You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org> on 2015/12/01 22:51:17 UTC
[RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
This vote is now closed and passes with 17 binding +1 votes, 7 non-binding
+1 votes and 4 binding -1 votes.
Thanks to everyone that voted!
Here is my tally of the votes:
Binding +1s (17):
Todd Lipcon
Arvind Prabhakar
Chris Mattmann
Julien Le Dem
Carl Steinbach
Brock Noland
Tom White
Alex Karasulu
Jarek Jarcec Cecho
Chris Douglas
Doug Cutting
Hitesh Shah
Julian Hyde
Ted Dunning
Andrew Bayer
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
Andrei Savu
Michael Stack
Binding -1s (4):
Greg Stein
Ralph Goers
Roman Shaposhnik
Konstantin Boudnik
Non-binding +1s (7):
Patrick Angeles
Ashish Paliwal
Mike Percy
Luke Han
Amol Kekre
Joe Witt
Sree V
Best,
Henry
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Geez, dude. Ease up. "all of us" only meant the four of us voting -1.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:00 AM, Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What? Is this now an implicit ASF incubation policy? So, if I understand
> you correctly, you want to exclude potentials from the incubation process
> based on this? And you don't want this potential have their own way of
> working?
>
> Even though 18 peers voted +1 for having this potential entering the ASF as
> a podling. This is not a code change requiring consensus. This is a
> procedural issue.
>
> No, you may not speak for all of us. If you want to speak for all on this
> subject, go make it a dictat from the Board of the ASF. But are you sure
> that then it is not also applicable to TLPs?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Pierre Smits
>
> *OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
> http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> > bdelacretaz@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > Binding -1s (4):
> > > > Greg Stein
> > > > Ralph Goers
> > > > Roman Shaposhnik
> > > > Konstantin Boudnik ...
> > >
> > > Please indicate how the issues that are behind these -1s have been
> > > addressed.
> > >
> > > I might have missed something, just had a quick look at the VOTE
> thread.
> > >
> >
> > They have not been addressed.
> >
> > If I may speak for all of us: basically, we want to see podlings use CTR
> > rather than begin with RTC. We believe that will grow a more inclusive
> > community, which is one of the more serious problems that podlings tend
> to
> > run into.
> >
> > In this case, the podling is explicitly doing RTC, so we -1'd its
> entrance
> > to the ASF.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
> >
>
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Pierre Smits <pi...@gmail.com>.
What? Is this now an implicit ASF incubation policy? So, if I understand
you correctly, you want to exclude potentials from the incubation process
based on this? And you don't want this potential have their own way of
working?
Even though 18 peers voted +1 for having this potential entering the ASF as
a podling. This is not a code change requiring consensus. This is a
procedural issue.
No, you may not speak for all of us. If you want to speak for all on this
subject, go make it a dictat from the Board of the ASF. But are you sure
that then it is not also applicable to TLPs?
Best regards,
Pierre Smits
*OFBiz Extensions Marketplace*
http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Binding -1s (4):
> > > Greg Stein
> > > Ralph Goers
> > > Roman Shaposhnik
> > > Konstantin Boudnik ...
> >
> > Please indicate how the issues that are behind these -1s have been
> > addressed.
> >
> > I might have missed something, just had a quick look at the VOTE thread.
> >
>
> They have not been addressed.
>
> If I may speak for all of us: basically, we want to see podlings use CTR
> rather than begin with RTC. We believe that will grow a more inclusive
> community, which is one of the more serious problems that podlings tend to
> run into.
>
> In this case, the podling is explicitly doing RTC, so we -1'd its entrance
> to the ASF.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
> Greg,
>
> May I suggest a compromise? Enter incubation with no explicit commit
> policy and let the community choose a commit policy if and when they see
> fit.
>
The community already discussed it and made a choice. They'll make the same
choice in a couple weeks after the podling starts its activity.
If they started as CTR and made a choice after growing the community, and
chose RTC at that time, then I'd have no problem. Right now, the initial
set of committers have been using RTC and wish to stick to that, rather
than provide the decision to a larger/newer community. (IMO, of course)
Cheers,
-g
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org>.
Greg,
May I suggest a compromise? Enter incubation with no explicit commit policy and let the community choose a commit policy if and when they see fit.
