I am not actively committing but would not like losing committer status. Moving me to an emeritus status would be fine. I am following threads. It's just I don't have the after-hours time to devote to working on the code. That might change in the future, but then I'd probably use a github fork and make a pull request instead of changing the code directly.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Sean Busbey <[email protected]>wrote: > "After six months of inactivity a PMC member will be given an emeritus > designation. Emeritus members retain all voting and commit rights, and can > move themselves out of emeritus status at any time by sending an > announcement of their return to the developer mailing list." > > I prefer phrasing that makes the rest of the community aware of the change. > > If we're going to track emeritus status on the webpage, we should include > language > about maintaining it. > > -Sean > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> wrote: > > > According to the ASF, an emeritus retains all the rights of the > position. I > > agree that we should not be removing anybody's commit bit due to > > inactivity. Once granted, that privilege is for life. > > > > However, I feel like there should be room for folks that have moved on > from > > the community in some way that recognizes their past contribution. If > I've > > been away for two years, I don't know that I would have meaningful > insight > > on new committers or possibly even releases! In cases of lazy > > consensus/lazy majority, it might not matter, but for a full vote you'd > > have a hard time getting my attention. > > > > How about this for a change (feel free to word-smith): > > > > "After six months of inactivity a PMC member will be given an emeritus > > designation. Emeritus members retain all voting and commit rights, and > can > > move themselves out of emeritus status at any time." > > > > And then we leave all the vote bylaws referring to "Active PMC" > unchanged. > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Josh Elser <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > 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 > > >>> | - - - > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >
