accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From William Slacum <wilhelm.von.cl...@accumulo.net>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo Bylaws
Date Tue, 18 Feb 2014 21:59:55 GMT
Mike, add the "--all" parameter to the log statement to go across the
entire repo:

git log --all --pretty=format:"%an" --since="6 months ago" | sort | uniq -c

This is slightly more portable for those of us on OSX w/ BSD date.


On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com> wrote:

> I would like to think that the ASF would prevent us from doing something
> incredibly stupid, because we have to refer removal votes to them anyway.
> What problem are you trying to address, Dave? Both unanimous votes to
> remove, and lazy consensus vote to re-instate can be ground to a halt by a
> single voice of reason.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:53 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Because there may, someday (ideally never), be someone who needs to
> removed
> > who should not be granted access back.
> >
> >
> > 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