Julian
> On Dec 1, 2015, at 2:35 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Binding -1s (4):
>>> Greg Stein
>>> Ralph Goers
>>> Roman Shaposhnik
>>> Konstantin Boudnik ...
>>
>> Please indicate how the issues that are behind these -1s have been
>> addressed.
>>
>> I might have missed something, just had a quick look at the VOTE thread.
>>
>
> They have not been addressed.
>
> If I may speak for all of us: basically, we want to see podlings use CTR
> rather than begin with RTC. We believe that will grow a more inclusive
> community, which is one of the more serious problems that podlings tend to
> run into.
>
> In this case, the podling is explicitly doing RTC, so we -1'd its entrance
> to the ASF.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org> wrote:
> > ...
> > Binding -1s (4):
> > Greg Stein
> > Ralph Goers
> > Roman Shaposhnik
> > Konstantin Boudnik ...
>
> Please indicate how the issues that are behind these -1s have been
> addressed.
>
> I might have missed something, just had a quick look at the VOTE thread.
>
They have not been addressed.
If I may speak for all of us: basically, we want to see podlings use CTR
rather than begin with RTC. We believe that will grow a more inclusive
community, which is one of the more serious problems that podlings tend to
run into.
In this case, the podling is explicitly doing RTC, so we -1'd its entrance
to the ASF.
Cheers,
-g
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Henry Robinson <he...@cloudera.com>.
On 1 December 2015 at 15:22, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Henry Robinson <he...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >...
>
> > On 1 December 2015 at 14:46, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >...
>
> > > Given as we have no actual incubator policy that states whether
> > > consensus is required or not - or at least none that I could find -
> one
> > > would assume this falls back to the default "3x+1 and more +1s than
> -1s"
> > > here, with consensus being something we strive for, but not a mandatory
> > > outcome.
> >
>
> Agreed. That was my interpretation, too. I likely would not have cast a
> veto, if that was the interpretation.
>
> >...
>
> > > You don't necessarily need to have everyone agree with you, but you
> > > should at least have a discussion about your different opinions.
> >
>
> Right.
>
> >...
>
> > I understand that Greg does not feel his viewpoint
> > has been carried into the proposal for Impala,
>
>
> Oh, I missed the discussion, and only belatedly learned of the RTC and use
> of Gerrit within the proposal. I had no preconceptions that the proposal
> needed to be altered for [just] me. Only avenue was the vote.
>
Ok - thanks for clearing that up! Are you satisfied that there's been
enough discussion over RTC vs CTR (which I think is Bertrand's concern)?
Are you happy (ok, happy's probably the wrong word) that the [VOTE] has
been satisfactorily concluded, and passes, or is there something else you
would like us to address?
Best,
Henry
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Henry Robinson <he...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>...
> On 1 December 2015 at 14:46, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>...
> > Given as we have no actual incubator policy that states whether
> > consensus is required or not - or at least none that I could find - one
> > would assume this falls back to the default "3x+1 and more +1s than -1s"
> > here, with consensus being something we strive for, but not a mandatory
> > outcome.
>
Agreed. That was my interpretation, too. I likely would not have cast a
veto, if that was the interpretation.
>...
> > You don't necessarily need to have everyone agree with you, but you
> > should at least have a discussion about your different opinions.
>
Right.
>...
> I understand that Greg does not feel his viewpoint
> has been carried into the proposal for Impala,
Oh, I missed the discussion, and only belatedly learned of the RTC and use
of Gerrit within the proposal. I had no preconceptions that the proposal
needed to be altered for [just] me. Only avenue was the vote.
Cheers,
-g
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Henry Robinson <he...@cloudera.com>.
On 1 December 2015 at 14:46, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 12/01/2015 11:37 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
> > On 1 December 2015 at 14:32, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> Binding -1s (4):
> >>> Greg Stein
> >>> Ralph Goers
> >>> Roman Shaposhnik
> >>> Konstantin Boudnik ...
> >>
> >> Please indicate how the issues that are behind these -1s have been
> >> addressed.
> >>
> >> I might have missed something, just had a quick look at the VOTE thread.
> >>
> >
> > Do they have to be addressed for the vote to pass? My understanding was
> > that this vote was by majority, and that -1s did not act as vetos.
> >
>
> Given as we have no actual incubator policy that states whether
> consensus is required or not - or at least none that I could find - one
> would assume this falls back to the default "3x+1 and more +1s than -1s"
> here, with consensus being something we strive for, but not a mandatory
> outcome.
