accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo Bylaws
Date Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:00:01 GMT
I don't agree that it's just a matter of trusting committers to keep
their accounts secure. It's also the project's responsibility to keep
the project's repositories secure, and I think it's a matter of
routine security.

An inactive committer may not think to change their ASF credentials in
the case of laptop theft, or some other exposure. And, what about in
the case of death (it happens)... should those credentials have
indefinite access? However, since it should only be done as a security
precaution for inactive users (if at all), I don't think it's a matter
of requesting write-access again... it's really a matter of demanding
it. Asking is polite, but the expectation should be that it be
re-enabled, as a requirement... since it was only done as a matter of
routine security, and not because that committer's privileges are in
question.

I don't have a strong opinion that we enact such a policy for inactive
committers, but if we do, I think it has merits beyond trusting
individuals with keeping their personal credentials secure.

Also FYI, "concensus" spelled correctly is "consensus".

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii


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
View raw message