My comments and minor edits are in the doc, I'll bring up bigger issues on this list.
Re emeritus status for committers: I'd like it not to constitute an automatic "kicking you off the island" action. For example, I wouldn't want to close off commit access on day 181. It can be a time when we automatically check on the level of involvement an emeritus / emerita wishes to keep. I'm fine with softening the bylaw verbiage in that regard. I do think it's in our interest to keep the committership and PMC membership mostly active. For example, having many inactive committers brings a higher risk of a compromised committer account causing trouble. Also, it'd be hard collecting a 2/3 majority of PMC members when many are not paying any attention. On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Joey Echeverria <[email protected]>wrote: > "Emeritus" is not an official ASF designation. As far as the ASF is > concerned, you're either a Committer, a PMC member, or both, or not at all. > > The reason other projects use the emeritus designation is to avoid > overstating active involvement. An "emeritus" member does not lose any > privileges as far as ASF is concerned. If you want to remove privileges, I > believe that the PMC has to vote to that effect. > > -Joey > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Sean Busbey <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > If people have substantive questions (as opposed to requests for edits / > > clarification), I'd rather they be here on the list. > > > > My main issue is the automatic transition to emeritus status for > committers > > / PMCs at 6 months. That's a significant change. Do we know what the > > current impact of that would be? > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Bill Havanki <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > I have some minor edits and some questions about it, which I'll add as > > > comments in the doc. I also agree that a weather allowance is a good > > idea. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for putting it in a Google Doc, Arshak! > > > > > > > > What issues do y'all see with this document in it's current state? > > > > Personally, I think it looks fine and would be willing to start a > vote > > on > > > > it, but I get the impression that east coast weather has prevented > some > > > > folk from looking at it, so maybe another couple of days is fine. > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Arshak Navruzyan <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Oops, yes of course! It's editable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Bill Havanki < > > > [email protected] > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Arshak! Can you either allow editing or commenting? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Arshak Navruzyan < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Say no more ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uR8vhIQcKGA6IEtbbF5D7UL_e6WGtfXMUQHp8Fwvg_E/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Christopher < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps some ambitious volunteer could start a collaborative > > > draft > > > > of > > > > > > > > Accumulo's bylaws in Google Docs or something, using ZK as a > > > > starting > > > > > > > > point. After it stabilizes a bit, we could push it to the > > project > > > > > > > > webpage as a draft and vote on it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II > > > > > > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Mike Drob < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I didn't get that impression from reading their document. > > > While C > > > > > and > > > > > > > PMC > > > > > > > > > are two distinct roles, there is nothing stating that there > > > > cannot > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > overlap, and the fact that there is 100% overlap is > entirely > > > > > > > orthogonal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Josh Elser < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> This would change the existing Committer == PMC, no? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> That's the biggest thing I noticed scanning over the > > document. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> On 2/14/14, 1:19 PM, Mike Drob wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >>> I think we should have some Bylaws, as that gives us more > > > > > structure > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >>> operate under. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> I propose that we adopt the ZooKeeper bylaws, replacing > all > > > > > > > references > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > >>> ZK with Accumulo. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> http://zookeeper.apache.org/bylaws.html > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> What say ye? > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> Mike > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- | - - - | Bill Havanki | Solutions Architect, Cloudera Government Solutions | - - -
