accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo Bylaws
Date Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:49:14 GMT
Adding in bits about web maintenance.


"A PMC member is considered emeritus, meaning inactive, by his or her own
declaration or by not contributing in any form to the project for over six
months. Emeritus members will be recognized by the PMC on the Accumulo web
page, in honor of their past contributions. Emeritus members retain all
voting and commit rights associated with their former designation and can
move themselves out of emeritus status by sending an announcement of their
return to the developer mailing list. It will be the returning member's
responsibility to update their status on the web page accordingly."

Will have another, almost identically phrased paragraph for committers.
Also, adding sections about the maintenance of the people page, in general.

"Upon acceptance of the invitation to become a PMC member, it is the
accepting member's responsibility to update his/her status on the Accumulo
web page accordingly."

The changes have been made on the google doc.


On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey+lists@cloudera.com>wrote:

> "After six months of inactivity a PMC member will be given an emeritus
> designation. Emeritus members retain all voting and commit rights, and can
> move themselves out of emeritus status at any time by sending an
> announcement of their return to the developer mailing list."
>
> I prefer phrasing that makes the rest of the community aware of the change.
>
> If we're going to track emeritus status on the webpage, we should include
> language
> about maintaining it.
>
> -Sean
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > According to the ASF, an emeritus retains all the rights of the
> position. I
> > agree that we should not be removing anybody's commit bit due to
> > inactivity. Once granted, that privilege is for life.
> >
> > However, I feel like there should be room for folks that have moved on
> from
> > the community in some way that recognizes their past contribution. If
> I've
> > been away for two years, I don't know that I would have meaningful
> insight
> > on new committers or possibly even releases! In cases of lazy
> > consensus/lazy majority, it might not matter, but for a full vote you'd
> > have a hard time getting my attention.
> >
> > How about this for a change (feel free to word-smith):
> >
> > "After six months of inactivity a PMC member will be given an emeritus
> > designation. Emeritus members retain all voting and commit rights, and
> can
> > move themselves out of emeritus status at any time."
> >
> > And then we leave all the vote bylaws referring to "Active PMC"
> unchanged.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > If we can't trust committers to keep their accounts secure, I'm pretty
> > > sure that's already a big issue at the larger ASF level. I also
> wouldn't
> > > want to push even more work on INFRA to revoke/reinstate write access
> to
> > > repos -- this isn't something we control AFAIK.
> > >
> > > Overall, that idea doesn't sit right with me. Being a committer but
> > having
> > > to re-ask for your committer rights if you go away for a while doesn't
> > jive
> > > with my view of things.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/18/14, 1:46 PM, dlmarion@comcast.net wrote:
> > >
> > >> We are not removing them as a committer, we are just revoking their
> > commit
> > >> access to the code repo due to inactivity. I agree with consensus for
> > >> removing them as a committer in general, but not for revoking commit
> > >> access
> > >> due to inactivity. I would imagine that all they have to do to regain
> > >> their
> > >> access is send an email to the list saying, "I tried to commit a code
> > >> change
> > >> but could not login."
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: John Vines [mailto:vines@apache.org]
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 4:41 PM
> > >> To: Accumulo Dev List
> > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo Bylaws
> > >>
> > >> Because it should be hard to remove someone but easy to bring them
> back.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:36 PM, <dlmarion@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>  " 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."
> > >>>
> > >>> +1
> > >>>
> > >>> Do we know which committers have not committed a change in 6 months?
> > >>>
> > >>> I see that " Commit access can be revoked by a unanimous vote of all
> > >>> the active PMC members", but re-instatement is by lazy concensus. Why
> > >>> are they different?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: Bill Havanki [mailto:bhavanki@clouderagovt.com]
> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 11:39 AM
> > >>> To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
> > >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo Bylaws
> > >>>
> > >>> 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_e6WGtfXM
> > >>>> UQ
> > >>>> Hp8Fwvg_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