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 Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:10:37 GMT
Overall, it looks good to me. I didn't weigh in on the doc via comment 
too much, but I agree with the comments that Sean, Bill and Mike raised.

A few extra things:

I believe we should state somewhere in the bylaws the Committer==PMC 
stance. The breakdown of each role (C, PMC) makes sense to me, but 
putting in writing the practice we follow is a good idea. This also 
forces us to have a serious discussion with PMC to achieve a 2/3 
majority (alter the by-laws).

Regarding emeritus status (since that was also discussed on the mailing 
list), I think the verb-age in the doc is good (specifically no 
revocation of commit ability). The only ambiguity I see is who is in 
charge of updating emeritus status of a person due to idle? This may be 
hard to judge: does it include things like IRC? Non-ASF forums related 
to Accumulo (vendor forums, stackoverflow, etc)? Should the idle member 
be contacted before switching to idle to ensure that they're not going 
to just un-idle themselves? It seems easy to stomp on someone's toes by 
moving them to Emeritus -- I think requiring an attempt of contact 
before status change is the easiest, general solution.

On 2/18/14, 6:49 AM, Mike Drob 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_e6WGtfXMUQHp8Fwvg_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