New committer: lazy concensus Re-instatement as a committer: lazy concensus Removing write access to git/svn repo: full concensus Removing someone as a committer: full concensus
I guess I don't understand why full concensus is needed to remove write access to the repo due to inactivity, when it is so easy to get it back. IMO, it should be a notice email to the dev list and then an INFRA ticket for those that don't respond in the affirmative that they are working or planning on working on a change. I don't see it as punitive, I see it as cleanup. I don't see why pinging inactive members to see if they are still involved (or want to be involved) requires everyone to vote. -0 for the implementation of committer list maintenance :-) -----Original Message----- From: Mike Drob [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 4:57 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo Bylaws I would like to think that the ASF would prevent us from doing something incredibly stupid, because we have to refer removal votes to them anyway. What problem are you trying to address, Dave? Both unanimous votes to remove, and lazy consensus vote to re-instate can be ground to a halt by a single voice of reason. On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:53 PM, John Vines <[email protected]> wrote: > Because there may, someday (ideally never), be someone who needs to > removed who should not be granted access back. > > > 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_e6WG > > > > tfXM > > > > 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 > > > | - - - > > > > > > > > > > >