>
> What Bertrand might be trying to ask here is whether the concerns have
> been addressed in the sense that there have been replies and a
> discussion surrounding these topics.
>
> You don't necessarily need to have everyone agree with you, but you
> should at least have a discussion about your different opinions.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
Thanks Daniel. Since these concerns weren't raised on Impala's [DISCUSS]
thread, I believe that's why many Impala community members didn't think to
address them beforehand (and my - possibly mistaken - view was that [VOTE]
threads were explicitly not for discussion, that phase having ended, hence
I didn't respond when the -1 votes were cast). That said, my (personal)
position is adequately represented on the lengthy RTC vs CTR thread by
other proponents of RTC. Todd Lipcon is a mentor for the Impala proposal,
and I believe his views broadly represent that of the Impala community as
it currently is composed.
Bertrand, does that discussion satisfy you that the RTC vs CTR question has
been adequately debated? I understand that Greg does not feel his viewpoint
has been carried into the proposal for Impala, but it seems the question is
over whether we've given it sufficient consideration.
Happy to work to resolve this, just want to understand the point(s) under
question.
Best,
Henry
>
> > Best,
> > Henry
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> -Bertrand
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >...
>
> > As far as I can tell from the proposals and DISCUSS, RTC was the process
> > already present in the community proposed. If the -1 folks would like to
> > convince the community to change its approach then they should take that
> up
> > with the community, not attempt to force a practice on them by holding
> up a
> > passing vote.
> >
>
> We didn't hold up anything. We simply cast a binding vote.
>
>
My apologies. I misread the sequence of messages to indicate that folks
were calling for requiring handling of -1s similar to how they'd be handled
as vetoes.
The rest of the thread has made it clear that this is not the case. I'm all
for showing dissent in a majority vote via -1s.
--
Sean
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>...
> As far as I can tell from the proposals and DISCUSS, RTC was the process
> already present in the community proposed. If the -1 folks would like to
> convince the community to change its approach then they should take that up
> with the community, not attempt to force a practice on them by holding up a
> passing vote.
>
We didn't hold up anything. We simply cast a binding vote.
-g
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Sean Busbey <bu...@cloudera.com>.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 12/01/2015 11:37 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
> > On 1 December 2015 at 14:32, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> Binding -1s (4):
> >>> Greg Stein
> >>> Ralph Goers
> >>> Roman Shaposhnik
> >>> Konstantin Boudnik ...
> >>
> >> Please indicate how the issues that are behind these -1s have been
> >> addressed.
> >>
> >> I might have missed something, just had a quick look at the VOTE thread.
> >>
> >
> > Do they have to be addressed for the vote to pass? My understanding was
> > that this vote was by majority, and that -1s did not act as vetos.
> >
>
> Given as we have no actual incubator policy that states whether
> consensus is required or not - or at least none that I could find - one
> would assume this falls back to the default "3x+1 and more +1s than -1s"
> here, with consensus being something we strive for, but not a mandatory
> outcome.
>
> What Bertrand might be trying to ask here is whether the concerns have
> been addressed in the sense that there have been replies and a
> discussion surrounding these topics.
>
> You don't necessarily need to have everyone agree with you, but you
> should at least have a discussion about your different opinions.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
>
>
The place for those discussions is either in the DISCUSS thread that
precedes a VOTE or in the dev@ list of the newly incubating podling.
As far as I can tell from the proposals and DISCUSS, RTC was the process
already present in the community proposed. If the -1 folks would like to
convince the community to change its approach then they should take that up
with the community, not attempt to force a practice on them by holding up a
passing vote.
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
FWIW, I see the fact that there were some -1s in the vote as a positive thing in ensuring that the concerns behind the -1s will be addressed. I mean that the community will feel a pressure to be inclusive to “prove” that RTC is not an impediment to community growth.
It stands to reason that attention must be paid to ensure that RTC does not negatively effect the community.
Harbs
On Dec 2, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:53 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> ...If the process is 3x+1 and more +1 than -1, this vote passes as Henry stated...
>
> It does pass indeed.
>
> From a community point of view however, -1s need to be taken into
> account and translated into some statement or planned action, that was
> my point.
