Spark Improvement Proposals

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
107 messages Options
1 ... 3456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Spark Improvement Proposals

Tom Graves-2
I think a vote here would be good. I think most of the discussion was done by 4 or 5 people and its a long thread.  If nothing else it summarizes everything and gets people attention to the change.

Tom


On Thursday, March 9, 2017 10:55 AM, Sean Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:


I think a VOTE is over-thinking it, and is rarely used, but, can't hurt. Nah, anyone can call a vote. This really isn't that formal. We just want to declare and document consensus.

I think SPIP is just a remix of existing process anyway, and don't think it will actually do much anyway, which is why I am sanguine about the whole thing.

To bring this to a conclusion, I will just put the contents of the doc in an email tomorrow for a VOTE. Raise any objections now.

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:39 PM Cody Koeninger <[hidden email]> wrote:
I started this idea as a fork with a merge-able change to docs.
Reynold moved it to his google doc, and has suggested during this
email thread that a vote should occur.
If a vote needs to occur, I can't see anything on
http://apache.org/foundation/voting.html suggesting that I can call
for a vote, which is why I'm asking PMC members to do it since they're
the ones who would vote anyway.
Now Sean is saying this is a code/doc change that can just be reviewed
and merged as usual...which is what I tried to do to begin with.

The fact that you haven't agreed on a process to agree on your process
is, I think, an indication that the process really does need
improvement ;)



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Spark Improvement Proposals

Sean Owen
This ended up proceeding as a normal doc change, instead of precipitating a meta-vote.
However, the text that's on the web site now can certainly be further amended if anyone wants to propose a change from here.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:50 PM Tom Graves <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think a vote here would be good. I think most of the discussion was done by 4 or 5 people and its a long thread.  If nothing else it summarizes everything and gets people attention to the change.

Tom


On Thursday, March 9, 2017 10:55 AM, Sean Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:


I think a VOTE is over-thinking it, and is rarely used, but, can't hurt. Nah, anyone can call a vote. This really isn't that formal. We just want to declare and document consensus.

I think SPIP is just a remix of existing process anyway, and don't think it will actually do much anyway, which is why I am sanguine about the whole thing.

To bring this to a conclusion, I will just put the contents of the doc in an email tomorrow for a VOTE. Raise any objections now.

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:39 PM Cody Koeninger <[hidden email]> wrote:
I started this idea as a fork with a merge-able change to docs.
Reynold moved it to his google doc, and has suggested during this
email thread that a vote should occur.
If a vote needs to occur, I can't see anything on
http://apache.org/foundation/voting.html suggesting that I can call
for a vote, which is why I'm asking PMC members to do it since they're
the ones who would vote anyway.
Now Sean is saying this is a code/doc change that can just be reviewed
and merged as usual...which is what I tried to do to begin with.

The fact that you haven't agreed on a process to agree on your process
is, I think, an indication that the process really does need
improvement ;)



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Spark Improvement Proposals

Tom Graves-2
It seems like if you are adding responsibilities you should do a vote.  SPIP'S require votes from PMC members so you are now putting more responsibility on them. It feels like we should have an official vote to make sure they (PMC members) agree with that and to make sure everyone pays attention to it.  That thread has been there for a while just as discussion and now all of a sudden its implemented without even an announcement being sent out about it. 

Tom


On Monday, March 13, 2017 11:37 AM, Sean Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:


This ended up proceeding as a normal doc change, instead of precipitating a meta-vote.
However, the text that's on the web site now can certainly be further amended if anyone wants to propose a change from here.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 1:50 PM Tom Graves <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think a vote here would be good. I think most of the discussion was done by 4 or 5 people and its a long thread.  If nothing else it summarizes everything and gets people attention to the change.

Tom


On Thursday, March 9, 2017 10:55 AM, Sean Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:


I think a VOTE is over-thinking it, and is rarely used, but, can't hurt. Nah, anyone can call a vote. This really isn't that formal. We just want to declare and document consensus.

I think SPIP is just a remix of existing process anyway, and don't think it will actually do much anyway, which is why I am sanguine about the whole thing.

To bring this to a conclusion, I will just put the contents of the doc in an email tomorrow for a VOTE. Raise any objections now.

