You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flink.apache.org by Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com> on 2025/05/28 03:55:54 UTC
[DISCUSSION] FLIP Process - Handling similar FLIPs and dormant FLIPs
Hi Folks,
In a recent discussion of reviving FLIP-313, I realized that we do not have
an established convention in handling dormant FLIPs (FLIPs without
interaction for months, even years) or FLIPs addressing the same issues.
To give a more concrete context, let's take a look at the example case of
FLIP-313 and FLIP-498.
May 23, 2023 - the discussion of FLIP-313
<https://lists.apache.org/thread/7vk1799ryvrz4lsm5254q64ctm89mx2l> was
started.
Jun 13, 2023 - the vote thread
<https://lists.apache.org/thread/7g5n2vshosom2dj9bp7x4n01okrnx4xx> was
started. However, somehow there was no vote casted. And there have been no
activities on that FLIP since then.
Jan 2, 2025 - the discussion of FLIP-498
<https://lists.apache.org/thread/kgbpj96b4lw1c39gq5p0j0t8b1ssm368> was
started. It tries to address the exact same problem of FLIP-313, with a
difference that it proposes config-based options instead of hint-based
options.
Jan 31, 2025 - the vote of FLIP-498
<https://lists.apache.org/thread/hckpyl24oqdqvfcrhfkjx2j37dtbyfg7> was
concluded with acceptance.
In a retrospective, I feel that there are a few things worth discussing,
and my thoughts are following.
*1. What we should do if a vote is open for long (e.g. over a month)
without conclusion (accepted or rejected)? *
I think we can
- treat that vote thread as discarded.
- The FLIP itself will be back to the under discussion status.
Periodically, we (the committers) can sweep the dormant FLIPs and see if
they should be abandoned. Note that not all the dormant FLIPs should be
abandoned. If the proposal still makes sense from technical perspective, or
the targeted issue is still valid, we can keep the FLIP open until someone
else picks it up. The decision is still based on the case by case
judgement. For example, in this particular case, FLIP-313 seems still
relevant. Hence, we may want to keep it open.
If we decide to abandon a dormant FLIP, as a courtesy, we should reply in
the discussion thread to ping the contributor. If there is no response
after a week, we can abandon the FLIP. An abandoned FLIP should have its
status properly updated, so that there is no confusion.
*2. What should we do when a new FLIP overlaps with a dormant open FLIP?*
If both FLIPs are targeting the same problem. Preferably, we should revive
the earlier FLIP, and close the new one as duplicate. This helps keep a
serialized history of the discussion and avoid the confusion caused by
multiple FLIPs with the same targeted issue.
In case we found there is a significant difference between the new FLIP and
the old one, we can let the new FLIP subsume the old FLIP. If so,
- again as a courtesy, we should ping the contributor in the discussion
thread of the old FLIP.
- include the subsumption as a part of the new FLIP vote, and update the
status of the old FLIP accordingly. For example, in this particular case,
if FLIP-313 is subsumed by FLIP-498, we need to update the FLIP-313 status
to reflect that when FLIP-498 passes.
The goal of the proposed convention is to make sure 1) we respect the work
from all the Flink contributors, and 2) avoid confusions on the FLIP status
as much as possible.
Once we have the convention agreed, we can add them to the FLIP process
page.
Thoughts and feedback are welcome.
Thanks,
Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
Re: [DISCUSSION] FLIP Process - Handling similar FLIPs and dormant FLIPs
Posted by Weiqing Yang <ya...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Becket, that clarifies it for me.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 9:44 AM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The FLIP number can be reserved for a FLIP by bumping up the next FLIP
> number in the FLIP main page. The example case you mentioned has actually
> reserved the FLIP number 485.
>
> We prefer to use the ASF wiki page for FLIP discussion so all the changes
> can be properly tracked. I think as long as 1) a FLIP proposal doc is
> written with a FLIP number, and 2) a discussion thread is kicked off for
> the proposal doc, it should be tracked using the FLIP process. For the
> example case you brought up, all the conditions are met except that the
> proposal doc was put in Google docs instead of the ASF wiki. So it should
> be tracked as a FLIP.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 9:57 PM Weiqing Yang <ya...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Becket, that makes sense.
> >
> > One follow-up question: for cases where someone drafts a proposal in a
> > Google Doc with a FLIP-XXX title (following the wiki template
> > <
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals#FlinkImprovementProposals-CreateyourOwnFLIP
> > >),
> > but hasn’t had a number formally assigned yet and hasn’t copied it to the
> > FLIP Confluence page - would we treat those as FLIPs needing status
> > tracking, or are they still considered ad-hoc discussions?
