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 22:22:38 GMT
On 2/19/14, 1:59 PM, Bill Havanki wrote:
> I'm happy with the active vs. emeritus stuff. +1 to Josh's idea of pinging
> somebody before emeritization.
>
> I'm +0 on including C == PMC. Thinking about if someday the PMC doesn't
> want that.

Making sure that we *do* talk about it is exactly why I suggested we 
reference in the by-laws. Forcing ourselves to do things "right" later :)

> About trimming commit access for security: Even if the ASF and ASFers lock
> down their accounts, reuse of passwords on other less diligent systems
> (Kickstarter is but the latest) keeps the threat alive. Also, recall that
> not so long ago, Apache JIRA was breached [1]. It's not unheard of for
> accounts to lock after so many days of inactivity. As long as folks are
> notified, and it's easy to get unlocked, I still like the idea. It can be a
> real long time, say a year or two.
>
> [1]
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/13/apache_website_breach_postmortem/
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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