accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bill Havanki <bhava...@clouderagovt.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo Bylaws
Date Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:39:15 GMT
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_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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message