> >
> >
> > Best,
> > Weiqing
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 11:36 PM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for the comment Weiqing.
> > >
> > > The example you raised was actually a FLIP case. There was a FLIP doc
> and
> > > discussion thread. Regarding ad-hoc disussions, at this point we do not
> > > have process to track the ad-hoc discussion mail threads without FLIPs.
> > We
> > > may not need such a process as the overhead might be high. FLIPs are a
> > > little different because the author need to spend significant more time
> > in
> > > writing the proposal doc and we have defined status for FLIPs (DRAFT,
> > UNDER
> > > DISCUSSION, ACCEPTED, RELEASED, etc). So, we need to properly maintain
> > > their status to avoid confusion. In practice, if someone is serious
> about
> > > an ad-hoc disucssion, maybe they will write a FLIP or create a Jira.
> > >
> > > That said, I agree that similar etiquette can be applied to ad-hoc
> > > discussions. Although we do not have formal process for ad-hoc
> > discussions,
> > > the emails can still be searched via the mail archive. So, one can
> still
> > > search and see if anything similar has been discussed before. This is
> > > encouraged but not required. People can also just send email for any
> > > project related ideas / questions without searching past emails.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 11:34 PM Weiqing Yang <yangweiqing001@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 on the overall proposal. I think these guidelines make sense for
> > > > reducing confusion and respecting contributors’ work.
> > > >
> > > > One scenario I'd also like to discuss is when there's a discussion
> > thread
> > > > with a proposal document but no FLIP created yet - so it's still in
> the
> > > > early discussion phase. In practice, this can happen often (for
> > example,
> > > > *this
> > > > thread <
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/pg8k70lxmxnvrmft2vs57cj6hxgp4hh8
> > > > >*),
> > > > and these “proto-FLIPs” can also become dormant.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps we can adopt a similar approach:
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > >
> > > > If there’s been no activity on such a discussion for a long time
> > (e.g.
> > > > 3–6 months), and the proposal still makes sense, committers or
> > > > contributors
> > > > (anyone interested in the proposal) can follow up to see if the
> > author
> > > > plans to formalize it as a FLIP.
> > > > -
> > > >
> > > > If there’s no response after a ping, we could consider the thread
> > > > “closed,” and others can create a new thread to continue the topic
> > if
> > > > they’re interested. Or, if there has been offline discussion with
> > the
> > > > author to clarify the proposal’s status - and they don’t want to
> > > > continue
> > > > the follow-up - someone else can update the old discussion thread
> > > > accordingly.
> > > >
> > > > That way, future contributors know it’s not an active proposal but
> can
> > > > still revive it if needed. This might help keep the mailing list
> > cleaner
> > > > and avoid repeated “Did this go anywhere?” questions in the future.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Weiqing
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 8:57 PM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Folks,
> > > > >
> > > > > In a recent discussion of reviving FLIP-313, I realized that we do
> > not
> > > > have
> > > > > an established convention in handling dormant FLIPs (FLIPs without
> > > > > interaction for months, even years) or FLIPs addressing the same
> > > issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > To give a more concrete context, let's take a look at the example
> > case
> > > of
> > > > > FLIP-313 and FLIP-498.
> > > > > May 23, 2023 - the discussion of FLIP-313
> > > > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/7vk1799ryvrz4lsm5254q64ctm89mx2l>
> > was
> > > > > started.
> > > > > Jun 13, 2023 - the vote thread
> > > > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/7g5n2vshosom2dj9bp7x4n01okrnx4xx>
> > was
> > > > > started. However, somehow there was no vote casted. And there have
> > been
> > > > no
> > > > > activities on that FLIP since then.
> > > > > Jan 2, 2025 - the discussion of FLIP-498
> > > > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/kgbpj96b4lw1c39gq5p0j0t8b1ssm368>
> > was
> > > > > started. It tries to address the exact same problem of FLIP-313,
> > with a
> > > > > difference that it proposes config-based options instead of
> > hint-based
> > > > > options.
> > > > > Jan 31, 2025 - the vote of FLIP-498
> > > > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/hckpyl24oqdqvfcrhfkjx2j37dtbyfg7>
> > was
> > > > > concluded with acceptance.
> > > > >
> > > > > In a retrospective, I feel that there are a few things worth
> > > discussing,
> > > > > and my thoughts are following.
> > > > >
> > > > > *1. What we should do if a vote is open for long (e.g. over a
> month)
> > > > > without conclusion (accepted or rejected)? *
> > > > > I think we can
> > > > > - treat that vote thread as discarded.