>
> I'm happy now that this thread has allowed the concerns behind the -1s
> to be expressed and commented, I guess this will translate into
> reviewing the podling's use of RTC vs. CTR when the time comes to
> assert its maturity in view of graduation, in terms of their impact on
> the community.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:53 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...If the process is 3x+1 and more +1 than -1, this vote passes as Henry stated...
It does pass indeed.
>From a community point of view however, -1s need to be taken into
account and translated into some statement or planned action, that was
my point.
I'm happy now that this thread has allowed the concerns behind the -1s
to be expressed and commented, I guess this will translate into
reviewing the podling's use of RTC vs. CTR when the time comes to
assert its maturity in view of graduation, in terms of their impact on
the community.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Josh Elser <el...@apache.org>.
Greg Stein wrote:
>> RTC versus CTR is clearly a religious debate. There are a large number of
>> > successful and vibrant Apache communities using each paradigm. I don't
>> >
>
> "Apache communities" is (IMO) a very important point here. I believe that
> Apache communities understand the nuances of peer respect, consensus, and
> trust.*That* community could weigh the variables and decide which workflow
> works best for their community. By definition, podling arrivals are not
> accorded the same self-reliance, and the proposal even states, "fewer have
> much experience with ASF-based software projects as contributors and
> community members"
>
> Thus, my else-thread suggestion of waiting for an "Apache community" to
> form, and then making the decision to move from CTR to RTC.
>
Joining in (albeit much later than I should have chimed in), I was/am a
little concerned to see the -1's cast in the first place. It seemed very
out of character to have concerns about how a community desired to
govern itself prohibiting entry to incubation.
However, given Greg's, Bertrand's and Roman's comments since, I do feel
much better. It seems appropriate to me that the mentors take these
concerns seriously and provide feedback to the IPMC that the podling
isn't misusing RTC. Wanting a community to operate in a specific way
feels like a slippery slope to me (as it's been hashed out that people
have differing and strong opinions on both sides), but I like the idea
of ensuring that RTC is being applied in a way which we're happy with at
the ASF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:53 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>...
> It's great that Greg and the others who disagree cast their dissenting
> votes. That doesn't mean that we should throw out process. If the process
> is 3x+1 and more +1 than -1, this vote passes as Henry stated. Greg even
> stated (if I understand his statements correctly) that he was not trying to
> sink this vote but rather to express his dissent.
>
Yup, you captured this correctly.
> RTC versus CTR is clearly a religious debate. There are a large number of
> successful and vibrant Apache communities using each paradigm. I don't
>
"Apache communities" is (IMO) a very important point here. I believe that
Apache communities understand the nuances of peer respect, consensus, and
trust. *That* community could weigh the variables and decide which workflow
works best for their community. By definition, podling arrivals are not
accorded the same self-reliance, and the proposal even states, "fewer have
much experience with ASF-based software projects as contributors and
community members"
Thus, my else-thread suggestion of waiting for an "Apache community" to
form, and then making the decision to move from CTR to RTC.
>...
Cheers,
-g
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>.
A few thoughts from a 'bystander':
It's great that Greg and the others who disagree cast their dissenting
votes. That doesn't mean that we should throw out process. If the process
is 3x+1 and more +1 than -1, this vote passes as Henry stated. Greg even
stated (if I understand his statements correctly) that he was not trying to
sink this vote but rather to express his dissent.
RTC versus CTR is clearly a religious debate. There are a large number of
successful and vibrant Apache communities using each paradigm. I don't
think this new community can address those -1's unless they switched
religious sides. That seems to be an unfair ask given their desires and the
general split on this topic within the broader Apache membership. (In other
words, short of switching to CTR, it seems like these -1's would stand.)
Adding additional mentors seems to be a late suggestion and unwarranted.
The mentors on this proposal have strong Apache credentials and there is
reasonable diversity among them.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>
> wrote:
> > The only mention of consensus I could find is in the actual development
> of the actual
> > proposal. I’m sure one could argue that that implies that whether
> consensus is achieved
> > is by the vote, but with a group as large as the IPMC it would be
> horrible to allow a
> > single vote to block a podling from entering.
>
> Right. But imagine if INFRA representative cast -1 because we don't
> have resources
> to accommodate the poddling will we still use simple majority?
