accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <dlmar...@comcast.net>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Accumulo Bylaws
Date Tue, 18 Feb 2014 21:46:50 GMT
We are not removing them as a committer, we are just revoking their commit
access to the code repo due to inactivity. I agree with consensus for
removing them as a committer in general, but not for revoking commit access
due to inactivity. I would imagine that all they have to do to regain their
access is send an email to the list saying, "I tried to commit a code change
but could not login."

-----Original Message-----
From: John Vines [mailto:vines@apache.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 4:41 PM
To: Accumulo Dev List
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo Bylaws

Because it should be hard to remove someone but easy to bring them back.


On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:36 PM, <dlmarion@comcast.net> wrote:

> " I do think it's in our interest to keep the committership and PMC 
> membership mostly active. For example, having many inactive committers 
> brings a higher risk of a compromised committer account causing trouble."
>
> +1
>
> Do we know which committers have not committed a change in 6 months?
>
> I see that " Commit access can be revoked by a unanimous vote of all 
> the active PMC members", but re-instatement is by lazy concensus. Why 
> are they different?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Havanki [mailto:bhavanki@clouderagovt.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 11:39 AM
> To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo Bylaws
>
> My comments and minor edits are in the doc, I'll bring up bigger 
> issues on this list.
>
> Re emeritus status for committers: I'd like it not to constitute an 
> automatic "kicking you off the island" action. For example, I wouldn't 
> want to close off commit access on day 181. It can be a time when we 
> automatically check on the level of involvement an emeritus / emerita 
> wishes to keep. I'm fine with softening the bylaw verbiage in that 
> regard.
>
> I do think it's in our interest to keep the committership and PMC 
> membership mostly active. For example, having many inactive committers 
> brings a higher risk of a compromised committer account causing 
> trouble.
> Also, it'd be hard collecting a 2/3 majority of PMC members when many 
> are not paying any attention.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Joey Echeverria
> <joey+ml@clouderagovt.com>wrote:
>
> > "Emeritus" is not an official ASF designation. As far as the ASF is 
> > concerned, you're either a Committer, a PMC member, or both, or not 
> > at
> all.
> >
> > The reason other projects use the emeritus designation is to avoid 
> > overstating active involvement. An "emeritus" member does not lose 
> > any privileges as far as ASF is concerned. If you want to remove 
> > privileges, I believe that the PMC has to vote to that effect.
> >
> > -Joey
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Sean Busbey 
> > <busbey+lists@cloudera.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > If people have substantive questions (as opposed to requests for 
> > > edits / clarification), I'd rather they be here on the list.
> > >
> > > My main issue is the automatic transition to emeritus status for
> > committers
> > > / PMCs at 6 months. That's a significant change. Do we know what 
> > > the current impact of that would be?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Bill Havanki 
> > > <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have some minor edits and some questions about it, which I'll 
> > > > add as comments in the doc. I also agree that a weather 
> > > > allowance is a good
> > > idea.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks for putting it in a Google Doc, Arshak!
> > > > >
> > > > > What issues do y'all see with this document in it's current state?
> > > > > Personally, I think it looks fine and would be willing to 
> > > > > start a
> > vote
> > > on
> > > > > it, but I get the impression that east coast weather has 
> > > > > prevented
> > some
> > > > > folk from looking at it, so maybe another couple of days is fine.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Arshak Navruzyan 
> > > > > <arshakn@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Oops, yes of course!  It's editable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Bill Havanki <
> > > > bhavanki@clouderagovt.com
> > > > > > >wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks Arshak! Can you either allow editing or commenting?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Arshak Navruzyan <
> > > arshakn@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Say no more ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uR8vhIQcKGA6IEtbbF5D7UL_e6WGtfXM
> > UQ
> > Hp8Fwvg_E/edit?usp=sharing
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Christopher <
> > > ctubbsii@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Perhaps some ambitious volunteer could start
a 
> > > > > > > > > collaborative
> > > > draft
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > Accumulo's bylaws in Google Docs or something,
using 
> > > > > > > > > ZK as a
> > > > > starting
> > > > > > > > > point. After it stabilizes a bit, we could push
it to 
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > project
> > > > > > > > > webpage as a draft and vote on it?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Mike Drob <
> > > madrob@cloudera.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I didn't get that impression from reading
their
document.
> > > > While C
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > PMC
> > > > > > > > > > are two distinct roles, there is nothing
stating that
> > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > cannot
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > overlap, and the fact that there is 100%
overlap is
> > entirely
> > > > > > > > orthogonal.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Josh Elser
<
> > > > > josh.elser@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> This would change the existing Committer
== PMC, no?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> That's the biggest thing I noticed scanning
over the
> > > document.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On 2/14/14, 1:19 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> I think we should have some Bylaws,
as that gives us
> > > > > > > > > >>> more
> > > > > > structure
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>> operate under.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> I propose that we adopt the ZooKeeper
bylaws,
> > > > > > > > > >>> replacing
> > all
> > > > > > > > references
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > >>> ZK with Accumulo.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> http://zookeeper.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> What say ye?
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Mike
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> | - - -
> | Bill Havanki
> | Solutions Architect, Cloudera Government Solutions
> | - - -
>
>


Mime
View raw message