> > > > > - The FLIP itself will be back to the under discussion status.
> > > > >
> > > > > Periodically, we (the committers) can sweep the dormant FLIPs and
> see
> > > if
> > > > > they should be abandoned. Note that not all the dormant FLIPs
> should
> > be
> > > > > abandoned. If the proposal still makes sense from technical
> > > perspective,
> > > > or
> > > > > the targeted issue is still valid, we can keep the FLIP open until
> > > > someone
> > > > > else picks it up. The decision is still based on the case by case
> > > > > judgement. For example, in this particular case, FLIP-313 seems
> still
> > > > > relevant. Hence, we may want to keep it open.
> > > > >
> > > > > If we decide to abandon a dormant FLIP, as a courtesy, we should
> > reply
> > > in
> > > > > the discussion thread to ping the contributor. If there is no
> > response
> > > > > after a week, we can abandon the FLIP. An abandoned FLIP should
> have
> > > its
> > > > > status properly updated, so that there is no confusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > *2. What should we do when a new FLIP overlaps with a dormant open
> > > FLIP?*
> > > > > If both FLIPs are targeting the same problem. Preferably, we should
> > > > revive
> > > > > the earlier FLIP, and close the new one as duplicate. This helps
> > keep a
> > > > > serialized history of the discussion and avoid the confusion caused
> > by
> > > > > multiple FLIPs with the same targeted issue.
> > > > > In case we found there is a significant difference between the new
> > FLIP
> > > > and
> > > > > the old one, we can let the new FLIP subsume the old FLIP. If so,
> > > > > - again as a courtesy, we should ping the contributor in the
> > > discussion
> > > > > thread of the old FLIP.
> > > > > - include the subsumption as a part of the new FLIP vote, and
> > update
> > > > the
> > > > > status of the old FLIP accordingly. For example, in this particular
> > > case,
> > > > > if FLIP-313 is subsumed by FLIP-498, we need to update the FLIP-313
> > > > status
> > > > > to reflect that when FLIP-498 passes.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The goal of the proposed convention is to make sure 1) we respect
> the
> > > > work
> > > > > from all the Flink contributors, and 2) avoid confusions on the
> FLIP
> > > > status
> > > > > as much as possible.
> > > > > Once we have the convention agreed, we can add them to the FLIP
> > process
> > > > > page.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thoughts and feedback are welcome.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] FLIP Process - Handling similar FLIPs and dormant FLIPs
Posted by Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com>.
The FLIP number can be reserved for a FLIP by bumping up the next FLIP
number in the FLIP main page. The example case you mentioned has actually
reserved the FLIP number 485.
We prefer to use the ASF wiki page for FLIP discussion so all the changes
can be properly tracked. I think as long as 1) a FLIP proposal doc is
written with a FLIP number, and 2) a discussion thread is kicked off for
the proposal doc, it should be tracked using the FLIP process. For the
example case you brought up, all the conditions are met except that the
proposal doc was put in Google docs instead of the ASF wiki. So it should
be tracked as a FLIP.
Thanks,
Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 9:57 PM Weiqing Yang <ya...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thanks Becket, that makes sense.
>
> One follow-up question: for cases where someone drafts a proposal in a
> Google Doc with a FLIP-XXX title (following the wiki template
> <
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals#FlinkImprovementProposals-CreateyourOwnFLIP
> >),
> but hasn’t had a number formally assigned yet and hasn’t copied it to the
> FLIP Confluence page - would we treat those as FLIPs needing status
> tracking, or are they still considered ad-hoc discussions?
>
>
> Best,
> Weiqing
>
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 11:36 PM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the comment Weiqing.
> >
> > The example you raised was actually a FLIP case. There was a FLIP doc and
> > discussion thread. Regarding ad-hoc disussions, at this point we do not
> > have process to track the ad-hoc discussion mail threads without FLIPs.
> We
> > may not need such a process as the overhead might be high. FLIPs are a
> > little different because the author need to spend significant more time
> in
> > writing the proposal doc and we have defined status for FLIPs (DRAFT,
> UNDER
> > DISCUSSION, ACCEPTED, RELEASED, etc). So, we need to properly maintain
> > their status to avoid confusion. In practice, if someone is serious about
> > an ad-hoc disucssion, maybe they will write a FLIP or create a Jira.