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 3:39 PM Cody Koeninger <[hidden email]> wrote:
I started this idea as a fork with a merge-able change to docs.
Reynold moved it to his google doc, and has suggested during this
email thread that a vote should occur.
If a vote needs to occur, I can't see anything on
http://apache.org/foundation/voting.html suggesting that I can call
for a vote, which is why I'm asking PMC members to do it since they're
the ones who would vote anyway.
Now Sean is saying this is a code/doc change that can just be reviewed
and merged as usual...which is what I tried to do to begin with.

The fact that you haven't agreed on a process to agree on your process
is, I think, an indication that the process really does need
improvement ;)





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Spark Improvement Proposals

Sean Owen
It's not a new process, in that it doesn't entail anything not already in http://apache.org/foundation/voting.html . We're just deciding to call a VOTE for this type of code modification.

To your point -- yes, it's been around a long time with no further comment, and I called several times for more input. That's pretty strong lazy consensus of the form we use every day. 

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM Tom Graves <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems like if you are adding responsibilities you should do a vote.  SPIP'S require votes from PMC members so you are now putting more responsibility on them. It feels like we should have an official vote to make sure they (PMC members) agree with that and to make sure everyone pays attention to it.  That thread has been there for a while just as discussion and now all of a sudden its implemented without even an announcement being sent out about it. 

Tom

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Spark Improvement Proposals

Tom Graves-2
I'm not sure how you can say its not a new process.  If that is the case why do we need a page documenting it?  
As a developer if I want to put up a major improvement I have to now follow the SPIP whereas before I didn't, that certain seems like a new process.  As a PMC member I now have the ability to vote on these SPIPs, that seems like something new again. 

There are  apache bylaws and then there are project specific bylaws.  As far as I know Spark doesn't document any of its project specific bylaws so I guess this isn't officially a change to them, but it was implicit before that you didn't need any review for major improvements before, now you need an explicit vote for them to be approved.  Certainly seems to fall under the "Procedural" section in the voting link you sent.

I understand this was under discussion for a while and you have asked for peoples feedback multiple times.  But sometimes long threads are easy to ignore.  That is why personally I like to see things labelled [VOTE], [ANNOUNCE], [DISCUSS] when it gets close to finalizing on something like this. 

I don't really want to draw this out or argue anymore about it, if I really wanted a vote I guess I would -1 the change. I'm not going to do that. 
I would at least like to see an announcement go out about it.  The last thing I saw you say was you were going to call a vote.  A few people chimed in with their thoughts on that vote, but nothing was said after that. 

Tom



On Monday, March 13, 2017 12:36 PM, Sean Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:


It's not a new process, in that it doesn't entail anything not already in http://apache.org/foundation/voting.html . We're just deciding to call a VOTE for this type of code modification.

To your point -- yes, it's been around a long time with no further comment, and I called several times for more input. That's pretty strong lazy consensus of the form we use every day. 

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM Tom Graves <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems like if you are adding responsibilities you should do a vote.  SPIP'S require votes from PMC members so you are now putting more responsibility on them. It feels like we should have an official vote to make sure they (PMC members) agree with that and to make sure everyone pays attention to it.  That thread has been there for a while just as discussion and now all of a sudden its implemented without even an announcement being sent out about it. 

Tom



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Spark Improvement Proposals

Tom Graves-2
Another thing I think you should send out is when exactly does this take affect.  Is it any major new feature without a pull request?   Is it anything major starting with the 2.3 release?  

Tom


On Monday, March 13, 2017 1:08 PM, Tom Graves <[hidden email]> wrote:


I'm not sure how you can say its not a new process.  If that is the case why do we need a page documenting it?  
As a developer if I want to put up a major improvement I have to now follow the SPIP whereas before I didn't, that certain seems like a new process.  As a PMC member I now have the ability to vote on these SPIPs, that seems like something new again. 

There are  apache bylaws and then there are project specific bylaws.  As far as I know Spark doesn't document any of its project specific bylaws so I guess this isn't officially a change to them, but it was implicit before that you didn't need any review for major improvements before, now you need an explicit vote for them to be approved.  Certainly seems to fall under the "Procedural" section in the voting link you sent.

I understand this was under discussion for a while and you have asked for peoples feedback multiple times.  But sometimes long threads are easy to ignore.  That is why personally I like to see things labelled [VOTE], [ANNOUNCE], [DISCUSS] when it gets close to finalizing on something like this. 

