accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Medinets <david.medin...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo Bylaws
Date Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:58:22 GMT
I am not actively committing but would not like losing committer status.
Moving me to an emeritus status would be fine. I am following threads. It's
just I don't have the after-hours time to devote to working on the code.
That might change in the future, but then I'd probably use a github fork
and make a pull request instead of changing the code directly.


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