CEPs and I do not
believe this work prevents that from happening.

Jon

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 8:08 AM Michael Shuler  wrote:
>
> 1. +1
> 2. +1
> 3. +1
>
> On 10/14/21 11:31 AM, bened...@apache.org wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, 
> > as discussion has been circular for some time.
> >
> > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> > 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for 
> > Cassandra?
> > 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in 
> > Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
> >
> > The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and third 
> > however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority votes 
> > of the PMC.
> >
> > Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you 
> > reject the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal. 
> > If a majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will 
> > halt for the time being.
> >
> > This vote will be open for 72 hours.
> >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Michael Shuler]

1. +1
2. +1
3. +1

On 10/14/21 11:31 AM, bened...@apache.org wrote:

Hi everyone,

I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, as 
discussion has been circular for some time.

1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for Cassandra?
3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in 
Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?

The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and third 
however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority votes of 
the PMC.

Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you reject 
the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal. If a 
majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will halt for 
the time being.

This vote will be open for 72 hours.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Paulo Motta]

1. +1
2. +1
3. +1

Em sex., 15 de out. de 2021 às 10:01, Brandon Williams 
escreveu:

> 1. +1
> 2. +1
> 3. +1
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:38 AM bened...@apache.org
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three
> sub-decisions, as discussion has been circular for some time.
> >
> > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> > 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
> Cassandra?
> > 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in
> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
> >
> > The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and
> third however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority
> votes of the PMC.
> >
> > Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you
> reject the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal.
> If a majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will
> halt for the time being.
> >
> > This vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Brandon Williams]

1. +1
2. +1
3. +1

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:38 AM bened...@apache.org
 wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, as 
> discussion has been circular for some time.
>
> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for Cassandra?
> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in 
> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
>
> The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and third 
> however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority votes 
> of the PMC.
>
> Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you reject 
> the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal. If a 
> majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will halt 
> for the time being.
>
> This vote will be open for 72 hours.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Joshua McKenzie]

>
> The major reason is that there is not a clear path from the simple CAS
> operations supported by Accord to full SQL support
>
We have not discussed full SQL support and I know of no existing consensus
on the topic of the evolution of our developer APIs. It may be worth
opening up a ML DISCUSS thread if this is something you feel strongly about
Jonathan / Henrik.

As to Accord as proposed, the CEP, the API, and incremental dev:
1. +1
2. +1
3. +1

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:38 AM Benjamin Lerer  wrote:

> 1. +1
> 2. +1
> 3. +1
>
> Benjamin
>
> Le ven. 15 oct. 2021 à 09:03, Sam Tunnicliffe  a écrit :
>
> > 1. +1
> > 2. +1
> > 3. +1
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sam
> >
> > > On 14 Oct 2021, at 17:31, bened...@apache.org wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > > I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three
> > sub-decisions, as discussion has been circular for some time.
> > >
> > > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> > > 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
> > Cassandra?
> > > 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in
> > Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
> > >
> > > The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and
> > third however are about project direction and therefore are simple
> majority
> > votes of the PMC.
> > >
> > > Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you
> > reject the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the
> proposal.
> > If a majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments
> will
> > halt for the time being.
> > >
> > > This vote will be open for 72 hours.
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Benjamin Lerer]

1. +1
2. +1
3. +1

Benjamin

Le ven. 15 oct. 2021 à 09:03, Sam Tunnicliffe  a écrit :

> 1. +1
> 2. +1
> 3. +1
>
> Thanks,
> Sam
>
> > On 14 Oct 2021, at 17:31, bened...@apache.org wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three
> sub-decisions, as discussion has been circular for some time.
> >
> > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> > 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
> Cassandra?
> > 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in
> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
> >
> > The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and
> third however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority
> votes of the PMC.
> >
> > Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you
> reject the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal.
> If a majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will
> halt for the time being.
> >
> > This vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Sam Tunnicliffe]

