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 Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:59:31 GMT
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.

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
>>>> | - - -
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>


-- 
| - - -
| Bill Havanki
| Solutions Architect, Cloudera Government Solutions
| - - -

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message