> >
> > That said, I agree that similar etiquette can be applied to ad-hoc
> > discussions. Although we do not have formal process for ad-hoc
> discussions,
> > the emails can still be searched via the mail archive. So, one can still
> > search and see if anything similar has been discussed before. This is
> > encouraged but not required. People can also just send email for any
> > project related ideas / questions without searching past emails.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 11:34 PM Weiqing Yang <ya...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1 on the overall proposal. I think these guidelines make sense for
> > > reducing confusion and respecting contributors’ work.
> > >
> > > One scenario I'd also like to discuss is when there's a discussion
> thread
> > > with a proposal document but no FLIP created yet - so it's still in the
> > > early discussion phase. In practice, this can happen often (for
> example,
> > > *this
> > > thread <
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/pg8k70lxmxnvrmft2vs57cj6hxgp4hh8
> > > >*),
> > > and these “proto-FLIPs” can also become dormant.
> > >
> > > Perhaps we can adopt a similar approach:
> > >
> > > -
> > >
> > > If there’s been no activity on such a discussion for a long time
> (e.g.
> > > 3–6 months), and the proposal still makes sense, committers or
> > > contributors
> > > (anyone interested in the proposal) can follow up to see if the
> author
> > > plans to formalize it as a FLIP.
> > > -
> > >
> > > If there’s no response after a ping, we could consider the thread
> > > “closed,” and others can create a new thread to continue the topic
> if
> > > they’re interested. Or, if there has been offline discussion with
> the
> > > author to clarify the proposal’s status - and they don’t want to
> > > continue
> > > the follow-up - someone else can update the old discussion thread
> > > accordingly.
> > >
> > > That way, future contributors know it’s not an active proposal but can
> > > still revive it if needed. This might help keep the mailing list
> cleaner
> > > and avoid repeated “Did this go anywhere?” questions in the future.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Weiqing
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 8:57 PM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Folks,
> > > >
> > > > In a recent discussion of reviving FLIP-313, I realized that we do
> not
> > > have
> > > > an established convention in handling dormant FLIPs (FLIPs without
> > > > interaction for months, even years) or FLIPs addressing the same
> > issues.
> > > >
> > > > To give a more concrete context, let's take a look at the example
> case
> > of
> > > > FLIP-313 and FLIP-498.
> > > > May 23, 2023 - the discussion of FLIP-313
> > > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/7vk1799ryvrz4lsm5254q64ctm89mx2l>
> was
> > > > started.
> > > > Jun 13, 2023 - the vote thread
> > > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/7g5n2vshosom2dj9bp7x4n01okrnx4xx>
> was
> > > > started. However, somehow there was no vote casted. And there have
> been
> > > no
> > > > activities on that FLIP since then.
> > > > Jan 2, 2025 - the discussion of FLIP-498
> > > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/kgbpj96b4lw1c39gq5p0j0t8b1ssm368>
> was
> > > > started. It tries to address the exact same problem of FLIP-313,
> with a
> > > > difference that it proposes config-based options instead of
> hint-based
> > > > options.
> > > > Jan 31, 2025 - the vote of FLIP-498
> > > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/hckpyl24oqdqvfcrhfkjx2j37dtbyfg7>
> was
> > > > concluded with acceptance.
> > > >
> > > > In a retrospective, I feel that there are a few things worth
> > discussing,
> > > > and my thoughts are following.
> > > >
> > > > *1. What we should do if a vote is open for long (e.g. over a month)
> > > > without conclusion (accepted or rejected)? *
> > > > I think we can
> > > > - treat that vote thread as discarded.
> > > > - The FLIP itself will be back to the under discussion status.
> > > >
> > > > Periodically, we (the committers) can sweep the dormant FLIPs and see
> > if
> > > > they should be abandoned. Note that not all the dormant FLIPs should
> be
> > > > abandoned. If the proposal still makes sense from technical
> > perspective,
> > > or
> > > > the targeted issue is still valid, we can keep the FLIP open until
> > > someone
> > > > else picks it up. The decision is still based on the case by case
> > > > judgement. For example, in this particular case, FLIP-313 seems still
> > > > relevant. Hence, we may want to keep it open.
> > > >
> > > > If we decide to abandon a dormant FLIP, as a courtesy, we should
> reply
> > in
> > > > the discussion thread to ping the contributor. If there is no
> response
> > > > after a week, we can abandon the FLIP. An abandoned FLIP should have
> > its
> > > > status properly updated, so that there is no confusion.
> > > >
> > > > *2. What should we do when a new FLIP overlaps with a dormant open
> > FLIP?*
> > > > If both FLIPs are targeting the same problem. Preferably, we should
> > > revive
> > > > the earlier FLIP, and close the new one as duplicate. This helps
> keep a
> > > > serialized history of the discussion and avoid the confusion caused
> by
> > > > multiple FLIPs with the same targeted issue.
