hadoop-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Konstantin Shvachko <...@yahoo-inc.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Proposed bylaws for the Hadoop project
Date Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:44:51 GMT
Good idea. +1 for this as a draft version.

1. Seems that Doug's corrections are more in line with the Apache Way, and current hadoop
practices +1.

2. I like the definition and phrasing for emeritus in here:
http://portals.apache.org/roles.html
"Emeritus Committers"
which says
- "Any committer that has not participated in the sub-project in the last year
(ie not committed anything in the sub-project repository and not posted anything in the mailing-lists)
will automatically be converted to Emeritus Committer of this sub-project."
- "Any Emeritus Committer of a subproject can ask to become full Committer on the sub-project
development list.
He or she will automatically be accepted as Committer without vote."

I propose to use this exact phrasing in Hadoop bylaws.

3. Propose to add "testing" here
- users on the mailing lists, documentation, etc.
+ users on the mailing lists, documentation, testing, etc.

4. Adoption of New Codebase: 2/3 majority; Active committers
This will make very hard to create sub-projects.
Should we replace it with    Lazy Consensus; Active PMC members?
Maintaining codebase is the 1st responsibility of PMC.

--Konstantin


Doug Cutting wrote:
> These look good to me.  +1
> 
> A few minor changes I'd prefer but not insist on:
> 
>  - Replace the term "developer" with "contributor".  This seems more 
> precise and consistent with our wiki documentation.
> 
>  - Emeritus timeout should be 12 months instead of 6.  Perhaps this 
> doesn't matter, since we're not bound to make someone emeritus after six 
> months, but events might reasonably keep someone away for six, and I 
> think we've generally not bothered to make anyone emeritus until they've 
> been idle for 12 months, so 12 months seems more descriptive of our 
> actual practice.
> 
> Thanks for proposing this!
> 
> Doug
> 
> Owen O'Malley wrote:
>> We should have created bylaws when we were established as a PMC back 
>> in Jan 2008, but it has become clear that we need to define them. I 
>> looked around and the Ant project had bylaws that were both clear and 
>> fairly complete. I made some minor edits to match what we do. Please 
>> look them over and vote. In a recursive usage, let's use 2/3 majority 
>> to approve these bylaws.
>>
>> -- Owen
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
> 


Mime
View raw message