1) Agree w/ Bill. 2) Agree w/ Bill.
3) In my understanding, codebase includes the site svn, the primary git repository, and all contrib repositories. Adoption of a new codebase generally refers to the creation of a new contrib repository. However, I could see it also expanded to cover things like re-doing the entire site look and feel, or merging a contrib project into the primary codebase. Christopher, do you have any proposed verbiage that you would like to see specifically? 4) I very much disagree, Christopher. Having a dedicated release manager is critical to having a release occur in a timely manner. Further, the community needs to be able to make hard decisions, like setting a feature or code freeze date, or pulling incomplete work out of a branch. Right now, we have release managers in name only, and I would love to see us give them more authority on performing the release - right now we have a steady stream of small changes that developers feel should be exempt from the freeze, something I'm guilty of myself as well. I see the lack of a formalized release plan as one reason for why releases tend to drag on for far too long. In short, if we don't have a release manager pushing for them, then releases just won't happen. It's a gruelling task, and we need to have procedure to bless somebody to do it. Mike On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:03 PM, Bill Havanki <[email protected]>wrote: > My sense from the conversations leading up to the vote: > > 1) I believe the list is comprehensive, in that no other voting actions are > contemplated. If we realize we need a new one, we can add it later. > > 2) We determined that a committer, by ASF rules, cannot truly lose > committer status [1], so no removal procedure is defined. Removal of a PMC > member is up to the ASF Board [2], so no procedure is defined. > > 3) I see no harm in adding a definition. > > 4) I think the "release plan" is the process for cutting a release, while > "product release" is for approving a specific RC as the release. For me, a > boilerplate release plan with customizations (who is the RM, what tests are > needed, time frame for freezes, etc.) would be nice to have laid out. > > [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/committers.html#committer-set-term > [2] http://www.apache.org/dev/pmc.html#pmc-removal > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Since I didn't technically vote, I guess I will now: > > I'm going to give it a -1, pending the resolution the following > > issues, and for an opportunity to correct the minor punctuation/typos. > > > > Specifically, I'd like these addressed before I change my vote: > > 1) clarification of whether the ACTIONS list is comprehensive > > 2) clarify reinstatement in the absence of a lack of removal procedures > > 3) codebase defined (or at least, Adoption of New Codebase clarified) > > 4) remove "release plan" as requiring a vote (or discuss), because > > while it is nice to coordinate release candidates through a release > > manager, I'm not sure it should be strictly necessary that release > > candidates be planned, or limited to that release manager. > > > > > > -- > > Christopher L Tubbs II > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Christopher <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > ***Punctuation: > > > > > > PMC section: > > > "PMC from a Foundation perspective is" -> "PMC, from a Foundation > > > perspective, is" > > > "Secondly " -> "Secondly, " > > > "long term" -> "long-term" > > > "not coding - but to ensure" -> "not coding, but to ensure" > > > "Within the ASF we worry" -> "Within the ASF, we worry" > > > > > > VETOES section (comma): > > > "veto - merely that" -> "veto, merely that" > > > > > > ***Typos: > > > > > > APPROVALS section (typo): > > > "that -1 votes" -> "than -1 votes" > > > > > > ***Definitions: > > > I would like to see "codebase" defined. It's used throughout, but is > > > never clearly defined... particularly in the "Adoption of New > > > Codebase" section of the ACTIONS section. > > > > > > ***Other: > > > In the ACTIONS section, it describes reinstatement actions, but not > > > removal actions, so it's not clear what reinstatement means. > > > > > > It should also be made clear that the ACTIONS section is not a > > > comprehensive list of actions. > > > > > > I'm also not sure that the "Release plan" should require a vote, as > > > this seems covered by the "Product release" situation. The other > > > actions seem to imply a vote is required for that action. Are we > > > saying that planning to release requires a vote? If so, I can get on > > > board... I just don't remember that happening in the past, so this > > > isn't so much a formalization of our existing practices, but also > > > establishing a new one as well. And, in this case, I'm not sure it's > > > one we need. > > > > > > -- > > > Christopher L Tubbs II > > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Bill Havanki < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> I clarify my vote with it being the first +1 (I approve) :) > > >> > > >> > > >> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:29 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Was pointed out an error in the vote descriptions. They should be: > > >>> > > >>> [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaws and accept them for the > > Apache > > >>> Accumulo project" > > >>> [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these bylaws, but > accept > > them > > >>> for the Apache Accumulo project" > > >>> [ ] -1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaws and do not accept > > them > > >>> for the Apache Accumulo project because..." > > >>> > > >>> Obviously, everybody has a choice when they're voting. :) > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Mike Drob <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > Please vote on the proposed bylaws, as available at > > >>> > > > >>> > > > https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/accumulo/site/trunk/content/bylaws.mdtext?revision=1574615&view=markup > > >>> > > > >>> > A nicer to read version is available at > > >>> > http://accumulo.apache.org/bylaws.html > > >>> > > > >>> > This vote will be open for 7 days, until 17 March 18:15 UTC. > > >>> > > > >>> > Upon successful completion of this vote, the first line of the > > document > > >>> > body will be replaced with "This is version 1 of the bylaws." > > >>> Additionally, > > >>> > and a link will be added to this document on the nav-bar on the > left. > > >>> > > > >>> > This vote requires majority approval to pass: at least 3 +1 votes > and > > >>> more > > >>> > +1 than -1's. > > >>> > > > >>> > Mike > > >>> > > > >>> > [ ] +1 - "I approve of these proposed bylaws and accept them for > the > > >>> > Apache Accumulo project" > > >>> > [ ] +0 - "I neither approve nor disapprove of these bylaws, but > > accept > > >>> > them for the Apache Accumulo project" > > >>> > [ ] +1 - "I do not approve of these proposed bylaws and do not > accept > > >>> them > > >>> > for the Apache Accumulo project because..." > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> // Bill Havanki > > >> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions > > >> // 443.686.9283 > > > > > > -- > // Bill Havanki > // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions > // 443.686.9283 >
