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 22:07:51 GMT

New committer: lazy concensus
Re-instatement as a committer: lazy concensus
Removing write access to git/svn repo: full concensus
Removing someone as a committer: full concensus

 I guess I don't understand why full concensus is needed to remove write
access to the repo due to inactivity, when it is so easy to get it back.
IMO, it should be a notice email to the dev list and then an INFRA ticket
for those that don't respond in the affirmative that they are working or
planning on working on a change. I don't see it as punitive, I see it as
cleanup. I don't see why pinging inactive members to see if they are still
involved (or want to be involved) requires everyone to vote.

-0 for the implementation of committer list maintenance :-)


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Drob [mailto:madrob@cloudera.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 4:57 PM
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org; vines@apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo Bylaws

I would like to think that the ASF would prevent us from doing something
incredibly stupid, because we have to refer removal votes to them anyway.
What problem are you trying to address, Dave? Both unanimous votes to
remove, and lazy consensus vote to re-instate can be ground to a halt by a
single voice of reason.


On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:53 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:

> Because there may, someday (ideally never), be someone who needs to 
> removed who should not be granted access back.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:46 PM, <dlmarion@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > 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_e6WG
> > > > tfXM
> > > > 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