accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Elser <josh.el...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo Bylaws
Date Tue, 18 Feb 2014 21:59:41 GMT
A point of completeness: you should also be merging those lists across 
the main repo and the contribs.

On 2/18/14, 1:54 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
> git log --pretty=format:"%an" --since=$(date +%Y-%m-%d --date='6 months
> ago') | sort | uniq
>
> That will get you a list of everybody that has committed in the past 6
> months, including contributors. Cross-checking against the list of
> committers is left as an exercise for the reader. (Mostly because I didn't
> have a good file to diff against).
>
>
> 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_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