>
> To me this highlights a very fundamental problem with an incubator:
> give the size
> of the PMC if we start allowing simple majority to just "happen"
> without any semblance
> of trying to address concerns by a compromise of some sorts -- we're
> running a significant
> risk of never EVER be able to say NO to a podling when we need to.
>
> I have not seen folks proposing Impala considering any compromise that
> would
> alleviate concerns that were articulated by -1 votes. I see a lot of
> 'this is our way -- we
> don't want to change' attitude. That is *precisely* why I personally
> cast a -1, btw.
>
> Now, if you're looking for ideas on how a compromise would look like
> things like
> inviting more diverse set of mentors, etc may be a good place to start
> (I'm obviously
> brainstorming here).
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <rv...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> The only mention of consensus I could find is in the actual development of the actual
> proposal. I’m sure one could argue that that implies that whether consensus is achieved
> is by the vote, but with a group as large as the IPMC it would be horrible to allow a
> single vote to block a podling from entering.
Right. But imagine if INFRA representative cast -1 because we don't
have resources
to accommodate the poddling will we still use simple majority?
To me this highlights a very fundamental problem with an incubator:
give the size
of the PMC if we start allowing simple majority to just "happen"
without any semblance
of trying to address concerns by a compromise of some sorts -- we're
running a significant
risk of never EVER be able to say NO to a podling when we need to.
I have not seen folks proposing Impala considering any compromise that would
alleviate concerns that were articulated by -1 votes. I see a lot of
'this is our way -- we
don't want to change' attitude. That is *precisely* why I personally
cast a -1, btw.
Now, if you're looking for ideas on how a compromise would look like things like
inviting more diverse set of mentors, etc may be a good place to start
(I'm obviously
brainstorming here).
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>.
The only mention of consensus I could find is in the actual development of the actual proposal. I’m sure one could argue that that implies that whether consensus is achieved is by the vote, but with a group as large as the IPMC it would be horrible to allow a single vote to block a podling from entering.
Ralph
> On Dec 1, 2015, at 3:46 PM, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 12/01/2015 11:37 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
>> On 1 December 2015 at 14:32, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> Binding -1s (4):
>>>> Greg Stein
>>>> Ralph Goers
>>>> Roman Shaposhnik
>>>> Konstantin Boudnik ...
>>>
>>> Please indicate how the issues that are behind these -1s have been
>>> addressed.
>>>
>>> I might have missed something, just had a quick look at the VOTE thread.
>>>
>>
>> Do they have to be addressed for the vote to pass? My understanding was
>> that this vote was by majority, and that -1s did not act as vetos.
>>
>
> Given as we have no actual incubator policy that states whether
> consensus is required or not - or at least none that I could find - one
> would assume this falls back to the default "3x+1 and more +1s than -1s"
> here, with consensus being something we strive for, but not a mandatory
> outcome.
>
> What Bertrand might be trying to ask here is whether the concerns have
> been addressed in the sense that there have been replies and a
> discussion surrounding these topics.
>
> You don't necessarily need to have everyone agree with you, but you
> should at least have a discussion about your different opinions.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
>> Best,
>> Henry
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -Bertrand
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>.
On 12/01/2015 11:37 PM, Henry Robinson wrote:
> On 1 December 2015 at 14:32, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Binding -1s (4):
>>> Greg Stein
>>> Ralph Goers
>>> Roman Shaposhnik
>>> Konstantin Boudnik ...
>>
>> Please indicate how the issues that are behind these -1s have been
>> addressed.
>>
>> I might have missed something, just had a quick look at the VOTE thread.
>>
>
> Do they have to be addressed for the vote to pass? My understanding was
> that this vote was by majority, and that -1s did not act as vetos.
>
Given as we have no actual incubator policy that states whether
consensus is required or not - or at least none that I could find - one
would assume this falls back to the default "3x+1 and more +1s than -1s"
here, with consensus being something we strive for, but not a mandatory
outcome.
What Bertrand might be trying to ask here is whether the concerns have
been addressed in the sense that there have been replies and a
discussion surrounding these topics.
You don't necessarily need to have everyone agree with you, but you
should at least have a discussion about your different opinions.
With regards,
Daniel.
> Best,
> Henry
>
>
>
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org>.
On 1 December 2015 at 14:32, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org> wrote:
> > ...
> > Binding -1s (4):
> > Greg Stein
> > Ralph Goers
> > Roman Shaposhnik
> > Konstantin Boudnik ...
