Because it should be hard to remove someone but easy to bring them back.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:36 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > " 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." > > +1 > > Do we know which committers have not committed a change in 6 months? > > I see that " Commit access can be revoked by a unanimous vote of all the > active PMC members", but re-instatement is by lazy concensus. Why are they > different? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bill Havanki [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 11:39 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo Bylaws > > 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_e6WGtfXMUQ > > Hp8Fwvg_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 > | - - - > >