> > > > In case we found there is a significant difference between the new
> FLIP
> > > and
> > > > the old one, we can let the new FLIP subsume the old FLIP. If so,
> > > > - again as a courtesy, we should ping the contributor in the
> > discussion
> > > > thread of the old FLIP.
> > > > - include the subsumption as a part of the new FLIP vote, and
> update
> > > the
> > > > status of the old FLIP accordingly. For example, in this particular
> > case,
> > > > if FLIP-313 is subsumed by FLIP-498, we need to update the FLIP-313
> > > status
> > > > to reflect that when FLIP-498 passes.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The goal of the proposed convention is to make sure 1) we respect the
> > > work
> > > > from all the Flink contributors, and 2) avoid confusions on the FLIP
> > > status
> > > > as much as possible.
> > > > Once we have the convention agreed, we can add them to the FLIP
> process
> > > > page.
> > > >
> > > > Thoughts and feedback are welcome.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] FLIP Process - Handling similar FLIPs and dormant FLIPs
Posted by Weiqing Yang <ya...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Becket, that makes sense.
One follow-up question: for cases where someone drafts a proposal in a
Google Doc with a FLIP-XXX title (following the wiki template
<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLINK/Flink+Improvement+Proposals#FlinkImprovementProposals-CreateyourOwnFLIP>),
but hasn’t had a number formally assigned yet and hasn’t copied it to the
FLIP Confluence page - would we treat those as FLIPs needing status
tracking, or are they still considered ad-hoc discussions?
Best,
Weiqing
On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 11:36 PM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the comment Weiqing.
>
> The example you raised was actually a FLIP case. There was a FLIP doc and
> discussion thread. Regarding ad-hoc disussions, at this point we do not
> have process to track the ad-hoc discussion mail threads without FLIPs. We
> may not need such a process as the overhead might be high. FLIPs are a
> little different because the author need to spend significant more time in
> writing the proposal doc and we have defined status for FLIPs (DRAFT, UNDER
> DISCUSSION, ACCEPTED, RELEASED, etc). So, we need to properly maintain
> their status to avoid confusion. In practice, if someone is serious about
> an ad-hoc disucssion, maybe they will write a FLIP or create a Jira.
>
> That said, I agree that similar etiquette can be applied to ad-hoc
> discussions. Although we do not have formal process for ad-hoc discussions,
> the emails can still be searched via the mail archive. So, one can still
> search and see if anything similar has been discussed before. This is
> encouraged but not required. People can also just send email for any
> project related ideas / questions without searching past emails.
>
> Best,
>
> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 11:34 PM Weiqing Yang <ya...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 on the overall proposal. I think these guidelines make sense for
> > reducing confusion and respecting contributors’ work.
> >
> > One scenario I'd also like to discuss is when there's a discussion thread
> > with a proposal document but no FLIP created yet - so it's still in the
> > early discussion phase. In practice, this can happen often (for example,
> > *this
> > thread <https://lists.apache.org/thread/pg8k70lxmxnvrmft2vs57cj6hxgp4hh8
> > >*),
> > and these “proto-FLIPs” can also become dormant.
> >
> > Perhaps we can adopt a similar approach:
> >
> > -
> >
> > If there’s been no activity on such a discussion for a long time (e.g.
> > 3–6 months), and the proposal still makes sense, committers or
> > contributors
> > (anyone interested in the proposal) can follow up to see if the author
> > plans to formalize it as a FLIP.
> > -
> >
> > If there’s no response after a ping, we could consider the thread
> > “closed,” and others can create a new thread to continue the topic if
> > they’re interested. Or, if there has been offline discussion with the
> > author to clarify the proposal’s status - and they don’t want to
> > continue
> > the follow-up - someone else can update the old discussion thread
> > accordingly.
> >
> > That way, future contributors know it’s not an active proposal but can
> > still revive it if needed. This might help keep the mailing list cleaner
> > and avoid repeated “Did this go anywhere?” questions in the future.
> >
> > Best,
> > Weiqing
> >
> > On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 8:57 PM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Folks,
> > >
> > > In a recent discussion of reviving FLIP-313, I realized that we do not
> > have
> > > an established convention in handling dormant FLIPs (FLIPs without
> > > interaction for months, even years) or FLIPs addressing the same
> issues.
> > >
> > > To give a more concrete context, let's take a look at the example case
> of
> > > FLIP-313 and FLIP-498.
