And the site, which will need a different command, since it is in SVN. Probably would be good to check JIRA and the mailing list too.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > A point of completeness: you should also be merging those lists across the > main repo and the contribs. > > > On 2/18/14, 1:54 PM, Mike Drob wrote: > >> git log --pretty=format:"%an" --since=$(date +%Y-%m-%d --date='6 months >> ago') | sort | uniq >> >> That will get you a list of everybody that has committed in the past 6 >> months, including contributors. Cross-checking against the list of >> committers is left as an exercise for the reader. (Mostly because I didn't >> have a good file to diff against). >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:46 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> We are not removing them as a committer, we are just revoking their >>> commit >>> access to the code repo due to inactivity. I agree with consensus for >>> removing them as a committer in general, but not for revoking commit >>> access >>> due to inactivity. I would imagine that all they have to do to regain >>> their >>> access is send an email to the list saying, "I tried to commit a code >>> change >>> but could not login." >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: John Vines [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 4:41 PM >>> To: Accumulo Dev List >>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo Bylaws >>> >>> 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_e6WGtfXM >>>>> UQ >>>>> 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 >>>> | - - - >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>
