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 22:01:54 GMT
And the site, which will need a different command, since it is in SVN.
Probably would be good to check JIRA and the mailing list too.


On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:

> A point of completeness: you should also be merging those lists across the
> main repo and the contribs.
>
>
> On 2/18/14, 1:54 PM, Mike Drob wrote:
>
>> git log --pretty=format:"%an" --since=$(date +%Y-%m-%d --date='6 months
>> ago') | sort | uniq
>>
>> That will get you a list of everybody that has committed in the past 6
>> months, including contributors. Cross-checking against the list of
>> committers is left as an exercise for the reader. (Mostly because I didn't
>> have a good file to diff against).
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:46 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