accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Billie Rinaldi <billie.rina...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo Bylaws
Date Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:17:32 GMT
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Bill Havanki <bhavanki@clouderagovt.com>wrote:

> I implemented the vote renames in the doc.
>
> +1 on code change moving to consensus approval after a veto. That is more
> consistent.
> +1 to consensus approval for a new codebase, vs. 2/3 majority.
> -1 to consensus approval, 7-day period for bylaw changes. I don't like the
> veto possibility. I'd prefer majority approval, 7-day period.
>

I'm neutral on this one.


>
> If we remove the emeritus vote actions, what mechanism is there for kicking
> out committers or PMC members?
>

We wouldn't have one, but if necessary we could add it later with a bylaw
change.  Inactive PMC members / committers would still have the ability to
resign voluntarily.


>
> Re extending votes: something like this?
>
> - A vote action can be extended beyond its minimum length by the vote
> caller if its outcome has not been determined.
> - When it becomes clear that a vote will not reach a definitive outcome,
> the vote caller can close the vote, failing the vote action.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Billie Rinaldi <billie.rinaldi@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Great input, Billie! I had expected that you would be able to provide
> > more
> > > ASF references than I had been able to find on my own. Responses
> inline.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Billie Rinaldi <billie@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have some issues with the proposed bylaws.  The main one is that it
> > > > chooses arbitrary names for approval types that do not match Apache's
> > > > definitions [1][2].  I believe we should stick with Apache's
> > definitions.
> > > > I also see no reason to change the general guidelines provided for
> > which
> > > > types of approval are needed in various scenarios.
> > > >
> > > > I hadn't seen the voting page before, thanks! I did an unscientific
> > > sampling of other Apache projects and it looks like ZK, Hadoop, Pig,
> and
> > > Hive all use very similar bylaws, including the approval types and
> action
> > > types. This didn't surprise me, and I understand that we should still
> > > follow ASF examples over Hadoop examples. However, I was interested to
> > see
> > > Ant have similar bylaws as well. Then there is another group, including
> > > HTTPD, HttpComponents, and Struts, that have very different looking
> > bylaws.
> > > Most groups with bylaws look like one of these two templates.
> > >
> > > I have no issue with dropping the "consensus" approval type to line up
> > more
> > > with ASF definitions. What do you propose the new threshold for
> revoking
> > > committer/PMC be? I also have no issue with dropping the "2/3 majority"
> > > (although Hadoop has an interesting spin on it; still lazy, but twice
> as
> > > many +1 as -1) - what would be the new threshold for modifying bylaws
> and
> > > accepting an existing code base. The code base situation came up
> recently
> > > with raccumulo and that was never properly resolved, I think, so this
> is
> > a
> > > good time to think about that.
> > >
> > > +1 on renaming to Consensus Approval and Majority Approval as per the
> ASF
> > > glossary.
> > > -0 on renaming Lazy Approval to Lazy Consensus. The glossary definition
> > > calls them out as equivalent and like the parallelism from "X Approval"
> > > naming. I think it is easier to remember.
> > >
> >
> > I agree Lazy Approval is fine.  I wouldn't mind an extra sentence in the
> > text saying that Lazy Approval is sometimes also called Lazy Consensus
> (so
> > that it's clear that any approval mechanism starting with "Lazy" means
> the
> > same thing).
> >
> > Regarding what types of approval are needed for what actions:
> > - In ASF guidelines, code changes are vetoable (that is, everyone has to
> > agree).  Thus I suggest making the approval Lazy Approval, falling back
> to
> > Consensus Approval if a -1 is received.  (The current doc says it falls
> > back to Majority Approval.)
> > - Majority approval is fine for release plan and product release.
> > - Consensus approval is fine for new committers and PMC members.
> > - The remaining actions are new codebase, modifying bylaws, and emeritus
> > issues.  How about Consensus for new codebase and modifying bylaws
> (perhaps
> > with a 7-day minumum vote instead of 3-day), and drop the emeritus
> issues?
> >
> > Do we want to add explicitly that any unfinished vote can be extended if
> no
> > -1s have been received?
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Another major departure in the proposed bylaws is that it gives
> > > committers
> > > > binding votes in some situations, while typically only PMC members
> have
> > > > binding votes.  Since our policy is for all PMC members to be
> > committers,
> > > > we don't need to alter the standard responsibilities of committers.
> > > >
> > > > I had been under the impression that committers should have binding
> say
> > > on
> > > code change but no procedural votes. Turns out that is backwards,
> > according
> > > to the ASF voting page. I think this document can be written in such a
> > way
> > > to describe C and PMC roles as separate sets of responsibilities
> without
> > > conflicting with our current notion that C == PMC. I don't know if we
> > will
> > > always have that be the case, but I can imagine a case where an
> > individual
> > > might accept the C invitation but not the PMC one.
> > >
> > > Also, the described responsibilities of committers and PMC members are
> > > > misleading in that they leave out (or fail to clarify) some of the
> most
> > > > important responsibilities of those roles.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Just to make sure I understand: committers are stewards of the code and
> > PMC
> > > are stewards of the project?
> > >
> >
> > The main responsibilities I want to call out are the following.
> >
> > Committers: Under the terms of the Contributor License Agreement that all
> > committers must sign, a committer's primary responsibility is to ensure
> > that all code committed to Apache Accumulo is licensed appropriately and
> > meets those criteria set forth in the CLA (including both original works
> > and patches committed on behalf of other contributors).
> >
> > PMC members: The function of the PMC is to vote on community-related
> > decisions, such as on new PMC members, committers and on releases.  In
> > particular, PMC members must understand both our project's criteria and
> ASF
> > criteria for voting on a release (http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html
> ,
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what,
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#what-must-every-release-contain,
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release).
> >
> > The following two paragraphs may also be useful (copied from
> > http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc):
> >
> > The role of the PMC from a Foundation perspective is oversight. The main
> > role of the PMC is not code and not coding - but to ensure that all legal
> > issues are addressed, that procedure is followed, and that each and every
> > release is the product of the community as a whole. That is key to our
> > litigation protection mechanisms.
> >
> > Secondly the role of the PMC is to further the long term development and
> > health of the community as a whole, and to ensure that balanced and wide
> > scale peer review and collaboration does happen. Within the ASF we worry
> > about any community which centers around a few individuals who are
> working
> > virtually uncontested. We believe that this is detrimental to quality,
> > stability, and robustness of both code and long term social structures.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > I don't have any particular feeling on whether we should introduce
> the
> > > > concept of emeritus committers or not.  It seems the major reason for
> > > > wanting to do so is to keep 2/3 majority votes managable, but I am
> not
> > > > actually sure we need to introduce the concept of a 2/3 majority
> vote.
> > >  We
> > > > could just use a standard veto-able vote (Apache Consensus Approval),
> > > > perhaps with a longer time frame to ensure that everyone has a chance
> > to
> > > > weigh in.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If we drop "consensus" and "2/3 majority" as defined in the document
> then
> > > we should also drop emeritus. I agree with your interpretation of
> intent.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > [1]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
> > > > [2]: https://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 6:49 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
> > > > > > > | - - -
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> | - - -
> | Bill Havanki
> | Solutions Architect, Cloudera Government Solutions
> | - - -
>

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