1. +1
2. +1
3. +1

Thanks,
Sam

> On 14 Oct 2021, at 17:31, bened...@apache.org wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, as 
> discussion has been circular for some time.
> 
> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for Cassandra?
> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in 
> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
> 
> The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and third 
> however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority votes 
> of the PMC.
> 
> Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you reject 
> the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal. If a 
> majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will halt 
> for the time being.
> 
> This vote will be open for 72 hours.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Marcus Eriksson]

1. +1
2. +1
3. +1

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 04:31:29PM +, bened...@apache.org wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, as 
> discussion has been circular for some time.
> 
> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for Cassandra?
> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in 
> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
> 
> The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and third 
> however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority votes 
> of the PMC.
> 
> Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you reject 
> the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal. If a 
> majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will halt 
> for the time being.
> 
> This vote will be open for 72 hours.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Joseph Lynch]

1. +1 nb
2. +1 nb
3. +1 nb

I am excited to see a real proposal backed by a number of competent
engineers that will meaningfully improve our ability to deliver
important and complex features for Cassandra.

To be frank, I'm somewhat confused as to the dissent on the CEP
strategy itself (tactical implementation questions aside). The text
seems rather uncontroversial (~= "let's make fast general purpose
transactions") and I feel like it's rather odd to say we don't want to
at least try out an actual solution that has actual engineers with
time to work on it versus any other option where the code doesn't even
begin to exist much less full time engineers willing to spend time on
it.

Certainly this CEP meets the standard for support? It is well thought
out, well researched, a prototype exists, that prototype appears to be
well tested, and the authors significantly engaged with the community
incorporating feedback.

-Joey


On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:31 AM bened...@apache.org  wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, as 
> discussion has been circular for some time.
>
> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for Cassandra?
> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in 
> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
>
> The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and third 
> however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority votes 
> of the PMC.
>
> Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you reject 
> the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal. If a 
> majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will halt 
> for the time being.
>
> This vote will be open for 72 hours.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Dinesh Joshi]

On 10/14/21 2:07 PM, Mick Semb Wever wrote:
> 1.  -1
> 
> There's discussions still ongoing around this CEP. I support the CEP but
> believe it is important that the community takes the patience to let
> everyone say their piece and feel that they have been heard. I do not see
> that waiting a week, or two, before another vote risks the inclusion of
> this CEP in this release cycle. I've certainly appreciated reading through
> every question raised, and wouldn't object to the CEP page being updated to
> include even more (but this is not a blocker for me).

Taken from the project's governance[1] page -

Guiding philosophy: "Mindfully balance the need for progress with the
need for consensus"

I think the CEP as it stands with its current scope is complete.

Holding it up for forward looking features such as SQL support in
Cassandra is stopping incremental progress for something that someone
might want to contribute in the future.

Thanks,

Dinesh


[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Cassandra+Project+Governance

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Eric Evans]

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:32 AM bened...@apache.org 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions,
> as discussion has been circular for some time.
>
> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
> Cassandra?
> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in
> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
>

1. +1
2. +1
3. +1


>
> The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and third
> however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority votes
> of the PMC.
>
> Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you
> reject the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal.
> If a majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will
> halt for the time being.
>
> This vote will be open for 72 hours.
>

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Sumanth Pasupuleti]

1. +1 nb
2. +1 nb
3. +1 nb

Very excited about the possibilities this CEP will open up. Thanks for
putting this together, Benedict.

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 2:08 PM Mick Semb Wever  wrote:

> >
> > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> > 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
> > Cassandra?
> > 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in
> > Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
> >
>
>
> 1.  -1
>
> There's discussions still ongoing around this CEP. I support the CEP but
> believe it is important that the community takes the patience to let
> everyone say their piece and feel that they have been heard. I do not see
> that waiting a week, or two, before another vote risks the inclusion of
> this CEP in this release cycle. I've certainly appreciated reading through
> every question raised, and wouldn't object to the CEP page being updated to
> include even more (but this is not a blocker for me).
>

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Mick Semb Wever]

>
> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
> Cassandra?
> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in
> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
>


1.  -1

There's discussions still ongoing around this CEP. I support the CEP but
believe it is important that the community takes the patience to let
everyone say their piece and feel that they have been heard. I do not see
that waiting a week, or two, before another vote risks the inclusion of
this CEP in this release cycle. I've certainly appreciated reading through
every question raised, and wouldn't object to the CEP page being updated to
include even more (but this is not a blocker for me).

