Electronic votes require 100% participation from the TSC:
"c. Except as provided in Section 8.c. and 9.a, decisions by vote at a meeting requires a majority vote of those in attendance, provided a quorum is met. Decisions made by electronic vote without a meeting requires a majority vote of all voting members of the TSC."
Additionally according to 3.a.i:
"i. When there are less than six Related Company Groups represented on the TSC, no one Related Company Group will submit more than one vote when a TSC decision requires a vote."
I see that Facebook has submitted several votes. People need to be aware that Facebook can only submit one binding vote on any issue.
It seems we have already publicly represented this vote as concluded:
The vote hasn't even been agreed upon as concluded in this mailing list thread in addition to not having followed the bylaws.
It's critical that we move forward as a community not a collection of individuals. We have to wait for consensus and follow the agreed upon practices for decisions making.
There is a TSC meeting today at 12PM Eastern, 9AM Pacific. I encourage people to attend so we can achieve quorum and have a discussion and vote on this issue.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019, at 7:01 AM, Maria Basmanova wrote:
I expect committers to have substantial expertise on a subset of core parts of the engine. The verifier scope is quite limited and having committer with expertise in just that area is of limited value. Furthermore, I expect to-be-committers
to have a track record of providing quality reviews and approving PRs such that existing committers don’t need to review the code and can trust the to-be-committers approval. In other words, I’d expect to see existing committers delegating code reviews to
to-be-committers on a regular basis. I don’t see evidence of that.
Of course committers should be able to provide high quality code reviews. Personally I found Leiqing's review on my PRs related to SQL function very valuable, even though he was not as familiar with the topic yet. Here are some example
Here's his recent review on verifier related PR, which is more in his domain of expertise:
Does this resolve your concerns?
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 1:08 PM Masha Basmanova <mbasmanova@...> wrote:
My impression was that it was a requirement that committers demonstrate solid skill in providing high quality code reviews. Do you have evidence of that for Leiqing or is this not
+1 for making Leiqing as a committer. I was originally thinking making him an incubating committer as well.
I want to nominate Leiqing (github: caithagoras) as a committer for Presto. Leiqing started working on Presto about 2 years ago. Recently he has become an expert in release verification and led the effort on improving verifier and release process. He has
contributed 128 commits so far. Here's stats from Github:
129 commits 20,597
++ 10,766 --
Please voice your opinions and cast your vote by end of this week (Friday 11/22/19).