couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Adopt FoundationDB
Date Tue, 30 Jul 2019 15:11:21 GMT
+1

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:06 AM Nick Vatamaniuc <vatamane@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:25 AM Wendall Cada <wendallc@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 7:08 AM Adam Kocoloski <kocolosk@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > > On Jul 30, 2019, at 4:27 AM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear CouchDB developers,
> > > >
> > > > This vote decides whether the CouchDB project accepts the proposal[1]
> > > > to switch our underlying storage and distributed systems technology out
> > > > for FoundationDB[2].
> > > >
> > > > At the outset, we said that we wanted to cover these topic areas before
> > > > making a vote:
> > > >
> > > > - Bylaw changes
> > > >    - RFC process: done, passed
> > > >    - Add qualified vote option: done, changes proposed were not
> > > >      ratified
> > > >
> > > > - Roadmap: proposal done, detailed discussions TBD, includes
> > > >  deprecations
> > > >
> > > > - Onboarding: ASF onboarding links shared, CouchDB specific onboarding
> > > >  TBD.
> > > >
> > > > - (Re-)Branding: tentatively: 3.0 is the last release before FDB
> > > >  CouchDB and 4.0 is the FDB CouchDB. If we need nicknames, we can
> > > >  decide on those later.
> > > >
> > > > - FoundationDB Governance: FoundationDB is currently loosely organised
> > > >  between Apple and a few key stakeholder companies invested in the
> > > >  technology. Apple contributions are trending downwards relatively,
> > > >  approaching 50%, which means in the future, more non-Apple than Apple
> > > >  contributions are likely.
> > > >
> > > >  In addition, the CouchDB PMC has requested addition to the current
> > > >  organisational FDB weekly meeting, which is where any more formal
> > > >  governance decisions are going to be made and the CouchDB PMC can be
> > > >  a part of the surrounding discussions.
> > > >
> > > > - FoundationDB Operations knowledge: IBM has intends to share this
> > > >  knowledge as they acquire it in conjunction with Apache CouchDB in
> > > >  terms of general ops knowledge, best practices and tooling.
> > > >
> > > > - Proj. Mgmt.: RFC process + outline list of TBD RFCs allow for enough
> > > >  visibility and collaboration opportunities, everyone on dev@ list is
> > > >  encouraged to participate.
> > > >
> > > > - Tech deep dives: DISCUSS threads and RFCs are covering this, current
> > > >  list of TBD DISCUSS/RFCs, for the proposal. Most of which were
> > > >  already discussed on dev@ or RFC’d in our documentation repo:
> > > >
> > > >    * JSON doc storage and storage of edit conflicts
> > > >    * revision management
> > > >    * _changes feed
> > > >    * _db_updates
> > > >    * _all_docs
> > > >    * database creation and deletion
> > > >    * attachments
> > > >    * mango indexes (including collation)
> > > >    * map-only views / search / geo
> > > >    * reduces
> > > >    * aggregate metrics (data_size, etc.)
> > > >    * release engineering
> > > >    * local/desktop/dev install security
> > > >
> > > > * * *
> > > >
> > > > As shown above, all topics we wanted to have clarity on have been
> > > > advanced to a point where we are now ready to make a decision:
> > > >
> > > >  Should Apache CouchDB adopt FoundationDB?
> > > >
> > > > Since this is a big decision, I suggest we make this a Lazy 2/3
> > > > Majority Vote with PMC Binding Votes, and a 7 day duration (as per our
> > > > bylaws[3]).
> > > >
> > > > You can cast your votes now.
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > > Jan
> > > > —
> > > > [1]:
> > >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/04e7889354c077a6beb91fd1292b6d38b7a3f2c6a5dc7d20f5b87c44@%3Cdev.couchdb.apache.org%3E
> > > > [2]: https://www.foundationdb.org
> > > > [3]: https://couchdb.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >

Mime
View raw message