couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Adopt FoundationDB
Date Tue, 30 Jul 2019 13:29:07 GMT
+1

B. 

> On 30 Jul 2019, at 09:51, Garren Smith <garren@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:27 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