spark-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Koert Kuipers <>
Subject Re: Spark Improvement Proposals
Date Thu, 09 Mar 2017 18:31:05 GMT
gonna end up with a stackoverflow on recursive votes here

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Mark Hamstra <>

> -0 on voting on whether we need a vote.
> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Reynold Xin <> wrote:
>> I'm fine without a vote. (are we voting on wether we need a vote?)
>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 8:55 AM, Sean Owen <> 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 <>
>>> 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
>>>> 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 ;)

View raw message