> > > May 23, 2023 - the discussion of FLIP-313
> > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/7vk1799ryvrz4lsm5254q64ctm89mx2l> was
> > > started.
> > > Jun 13, 2023 - the vote thread
> > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/7g5n2vshosom2dj9bp7x4n01okrnx4xx> was
> > > started. However, somehow there was no vote casted. And there have been
> > no
> > > activities on that FLIP since then.
> > > Jan 2, 2025 - the discussion of FLIP-498
> > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/kgbpj96b4lw1c39gq5p0j0t8b1ssm368> was
> > > started. It tries to address the exact same problem of FLIP-313, with a
> > > difference that it proposes config-based options instead of hint-based
> > > options.
> > > Jan 31, 2025 - the vote of FLIP-498
> > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/hckpyl24oqdqvfcrhfkjx2j37dtbyfg7> was
> > > concluded with acceptance.
> > >
> > > In a retrospective, I feel that there are a few things worth
> discussing,
> > > and my thoughts are following.
> > >
> > > *1. What we should do if a vote is open for long (e.g. over a month)
> > > without conclusion (accepted or rejected)? *
> > > I think we can
> > > - treat that vote thread as discarded.
> > > - The FLIP itself will be back to the under discussion status.
> > >
> > > Periodically, we (the committers) can sweep the dormant FLIPs and see
> if
> > > they should be abandoned. Note that not all the dormant FLIPs should be
> > > abandoned. If the proposal still makes sense from technical
> perspective,
> > or
> > > the targeted issue is still valid, we can keep the FLIP open until
> > someone
> > > else picks it up. The decision is still based on the case by case
> > > judgement. For example, in this particular case, FLIP-313 seems still
> > > relevant. Hence, we may want to keep it open.
> > >
> > > If we decide to abandon a dormant FLIP, as a courtesy, we should reply
> in
> > > the discussion thread to ping the contributor. If there is no response
> > > after a week, we can abandon the FLIP. An abandoned FLIP should have
> its
> > > status properly updated, so that there is no confusion.
> > >
> > > *2. What should we do when a new FLIP overlaps with a dormant open
> FLIP?*
> > > If both FLIPs are targeting the same problem. Preferably, we should
> > revive
> > > the earlier FLIP, and close the new one as duplicate. This helps keep a
> > > serialized history of the discussion and avoid the confusion caused by
> > > multiple FLIPs with the same targeted issue.
> > > In case we found there is a significant difference between the new FLIP
> > and
> > > the old one, we can let the new FLIP subsume the old FLIP. If so,
> > > - again as a courtesy, we should ping the contributor in the
> discussion
> > > thread of the old FLIP.
> > > - include the subsumption as a part of the new FLIP vote, and update
> > the
> > > status of the old FLIP accordingly. For example, in this particular
> case,
> > > if FLIP-313 is subsumed by FLIP-498, we need to update the FLIP-313
> > status
> > > to reflect that when FLIP-498 passes.
> > >
> > >
> > > The goal of the proposed convention is to make sure 1) we respect the
> > work
> > > from all the Flink contributors, and 2) avoid confusions on the FLIP
> > status
> > > as much as possible.
> > > Once we have the convention agreed, we can add them to the FLIP process
> > > page.
> > >
> > > Thoughts and feedback are welcome.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] FLIP Process - Handling similar FLIPs and dormant FLIPs
Posted by Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the comment Weiqing.
The example you raised was actually a FLIP case. There was a FLIP doc and
discussion thread. Regarding ad-hoc disussions, at this point we do not
have process to track the ad-hoc discussion mail threads without FLIPs. We
may not need such a process as the overhead might be high. FLIPs are a
little different because the author need to spend significant more time in
writing the proposal doc and we have defined status for FLIPs (DRAFT, UNDER
DISCUSSION, ACCEPTED, RELEASED, etc). So, we need to properly maintain
their status to avoid confusion. In practice, if someone is serious about
an ad-hoc disucssion, maybe they will write a FLIP or create a Jira.
That said, I agree that similar etiquette can be applied to ad-hoc
discussions. Although we do not have formal process for ad-hoc discussions,
the emails can still be searched via the mail archive. So, one can still
search and see if anything similar has been discussed before. This is
encouraged but not required. People can also just send email for any
project related ideas / questions without searching past emails.
Best,
Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 11:34 PM Weiqing Yang <ya...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1 on the overall proposal. I think these guidelines make sense for
> reducing confusion and respecting contributors’ work.