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Dinesh Joshi]

On 10/14/21 9:31 AM, bened...@apache.org wrote:
> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for Cassandra?
> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in 
> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?

+1 on all points.

Benedict, thanks for putting together this CEP. I would love to see more
CEPs that use incremental approaches to improve features in Cassandra.

Dinesh

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Jordan West]

1. +1 nb
2. +1 nb
3. +1 nb

I am personally excited for the foundation this new work lays.
Multi-partition transactions will enable many new features and I don’t
think we should hold up it’s development for missing conceptual SQL support
when the community hasn’t decided on going in the SQL direction. It also
seems to have been developed with high standards when it comes to quality
and testing which I applaud.

Jordan

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 12:11 PM sankalp kohli 
wrote:

> +1 to all
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:57 AM C. Scott Andreas 
> wrote:
>
> > 1. +1nb
> > 2. +1nb
> > 3. +1nb
> >
> > It’s been encouraging to follow discussion advancing potential
> > enhancements to this proposal on the other threads.
> >
> > I disagree that it is a good outcome for the project and the Apache
> > Cassandra user community to veto significant progress in this area on
> > grounds that the CEP does not contain a design for a feature that is a
> > non-goal of the initial scope proposed by the CEP, and which is also not
> > precluded by the CEP.
> >
> > - Scott
> >
> > > On Oct 14, 2021, at 11:27 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 on all points
> > >
> > >> On 14 Oct 2021, at 17:31, bened...@apache.org wrote:
> > >> Hi everyone,
> > >> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three
> > sub-decisions, as discussion has been circular for some time.
> > >> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> > >> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
> > Cassandra?
> > >> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions
> in
> > Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
> > >> The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and
> > third however are about project direction and therefore are simple
> majority
> > votes of the PMC.
> > >> Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you
> > reject the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the
> proposal.
> > If a majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments
> will
> > halt for the time being.
> > >> This vote will be open for 72 hours.
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[sankalp kohli]

+1 to all

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:57 AM C. Scott Andreas 
wrote:

> 1. +1nb
> 2. +1nb
> 3. +1nb
>
> It’s been encouraging to follow discussion advancing potential
> enhancements to this proposal on the other threads.
>
> I disagree that it is a good outcome for the project and the Apache
> Cassandra user community to veto significant progress in this area on
> grounds that the CEP does not contain a design for a feature that is a
> non-goal of the initial scope proposed by the CEP, and which is also not
> precluded by the CEP.
>
> - Scott
>
> > On Oct 14, 2021, at 11:27 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko 
> wrote:
> >
> > +1 on all points
> >
> >> On 14 Oct 2021, at 17:31, bened...@apache.org wrote:
> >> Hi everyone,
> >> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three
> sub-decisions, as discussion has been circular for some time.
> >> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> >> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
> Cassandra?
> >> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in
> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
> >> The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and
> third however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority
> votes of the PMC.
> >> Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you
> reject the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal.
> If a majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will
> halt for the time being.
> >> This vote will be open for 72 hours.
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>
>

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[C. Scott Andreas]

1. +1nb
2. +1nb
3. +1nb

It’s been encouraging to follow discussion advancing potential enhancements to 
this proposal on the other threads.

I disagree that it is a good outcome for the project and the Apache Cassandra 
user community to veto significant progress in this area on grounds that the 
CEP does not contain a design for a feature that is a non-goal of the initial 
scope proposed by the CEP, and which is also not precluded by the CEP.