>
> Please indicate how the issues that are behind these -1s have been
> addressed.
>
> I might have missed something, just had a quick look at the VOTE thread.
>
Do they have to be addressed for the vote to pass? My understanding was
that this vote was by majority, and that -1s did not act as vetos.
Best,
Henry
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...
> Binding -1s (4):
> Greg Stein
> Ralph Goers
> Roman Shaposhnik
> Konstantin Boudnik ...
Please indicate how the issues that are behind these -1s have been addressed.
I might have missed something, just had a quick look at the VOTE thread.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Henry Robinson <he...@cloudera.com>.
Thanks Owen (and apologies for missing your vote: I swore I saw it at the
time, then checked the thread twice and somehow missed it).
The updated results are below:
Binding +1s (18):
Todd Lipcon
Arvind Prabhakar
Chris Mattmann
Julien Le Dem
Carl Steinbach
Brock Noland
Owen O'Malley
Tom White
Alex Karasulu
Jarek Jarcec Cecho
Chris Douglas
Doug Cutting
Hitesh Shah
Julian Hyde
Ted Dunning
Andrew Bayer
Jean-Baptiste Onofré
Andrei Savu
Michael Stack
Binding -1s (4):
Greg Stein
Ralph Goers
Roman Shaposhnik
Konstantin Boudnik
Non-binding +1s (7):
Patrick Angeles
Ashish Paliwal
Mike Percy
Luke Han
Amol Kekre
Joe Witt
Sree V
On 1 December 2015 at 14:00, Owen O'Malley <om...@apache.org> wrote:
> Not that it changes the result, but I also voted +1.
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg52096.html
>
> .. Owen
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > This vote is now closed and passes with 17 binding +1 votes, 7
> non-binding
> > +1 votes and 4 binding -1 votes.
> >
> > Thanks to everyone that voted!
> >
> > Here is my tally of the votes:
> >
> > Binding +1s (17):
> > Todd Lipcon
> > Arvind Prabhakar
> > Chris Mattmann
> > Julien Le Dem
> > Carl Steinbach
> > Brock Noland
> > Tom White
> > Alex Karasulu
> > Jarek Jarcec Cecho
> > Chris Douglas
> > Doug Cutting
> > Hitesh Shah
> > Julian Hyde
> > Ted Dunning
> > Andrew Bayer
> > Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> > Andrei Savu
> > Michael Stack
> >
> > Binding -1s (4):
> > Greg Stein
> > Ralph Goers
> > Roman Shaposhnik
> > Konstantin Boudnik
> >
> > Non-binding +1s (7):
> > Patrick Angeles
> > Ashish Paliwal
> > Mike Percy
> > Luke Han
> > Amol Kekre
> > Joe Witt
> > Sree V
> >
> > Best,
> > Henry
> >
>
--
Henry Robinson
Software Engineer
Cloudera
415-994-6679
Re: [RESULT] [VOTE] Accept Impala into the Apache Incubator
Posted by Owen O'Malley <om...@apache.org>.
Not that it changes the result, but I also voted +1.
https://www.mail-archive.com/general@incubator.apache.org/msg52096.html
.. Owen
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:51 PM, Henry Robinson <he...@apache.org> wrote:
> This vote is now closed and passes with 17 binding +1 votes, 7 non-binding
> +1 votes and 4 binding -1 votes.
>
> Thanks to everyone that voted!
>
> Here is my tally of the votes:
>
> Binding +1s (17):
> Todd Lipcon
> Arvind Prabhakar
> Chris Mattmann
> Julien Le Dem
> Carl Steinbach
> Brock Noland
> Tom White
> Alex Karasulu
> Jarek Jarcec Cecho
> Chris Douglas
> Doug Cutting
> Hitesh Shah
> Julian Hyde
> Ted Dunning
> Andrew Bayer
> Jean-Baptiste Onofré
> Andrei Savu
> Michael Stack
>
> Binding -1s (4):
> Greg Stein
> Ralph Goers
> Roman Shaposhnik
> Konstantin Boudnik
>
> Non-binding +1s (7):
> Patrick Angeles
> Ashish Paliwal
> Mike Percy
> Luke Han
> Amol Kekre
> Joe Witt
> Sree V
>
> Best,
> Henry
>