>
> One scenario I'd also like to discuss is when there's a discussion thread
> with a proposal document but no FLIP created yet - so it's still in the
> early discussion phase. In practice, this can happen often (for example,
> *this
> thread <https://lists.apache.org/thread/pg8k70lxmxnvrmft2vs57cj6hxgp4hh8
> >*),
> and these “proto-FLIPs” can also become dormant.
>
> Perhaps we can adopt a similar approach:
>
> -
>
> If there’s been no activity on such a discussion for a long time (e.g.
> 3–6 months), and the proposal still makes sense, committers or
> contributors
> (anyone interested in the proposal) can follow up to see if the author
> plans to formalize it as a FLIP.
> -
>
> If there’s no response after a ping, we could consider the thread
> “closed,” and others can create a new thread to continue the topic if
> they’re interested. Or, if there has been offline discussion with the
> author to clarify the proposal’s status - and they don’t want to
> continue
> the follow-up - someone else can update the old discussion thread
> accordingly.
>
> That way, future contributors know it’s not an active proposal but can
> still revive it if needed. This might help keep the mailing list cleaner
> and avoid repeated “Did this go anywhere?” questions in the future.
>
> Best,
> Weiqing
>
> On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 8:57 PM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > In a recent discussion of reviving FLIP-313, I realized that we do not
> have
> > an established convention in handling dormant FLIPs (FLIPs without
> > interaction for months, even years) or FLIPs addressing the same issues.
> >
> > To give a more concrete context, let's take a look at the example case of
> > FLIP-313 and FLIP-498.
> > May 23, 2023 - the discussion of FLIP-313
> > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/7vk1799ryvrz4lsm5254q64ctm89mx2l> was
> > started.
> > Jun 13, 2023 - the vote thread
> > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/7g5n2vshosom2dj9bp7x4n01okrnx4xx> was
> > started. However, somehow there was no vote casted. And there have been
> no
> > activities on that FLIP since then.
> > Jan 2, 2025 - the discussion of FLIP-498
> > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/kgbpj96b4lw1c39gq5p0j0t8b1ssm368> was
> > started. It tries to address the exact same problem of FLIP-313, with a
> > difference that it proposes config-based options instead of hint-based
> > options.
> > Jan 31, 2025 - the vote of FLIP-498
> > <https://lists.apache.org/thread/hckpyl24oqdqvfcrhfkjx2j37dtbyfg7> was
> > concluded with acceptance.
> >
> > In a retrospective, I feel that there are a few things worth discussing,
> > and my thoughts are following.
> >
> > *1. What we should do if a vote is open for long (e.g. over a month)
> > without conclusion (accepted or rejected)? *
> > I think we can
> > - treat that vote thread as discarded.
> > - The FLIP itself will be back to the under discussion status.
> >
> > Periodically, we (the committers) can sweep the dormant FLIPs and see if
> > they should be abandoned. Note that not all the dormant FLIPs should be
> > abandoned. If the proposal still makes sense from technical perspective,
> or
> > the targeted issue is still valid, we can keep the FLIP open until
> someone
> > else picks it up. The decision is still based on the case by case
> > judgement. For example, in this particular case, FLIP-313 seems still
> > relevant. Hence, we may want to keep it open.
> >
> > If we decide to abandon a dormant FLIP, as a courtesy, we should reply in
> > the discussion thread to ping the contributor. If there is no response
> > after a week, we can abandon the FLIP. An abandoned FLIP should have its
> > status properly updated, so that there is no confusion.
> >
> > *2. What should we do when a new FLIP overlaps with a dormant open FLIP?*
> > If both FLIPs are targeting the same problem. Preferably, we should
> revive
> > the earlier FLIP, and close the new one as duplicate. This helps keep a
> > serialized history of the discussion and avoid the confusion caused by
> > multiple FLIPs with the same targeted issue.
> > In case we found there is a significant difference between the new FLIP
> and
> > the old one, we can let the new FLIP subsume the old FLIP. If so,
> > - again as a courtesy, we should ping the contributor in the discussion
> > thread of the old FLIP.
> > - include the subsumption as a part of the new FLIP vote, and update
> the
> > status of the old FLIP accordingly. For example, in this particular case,
> > if FLIP-313 is subsumed by FLIP-498, we need to update the FLIP-313
> status
> > to reflect that when FLIP-498 passes.
> >
> >
> > The goal of the proposed convention is to make sure 1) we respect the
> work
> > from all the Flink contributors, and 2) avoid confusions on the FLIP
> status
> > as much as possible.
> > Once we have the convention agreed, we can add them to the FLIP process
> > page.
> >
> > Thoughts and feedback are welcome.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] FLIP Process - Handling similar FLIPs and dormant FLIPs
Posted by Weiqing Yang <ya...@gmail.com>.