- Scott

> On Oct 14, 2021, at 11:27 AM, Aleksey Yeschenko  wrote:
> 
> +1 on all points
> 
>> On 14 Oct 2021, at 17:31, bened...@apache.org wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, as 
>> discussion has been circular for some time.
>> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
>> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for 
>> Cassandra?
>> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in 
>> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
>> The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and third 
>> however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority votes 
>> of the PMC.
>> Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you 
>> reject the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal. 
>> If a majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will 
>> halt for the time being.
>> This vote will be open for 72 hours.
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Aleksey Yeschenko]

+1 on all points

> On 14 Oct 2021, at 17:31, bened...@apache.org wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, as 
> discussion has been circular for some time.
> 
> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for Cassandra?
> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in 
> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
> 
> The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and third 
> however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority votes 
> of the PMC.
> 
> Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you reject 
> the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal. If a 
> majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will halt 
> for the time being.
> 
> This vote will be open for 72 hours.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[bened...@apache.org]

> Point of order

I would like to encourage everyone to vote to collect the community’s views. 
Jonathan has vetoed the CEP, but everyone’s views are important to register and 
the second two votes are not on the CEP itself so remain valid.

Ultimately the PMC makes all decisions, and so can interpret the outcome of 
this vote once it concludes and refine the community process to ensure this 
situation does not arise in future.

1. +1
2. +1
3. +1

From: Jonathan Ellis 
Date: Thursday, 14 October 2021 at 17:57
To: dev 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions
My votes:

1. -1 for a minor and a major reason.  The minor reason is that I believe
we reached consensus in the discussion that allowing the equivalent of
LOCAL_SERIAL should be part of the CEP, but the CEP has not been updated to
reflect this.  The major reason is that there is not a clear path from the
simple CAS operations supported by Accord to full SQL support with
interactive transactions, or even to Calvin-style deterministic
transactions with richer semantics.

2. -1, I'm not convinced that we want a one-size-fits-all approach and if
we do that Accord is the best one size.

3. +1, although obviously the devil is in the details.  I would support,
for instance, exposing any interfaces necessary in Cassandra to make it
feasible to maintain and use Accord as an out-of-tree plugin for the time
being. This lets work on Accord continue while not closing the door on
alternatives that make different tradeoffs.  I would also support, in that
world, CQL extensions that only work with Accord or other “next-gen”
transaction managers to start evolving our APIs past what LWT can handle.


On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:44 AM Jonathan Ellis  wrote:

> Point of order: our project governance states
> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/Cassandra+Project+Governance>
> ,
>
> "Once the proposal is finalized and any major committer dissent
> reconciled, call a [VOTE] on the ML to have the proposal adopted. The
> criteria for acceptance is consensus (3 binding +1 votes and no binding
> vetoes). The vote should remain open for 72 hours."
>
> No provision is made for declaring a CEP, or part of it, to be subject to
> a simple majority vote simply by claiming it's directional.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:32 AM bened...@apache.org 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions,
>> as discussion has been circular for some time.
>>
>> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
>> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
>> Cassandra?
>> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in
>> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
>>
>> The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and
>> third however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority
>> votes of the PMC.
>>
>> Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you
>> reject the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal.
>> If a majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will
>> halt for the time being.
>>
>> This vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Ellis
> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
> @spyced
>


--
Jonathan Ellis
co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
@spyced

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Jonathan Ellis]

My votes:

1. -1 for a minor and a major reason.  The minor reason is that I believe
we reached consensus in the discussion that allowing the equivalent of
LOCAL_SERIAL should be part of the CEP, but the CEP has not been updated to
reflect this.  The major reason is that there is not a clear path from the
simple CAS operations supported by Accord to full SQL support with
interactive transactions, or even to Calvin-style deterministic
transactions with richer semantics.

2. -1, I'm not convinced that we want a one-size-fits-all approach and if
we do that Accord is the best one size.

3. +1, although obviously the devil is in the details.  I would support,
for instance, exposing any interfaces necessary in Cassandra to make it
feasible to maintain and use Accord as an out-of-tree plugin for the time
being. This lets work on Accord continue while not closing the door on
alternatives that make different tradeoffs.  I would also support, in that
world, CQL extensions that only work with Accord or other “next-gen”
transaction managers to start evolving our APIs past what LWT can handle.


