Mailing-List: contact general-help@hadoop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: general@hadoop.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of mfoley@hortonworks.com
 designates 209.85.217.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: mattf@apache.org
Sender: mfoley@hortonworks.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CACO5Y4zX1sxvWoMN1_RxQ2OJTrwxZwKypSD4rCE7rVg52RwWpw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <48A037BF-5EE8-44EA-BE27-0BBB46DA0B5B@hortonworks.com>
 <CAKtuutHQ5H51C2_t1FFrWtV2VsUk4rtoW086bZ_BbxKr9sH03Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKtuutFnb=k7A0kSenyhqpJp0M5XCFyUUbjPMnCT9jeofgOU_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACO5Y4zX1sxvWoMN1_RxQ2OJTrwxZwKypSD4rCE7rVg52RwWpw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Matt Foley <mattf@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:13:47 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CA+z3+9EH+fAvtNQpZn-8ARve1eSrrMwLzfo2ey=J6DGgAEfQoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [VOTE] - Release 2.0.5-beta
To: "common-dev@hadoop.apache.org" <common-dev@hadoop.apache.org>
Cc: "general@hadoop.apache.org" <general@hadoop.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011770c7924d3704dd40ee22

--089e011770c7924d3704dd40ee22
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I've now started a separate discussion thread in common-dev@, titled
"[PROPOSAL] change in bylaws to remove Release Plan vote".  If it achieves
consensus, I'll put it to a vote to so change the bylaws.

Best,
--Matt


On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Chris Douglas <cdouglas@apache.org> wrote:

> The "release plan" vote is not binding in any way. Nobody "lost" a
> vote, or risks having an outcome reversed, because there are no
> consequences to these exercises.
>
> Konstantin, I've been trying to tell you for more than a week that you
> can go forward without anyone's blessing or consent. There are no
> precedents, because the "release plan" vote has been a formality until
> now, and I don't know of any other projects that even bother with it.
> Most of our committers and PMC members didn't even know who was
> eligible to vote on it, because we usually ignore it. What *does*
> matter is the majority vote of the PMC on the release artifact. While
> we under-defined what the release plan means, we have zero ambiguity
> on when a release artifact becomes real.
>
> In the discussion, you were offered a minor release series, help
> selecting patches from branch-2, and every administrative barrier was
> removed from your path. Instead of taking this and running with it,
> you continued to press for... I don't know what. Please decide how
> you're going to move a development branch- any of them- forward and
> start working on it. There is nothing to "win" in these threads.
>
> This has exposed a bug in our bylaws, which we can fix.
>
> Right now, these "votes" are confusing everybody and stalling the
> project. I don't care who comes up with 2.0.5-beta, whether it's part
> of 2.1, or if we create 3.0. Any committer who wants to offer an
> candidate needs to demonstrate that they have a non-trivial,
> non-sectarian proportion of the community behind it by (1) creating
> the artifact (2) passing a PMC vote to make that artifact a release.
> It's that simple.
>
> With respect to the board: they are not parents, and we are not
> children. Neither are they interested or equipped to tell us how to
> partition releases of Hadoop. This is routine development, we are
> failing at it, but we will recover by eliminating this pointless
> ritual and getting back to producing software. -C
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
> <shv.hadoop@gmail.com> wrote:
> > BCC: general@
> >
> > Since we recognize now that this is a vote to overrule previous decision,
> > I am referring to Vinod's note on general
> > *http://s.apache.org/h7x*
> > should this be brought to the attention of the Board?
> >
> > I don't remember any precedents of this kind in Hadoop history.
> > But other projects may have had such experience.
> > A clarification on categorizing this action and on voting practices
> > from ASF may help.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --Konstantin
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Konstantin Shvachko
> > <shv.hadoop@gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> >> Arun,
> >>
> >> I am glad I at least convinced you to finally announce your release plan
> >> and put it into vote.
> >> Even though it is to overrule the vote that just completed, which you
> were
> >> against and lost, well - Twice.
> >>
> >> I am glad you removed the NFS feature from the list proposed earlier.
> >>
> >> I think this vote is late. The lazy consensus on that issue has been
> just
> >> reached.
> >> I don't see the basis for the new vote,
> >> and it is not clear what action you seek to approve.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> --Konstantin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Arun C Murthy <acm@hortonworks.com
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> Folks,
> >>>
> >>> A considerable number of people have expressed confusion regarding the
> >>> recent vote on 2.0.5, beta status etc. given lack of specifics, the
> voting
> >>> itself (validity of the vote itself, whose votes are binding) etc.
> >>>
> >>> IMHO technical arguments (incompatibility b/w 2.0 & 2.1, current
> >>> stability of 3 features under debate etc.) have been lost in the
> discussion
> >>> in favor of non-technical (almost dramatic) nuances such as "seizing
> the
> >>> moment". There is now dangerous talk of tolerating incompatibility b/w
> 2.0
> >>> and 2.1) - this is a red flag for me; particularly when there are just
> 3
> >>> features being debated and active committers and contributors are
> confident
> >>> of and ready to stand by their work. All patches, I believe, are ready
> to
> >>> be merged in the the next few days per discussions on jira. This will,
> >>> clearly, not delay the other API work which everyone agrees is
> crucial. As
> >>> a result, I feel no recourse but to restart a new vote - all attempts
> at
> >>> calm, reasoned, civil discussion based on technical arguments have
> come to
> >>> naught - I apologize for the thrash caused to everyone's attention.
> >>>
> >>> To get past all of this confusion, I'd like to present an alternate,
> >>> specific proposal for consideration.
> >>>
> >>> I propose we continue the original plan and make a 2.0.5-beta release
> by
> >>> May end with the following content:
> >>> # HDFS-347
> >>> # HDFS Snapshots
> >>> # Windows support
> >>> # Necessary & final API/protocol changes such as:
> >>>  * Final YARN API changes: YARN-386
> >>>  * MR Binary Compatibility: MAPREDUCE-5108
> >>>  * Final RPC cleanup: HADOOP-8990
> >>>
> >>> People working on the above features have all expressed considerable
> >>> comfort with them and are ready to stand-by to help expedite any
> necessary
> >>> bug-fixes etc. to get to stabilization quickly. I'm confident we can
> get
> >>> this release out by end of May. This sets stage for a hadoop-2.x GA
> release
> >>> right after with some more testing - this means I think I can quickly
> turn
> >>> around and make bug-fix releases as necessary right after 2.0.5-beta.
> >>>
> >>> I request that people consider helping out with this plan and sign up
> to
> >>> help push hadoop-2.x to stability as outlined above. I believe this
> will
> >>> help achieve our shared goals of quickly stabilizing hadoop-2 and help
> >>> ensure we can support it for forseeable future in a compatible manner
> for
> >>> the benefit of our users and downstream projects.
> >>>
> >>> Please vote, the vote will run the normal 7 days. Obviously, I'm +1.
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>> Arun
> >>>
> >>> PS: To keep this discussion grounded in technical details I've moved
> this
> >>> to dev@ (bcc general@).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>

--089e011770c7924d3704dd40ee22--