+1 on the overall proposal. I think these guidelines make sense for
reducing confusion and respecting contributors’ work.
One scenario I'd also like to discuss is when there's a discussion thread
with a proposal document but no FLIP created yet - so it's still in the
early discussion phase. In practice, this can happen often (for example, *this
thread <https://lists.apache.org/thread/pg8k70lxmxnvrmft2vs57cj6hxgp4hh8>*),
and these “proto-FLIPs” can also become dormant.
Perhaps we can adopt a similar approach:
-
If there’s been no activity on such a discussion for a long time (e.g.
3–6 months), and the proposal still makes sense, committers or contributors
(anyone interested in the proposal) can follow up to see if the author
plans to formalize it as a FLIP.
-
If there’s no response after a ping, we could consider the thread
“closed,” and others can create a new thread to continue the topic if
they’re interested. Or, if there has been offline discussion with the
author to clarify the proposal’s status - and they don’t want to continue
the follow-up - someone else can update the old discussion thread
accordingly.
That way, future contributors know it’s not an active proposal but can
still revive it if needed. This might help keep the mailing list cleaner
and avoid repeated “Did this go anywhere?” questions in the future.
Best,
Weiqing
On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 8:57 PM Becket Qin <be...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> In a recent discussion of reviving FLIP-313, I realized that we do not have
> an established convention in handling dormant FLIPs (FLIPs without
> interaction for months, even years) or FLIPs addressing the same issues.
>
> To give a more concrete context, let's take a look at the example case of
> FLIP-313 and FLIP-498.
> May 23, 2023 - the discussion of FLIP-313
> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/7vk1799ryvrz4lsm5254q64ctm89mx2l> was
> started.
> Jun 13, 2023 - the vote thread
> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/7g5n2vshosom2dj9bp7x4n01okrnx4xx> was
> started. However, somehow there was no vote casted. And there have been no
> activities on that FLIP since then.
> Jan 2, 2025 - the discussion of FLIP-498
> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/kgbpj96b4lw1c39gq5p0j0t8b1ssm368> was
> started. It tries to address the exact same problem of FLIP-313, with a
> difference that it proposes config-based options instead of hint-based
> options.
> Jan 31, 2025 - the vote of FLIP-498
> <https://lists.apache.org/thread/hckpyl24oqdqvfcrhfkjx2j37dtbyfg7> was
> concluded with acceptance.
>
> In a retrospective, I feel that there are a few things worth discussing,
> and my thoughts are following.
>
> *1. What we should do if a vote is open for long (e.g. over a month)
> without conclusion (accepted or rejected)? *
> I think we can
> - treat that vote thread as discarded.
> - The FLIP itself will be back to the under discussion status.
>
> Periodically, we (the committers) can sweep the dormant FLIPs and see if
> they should be abandoned. Note that not all the dormant FLIPs should be
> abandoned. If the proposal still makes sense from technical perspective, or
> the targeted issue is still valid, we can keep the FLIP open until someone
> else picks it up. The decision is still based on the case by case
> judgement. For example, in this particular case, FLIP-313 seems still
> relevant. Hence, we may want to keep it open.
>
> If we decide to abandon a dormant FLIP, as a courtesy, we should reply in
> the discussion thread to ping the contributor. If there is no response
> after a week, we can abandon the FLIP. An abandoned FLIP should have its
> status properly updated, so that there is no confusion.
>
> *2. What should we do when a new FLIP overlaps with a dormant open FLIP?*
> If both FLIPs are targeting the same problem. Preferably, we should revive
> the earlier FLIP, and close the new one as duplicate. This helps keep a
> serialized history of the discussion and avoid the confusion caused by
> multiple FLIPs with the same targeted issue.
> In case we found there is a significant difference between the new FLIP and
> the old one, we can let the new FLIP subsume the old FLIP. If so,
> - again as a courtesy, we should ping the contributor in the discussion
> thread of the old FLIP.
> - include the subsumption as a part of the new FLIP vote, and update the
> status of the old FLIP accordingly. For example, in this particular case,
> if FLIP-313 is subsumed by FLIP-498, we need to update the FLIP-313 status
> to reflect that when FLIP-498 passes.
>
>
> The goal of the proposed convention is to make sure 1) we respect the work
> from all the Flink contributors, and 2) avoid confusions on the FLIP status
> as much as possible.
> Once we have the convention agreed, we can add them to the FLIP process
> page.
>
> Thoughts and feedback are welcome.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jiangjie (Becket) Qin
>