On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:44 AM Jonathan Ellis  wrote:

> Point of order: our project governance states
> 
> ,
>
> "Once the proposal is finalized and any major committer dissent
> reconciled, call a [VOTE] on the ML to have the proposal adopted. The
> criteria for acceptance is consensus (3 binding +1 votes and no binding
> vetoes). The vote should remain open for 72 hours."
>
> No provision is made for declaring a CEP, or part of it, to be subject to
> a simple majority vote simply by claiming it's directional.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:32 AM bened...@apache.org 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions,
>> as discussion has been circular for some time.
>>
>> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
>> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
>> Cassandra?
>> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in
>> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
>>
>> The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and
>> third however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority
>> votes of the PMC.
>>
>> Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you
>> reject the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal.
>> If a majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will
>> halt for the time being.
>>
>> This vote will be open for 72 hours.
>>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Ellis
> co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
> @spyced
>


-- 
Jonathan Ellis
co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
@spyced

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Oleksandr Petrov]

1. +1
2. +1
3. +1

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 6:31 PM bened...@apache.org 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions,
> as discussion has been circular for some time.
>
> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
> Cassandra?
> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in
> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
>
> The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and third
> however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority votes
> of the PMC.
>
> Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you
> reject the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal.
> If a majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will
> halt for the time being.
>
> This vote will be open for 72 hours.
>


-- 
alex p

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Jonathan Ellis]

Point of order: our project governance states

,

"Once the proposal is finalized and any major committer dissent reconciled,
call a [VOTE] on the ML to have the proposal adopted. The criteria for
acceptance is consensus (3 binding +1 votes and no binding vetoes). The
vote should remain open for 72 hours."

No provision is made for declaring a CEP, or part of it, to be subject to a
simple majority vote simply by claiming it's directional.


On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 11:32 AM bened...@apache.org 
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions,
> as discussion has been circular for some time.
>
> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for
> Cassandra?
> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in
> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
>
> The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and third
> however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority votes
> of the PMC.
>
> Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you
> reject the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal.
> If a majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will
> halt for the time being.
>
> This vote will be open for 72 hours.
>


-- 
Jonathan Ellis
co-founder, http://www.datastax.com
@spyced

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Stefan Miklosovic]

1. +1
2. +1 nb
3. +1 nb

nb on 2. and 3. as I am not pmc (if I got this voting logic right)

On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 18:36, Blake Eggleston
 wrote:
>
> 1. +1
> 2. +1
> 3. +1
>
> > On Oct 14, 2021, at 9:31 AM, bened...@apache.org wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, 
> > as discussion has been circular for some time.
> >
> > 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> > 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for 
> > Cassandra?
> > 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in 
> > Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
> >
> > The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and third 
> > however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority votes 
> > of the PMC.
> >
> > Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you 
> > reject the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal. 
> > If a majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will 
> > halt for the time being.
> >
> > This vote will be open for 72 hours.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[Blake Eggleston]

1. +1
2. +1
3. +1

> On Oct 14, 2021, at 9:31 AM, bened...@apache.org wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, as 
> discussion has been circular for some time.
> 
> 1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
> 2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for Cassandra?
> 3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in 
> Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?
> 
> The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and third 
> however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority votes 
> of the PMC.
> 
> Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you reject 
> the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal. If a 
> majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will halt 
> for the time being.
> 
> This vote will be open for 72 hours.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

[VOTE] CEP-15: General Purpose Transactions

[bened...@apache.org]

Hi everyone,

I would like to start a vote on this CEP, split into three sub-decisions, as 
discussion has been circular for some time.

1. Do you support adopting this CEP?
2. Do you support the transaction semantics proposed by the CEP for Cassandra?
3. Do you support an incremental approach to developing transactions in 
Cassandra, leaving scope for future development?

The first vote is a consensus vote of all committers, the second and third 
however are about project direction and therefore are simple majority votes of 
the PMC.

Recall that all -1 votes must be accompanied by an explanation. If you reject 
the CEP only on grounds (2) or (3) you should not veto the proposal. If a 
majority reject grounds (2) or (3) then transaction developments will halt for 
the time being.

This vote will be open for 72 hours.