Now that I think about it, I wonder if "Moderate" was a drop-down selection from the reporter tool. I seem to remember having a similar observation for the last report. If that's the case, then it probably doesn't matter what you select. Sorry if my feedback on that point was misplaced. I'll trust you to leave it whichever way you think is best, even if you decide that it's better to change it back to Moderate.
On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 5:29 PM dev1 <d...@etcoleman.com> wrote: > > I included Christopher’s and Dan’s suggestions. The current report text > reads: > > --- text pasted from report tool --- > > ## Description: > The mission of Apache Accumulo is the creation and maintenance of software > related to a robust, scalable, distributed key/value store with cell-based > access control and customizable server-side processing. > > ## Project Status: > - Current project status: Ongoing with high activity. > - Issues for the board: None. > > Accumulo is currently working some significant development efforts. Improving > the performance and stability of the 2.1.x line, adding new features and > performance improvements to 3.1 line, and the evolution of the processing > model to support dynamic scaling and provide elasticity. > > The issue concerning accumulodata.com domain was raised at the last board > meeting. We have not been reporting on the issue because there has been no > progress and we stopped actively pursuing the issue (see past reports for > details.) The domain was registered and is owned by an Accumulo PMC member, > but the domain was registered using an account that is not longer accessible. > Without access to that account, the registrar will not take any action. For > some reason, the domain continues to be auto-renewed. The domain clearly > provides historical information and points to the official Accumulo ASF site > for downloads. There seems little incentive to use volunteer's time to pursue > the issue at this time. Unless things change, we will not continue to report > on this issue in future reports. > > ## Membership Data: > Apache Accumulo was founded 2012-03-21 (12 years ago) There are currently 42 > committers and 39 PMC members in this project. Our committer and PMC ratio is > roughly 1:1. It is our practice to invite committers to be PMC members at the > same time. The difference between committer and PMC members is because some > PMC members have elected to go emeritus. > > Community changes, past quarter: > - Daniel Roberts was added to the PMC on 2023-08-09 > - Daniel Roberts was added as committer on 2023-08-10 > > ## Project Activity: > > ### Releases: > > - accumulo-2.1.2 was released on 2023-08-21. > - accumulo-3.0.0 was released on 2023-08-21. > - accumulo-1.10.3 was released on 2023-04-13. > > Activity on 2.1.3 has been very active with bug-fixes and performance > improvements that are being driven by community adoption of 2.1.x as > 1.10.x approaches end of life. > > Accumulo is planning on a 2.1.3 release [1] this quarter with additional bug > fixes and performance improvements. As of 2023-09-27, there have been 40 > issues / PR closed since 2.1.2 was released. There are just a few items that > have been marked as blockers for 2.1.3, and they are actively being worked. > > Accumulo is planning on a 1.10.4 release [2] this quarter as the last release > of the 1.10 line that reaches declared end-of-life 2023-11-01. > > Accumulo 3.0.0 release was a removal of deprecated items as permitted by > semver. Work is actively proceeding on 3.1 that will contain new features and > performance improvements. > > In parallel to 3.1, work on the evolution of the Accumulo processing model to > support dynamic scaling and provide elasticity [3]. The goal for Accumulo is > to move from a model where active table metadata and table data management is > hosted in active processes to a model that can dynamically scale server > components on-demand to provide configurable latency and higher scalability. > The working being perfumed on elasticity will likely be a 4.0 release, but > that has not been formally decided by the community. > > ## Community Health: > > Overall community health is good and GitHub activity remains consistent. > > - The current variations in GitHub activity are due to quiet post-release > activity and work concentrating on a redesign efforts, including activity > occurring on Confluence > > - Accumulo has transitioned from Jira to GitHub issues. The remaining Jira > activity reflects closing obsolete issues. > > ## Links > [1] https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/30 > [2] https://github.com/apache/accumulo/projects/27 > [3] https://github.com/orgs/apache/projects/164/views/1 > > From: Christopher <ctubb...@apache.org> > Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 3:26 PM > To: dev@accumulo.apache.org <dev@accumulo.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Accumulo Board Report - due by Oct 11th > I wouldn't describe the ongoing activity as "moderate". It seems > pretty busy, at least as busy as ever, anyway. Maybe that's what you > meant, but it feels like the word "moderate" carries the connotation > of "mediocre" to me. I think we've been pretty active addressing the > 2.1 issues. Not everything being investigated results in a commit, > though, and you've explained that already when you talk about a > decline in GitHub activity... although I don't think that decline is > really that significant. You also went on to describe work planned > towards a final 1.10 release, work on multiple 2.1 releases, a 3.0 > release, work on 3.1, and we also have work on the elasticity branch. > This is all happening concurrently, so I don't think "moderate" is a > good descriptor. > > "metatdata" is misspelled. Should be metadata. > > While we haven't formally voted or anything, it seems likely that the > elasticity work will be a 4.0 release, and that seems like the current > plan. Saying we haven't decided yet makes it seem like it could still > be a 3.x release, and while that's technically true in that no version > number is final until we vote on it, I don't think any of us believe > that it will be a 3.x release. I would either omit this entirely, or > just mention that it's likely to be a 4.0. > > You mention the committer and PMC ratio is roughly 1:1. I think it > would be good to explain that the discrepancy is due to PMC members > voluntarily electing to go emeritus. You could say something like "It > is our practice to invite committers to be PMC members at the same > time, but some PMC members have subsequently elected to go emeritus". > (Even better if you can say that more succinctly than I did.) > > You say we're working on "two significant development efforts". I > would say "*at least* two significant development efforts", as some of > us are also working on things that are outside of that (like the > no-chop merge feature for 3.1, and some other things like that, which > are not dependent on elasticity). Maybe those other things aren't as > "significant", but that's subjective, so I think adding "at least" > makes it more accurate. > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 12:24 PM dev1 <d...@etcoleman.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks – fixed in tool. > > > > FYI: The reason for the caution is that formatting / wrapping / whitespace > > with text pasted into the email may differ than what the tool will submit. > > > > Ed Coleman > > > > From: Daniel Roberts <ddani...@gmail.com> > > Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 10:53 AM > > To: dev@accumulo.apache.org <dev@accumulo.apache.org> > > Subject: Re: Accumulo Board Report - due by Oct 11th > > I know you mentioned that this draft may not be the submitted version, > > but "current project status" is duplicated in the same line. > >
