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 22:08:38 GMT
If we can't trust committers to keep their accounts secure, I'm pretty 
sure that's already a big issue at the larger ASF level. I also wouldn't 
want to push even more work on INFRA to revoke/reinstate write access to 
repos -- this isn't something we control AFAIK.

Overall, that idea doesn't sit right with me. Being a committer but 
having to re-ask for your committer rights if you go away for a while 
doesn't jive with my view of things.

On 2/18/14, 1:46 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