You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@airflow.apache.org by Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org> on 2026/04/21 22:00:14 UTC
[LAZY CONSENSUS] Simplify i18n policy
Hey everyone,
I had created the i18n policy just before LLM agents started to pop up, so
currently it feels quite outdated and way overcomplicated. For example,
there is no real need at this point for "freeze time", or even
distinguishing "engaged translators" from "translation owners".
I used ChatGPT to simplify the policy - and it seems to achieve equivalent
guidelines in half of the original size:
https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/65630
Since it's a change of a policy which we agreed upon, it should be
technically discussed and approved in the dev list.
However, as I do believe that the essence and the necessity of the
simplification are clear (and the technical details aren't too interesting)
-
I'd rather let it pass as a lazy consensus, and discuss the details in the
PR itself.
Therefore, I call for a lazy consensus which will last for 72 hours.
If no objections are made, the vote will be considered as pass, and the PR
will be merged once finalized.
Thank you,
Shahar
Re: [LAZY CONSENSUS] Simplify i18n policy
Posted by Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org>.
Lazy consensus was reached, PR was merged.
Shahar
On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 1:00 AM Shahar Epstein <sh...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> I had created the i18n policy just before LLM agents started to pop up, so
> currently it feels quite outdated and way overcomplicated. For example,
> there is no real need at this point for "freeze time", or even
> distinguishing "engaged translators" from "translation owners".
> I used ChatGPT to simplify the policy - and it seems to achieve equivalent
> guidelines in half of the original size:
> https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/65630
>
> Since it's a change of a policy which we agreed upon, it should be
> technically discussed and approved in the dev list.
> However, as I do believe that the essence and the necessity of the
> simplification are clear (and the technical details aren't too interesting)
> -
> I'd rather let it pass as a lazy consensus, and discuss the details in the
> PR itself.
>
> Therefore, I call for a lazy consensus which will last for 72 hours.
> If no objections are made, the vote will be considered as pass, and the PR
> will be merged once finalized.
> Thank you,
>
>
> Shahar
>