I don't really want to draw this out or argue anymore about it, if I really wanted a vote I guess I would -1 the change. I'm not going to do that. 
I would at least like to see an announcement go out about it.  The last thing I saw you say was you were going to call a vote.  A few people chimed in with their thoughts on that vote, but nothing was said after that. 

Tom



On Monday, March 13, 2017 12:36 PM, Sean Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:


It's not a new process, in that it doesn't entail anything not already in http://apache.org/foundation/voting.html . We're just deciding to call a VOTE for this type of code modification.

To your point -- yes, it's been around a long time with no further comment, and I called several times for more input. That's pretty strong lazy consensus of the form we use every day. 

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM Tom Graves <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems like if you are adding responsibilities you should do a vote.  SPIP'S require votes from PMC members so you are now putting more responsibility on them. It feels like we should have an official vote to make sure they (PMC members) agree with that and to make sure everyone pays attention to it.  That thread has been there for a while just as discussion and now all of a sudden its implemented without even an announcement being sent out about it. 

Tom





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Spark Improvement Proposals

Sean Owen
Responding to your request for a vote, I meant that this isn't required per se and the consensus here was not to vote on it. Hence the jokes about meta-voting protocol. In that sense nothing new happened process-wise, nothing against ASF norms, if that's your concern.

I think it's just an agreed convention now, that we will VOTE, as normal, on particular types of changes that we call SPIPs. I mean it's no new process in the ASF sense because VOTEs are an existing mechanic. I personally view it as, simply, additional guidance about how to manage huge JIRAs in a way that makes them stand a chance of moving forward. I suppose we could VOTE about any JIRA if we wanted. They all proceed via lazy consensus at the moment.

Practically -- I heard support for codifying this process and no objections to the final form. This was bouncing around in process purgatory, when no particular new process was called for. 

It takes effect immediately, implicitly, like anything else I guess, like amendments to code style guidelines. Please uses SPIPs to propose big changes from here.

As to finding it hard to pick out of the noise, sure, I sympathize. Many big things happen without a VOTE tag though. It does take a time investment to triage these email lists. I don't know that this by itself means a VOTE should have happened.

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 6:15 PM Tom Graves <[hidden email]> wrote:
Another thing I think you should send out is when exactly does this take affect.  Is it any major new feature without a pull request?   Is it anything major starting with the 2.3 release?  

Tom


On Monday, March 13, 2017 1:08 PM, Tom Graves <[hidden email]> wrote:


I'm not sure how you can say its not a new process.  If that is the case why do we need a page documenting it?  
As a developer if I want to put up a major improvement I have to now follow the SPIP whereas before I didn't, that certain seems like a new process.  As a PMC member I now have the ability to vote on these SPIPs, that seems like something new again. 

There are  apache bylaws and then there are project specific bylaws.  As far as I know Spark doesn't document any of its project specific bylaws so I guess this isn't officially a change to them, but it was implicit before that you didn't need any review for major improvements before, now you need an explicit vote for them to be approved.  Certainly seems to fall under the "Procedural" section in the voting link you sent.

I understand this was under discussion for a while and you have asked for peoples feedback multiple times.  But sometimes long threads are easy to ignore.  That is why personally I like to see things labelled [VOTE], [ANNOUNCE], [DISCUSS] when it gets close to finalizing on something like this. 

I don't really want to draw this out or argue anymore about it, if I really wanted a vote I guess I would -1 the change. I'm not going to do that. 
I would at least like to see an announcement go out about it.  The last thing I saw you say was you were going to call a vote.  A few people chimed in with their thoughts on that vote, but nothing was said after that. 

Tom



On Monday, March 13, 2017 12:36 PM, Sean Owen <[hidden email]> wrote:


It's not a new process, in that it doesn't entail anything not already in http://apache.org/foundation/voting.html . We're just deciding to call a VOTE for this type of code modification.

To your point -- yes, it's been around a long time with no further comment, and I called several times for more input. That's pretty strong lazy consensus of the form we use every day. 

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:30 PM Tom Graves <[hidden email]> wrote:
It seems like if you are adding responsibilities you should do a vote.  SPIP'S require votes from PMC members so you are now putting more responsibility on them. It feels like we should have an official vote to make sure they (PMC members) agree with that and to make sure everyone pays attention to it.  That thread has been there for a while just as discussion and now all of a sudden its implemented without even an announcement being sent out about it. 

Tom





1 ... 3456
Loading...