Sounds fantastic, thanks too for the additional context! I’d love for us to lead the way here (yet again).
Best Jan — > On 12. Feb 2019, at 20:15, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > There appears to be general consensus on the RFC process, with no > objections to the proposal itself. > > I'd like to propose the following changes to our bylaws: > > https://github.com/apache/couchdb-www/commit/8ae3a5a230b1717d7affe23625eeb288635aa542 > > Quick summary: > > * Added the RFC proposal process > * The RFC will become an official template as part of this > * https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/1914 adds Bob's request > to include a Security section > > * Proposed a new "qualified lazy majority" approval model for RFCs: > * Requires 3 binding +1 votes > * Requires more binding +1 votes than binding -1 votes > * (NEW) Requires at least +1 binding vote from an individual > not directly affiliated with the proposer's employer (if > applicable) > > * Changed URLs to use the new Pony Mail web interface (yay!) > > While today we are in a great situation where no single entity dominates > CouchDB development (to the exclusion of others), I believe this new > approval model (just for RFCs) will prevent that from occurring in the > future, and will ease a long-standing concern I have held. > > > If there is no strong objection, I will start the VOTE later this week. > As this is both creating and amending our official documents, the vote > will be a lazy 2/3 majority vote, with binding votes only from PMC > members. > > > Why is this so important to me? Recently, on another ASF mailing list, > there was a discussion about some of the changes happening in the > commercial world, and as it relates to big companies giving back to open > source. (You may have read about some competing database projects > changing their license, for instance.) > > Allen Wittenauer graciously allowed me to excerpt his post, which is > critical of the Apache Hadoop community, and share it here as a > cautionary tale: > >>> This pretty much ignores the committer hoarding that is >>> happening in a lot of ASF projects. It’s something that Jeff >>> hinted at in a previous reply that I think people completely >>> missed: >>> >>>> The obvious reality is that the companies who build service around >>>> "pay to call me when it breaks" are very, very often the same >>>> companies who hire all the committers, who fund all the dev, who end >>>> up in danger when a cloud provider offers their product as a >>>> service. >>> >>> Most of the Hadoop vendors tried to hire as many of the >>> committers as they possibly could and was even part of some >>> PR campaigns (“We have more!” “Ours were first!”) This >>> resulted in the community outside of those vendors being >>> mostly ignored. This also built a feedback loop where PMC >>> members promote their coworkers at a significantly higher >>> rate than non-coworkers because the only contributions that >>> were being looked at were the ones that helped their >>> employers. (Anecdotally, coworkers: committer in 6 months, >>> non-coworkers, ~1-2 years, if ever) As a result, the project >>> is a shell of its former self since it was impossible for >>> outsiders to make major, disruptive advancements in the >>> project. Worse yet, Hadoop is now overwhelmingly controlled >>> by one company since two of those vendors were forced to >>> merge. >> [snip] >>> This is probably the key reason why a lot of companies >>> participate in open source. Maybe if companies didn’t feel >>> the need to hire every single person they could get their >>> hands on to try and control the project, maybe the cloud >>> providers would be more willing to donate man power. As it >>> is, there is little point for anyone outside of a company >>> whose mission is to be “the source” for their project >>> (officially or unofficially) to contribute to non-diverse >>> projects. > > From my informal chats with people at ApacheCon 2018 in Montreal, this > is a hot-button topic. I'd like to get CouchDB out from under this > cloud. > > Again I am NOT ASSERTING that this is where we are today. I think our > dev community works well together and is not controlled by a single > entity. I just want to remove the possibility for this sort of abuse to > occur, and I think that doing so thru the RFC process is the right step > at this time. > > It is in everyone's best interest that RFCs happen, that we have > consensus agreement on them, and that an open vote happens where it's > clear that no single party is forcing through changes against the will > of other committed parties. > > -Joan -- Professional Support for Apache CouchDB: https://neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
