If we can't trust committers to keep their accounts secure, I'm pretty
sure that's already a big issue at the larger ASF level. I also wouldn't
want to push even more work on INFRA to revoke/reinstate write access to
repos -- this isn't something we control AFAIK.
Overall, that idea doesn't sit right with me. Being a committer but
having to re-ask for your committer rights if you go away for a while
doesn't jive with my view of things.
On 2/18/14, 1:46 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
| - - -
