couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kyle Snavely <kjsnav...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Adopt FoundationDB
Date Tue, 06 Aug 2019 21:18:07 GMT
Thank you all!

On Tue, Aug 6, 2019, 10:41 AM Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:

> The vote passes. Thanks all for participating.
>
> Onwards!
>
> Best
> Jan, excited
> —
>
> > On 30. Jul 2019, at 10:27, 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> https://neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message