+1
From: Jay Doane <jaydo...@apache.org>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Cc: "priv...@couchdb.apache.org Private"
<priv...@couchdb.apache.org>
Date: 2019/07/31 12:31 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [VOTE] Adopt FoundationDB
+1
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:27 AM Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote:
> Dear CouchDB developers,
>
> This vote decides whether the CouchDB project accepts the proposal[1]
> to switch our underlying storage and distributed systems technology out
> for FoundationDB[2].
>
> At the outset, we said that we wanted to cover these topic areas before
> making a vote:
>
> - Bylaw changes
> - RFC process: done, passed
> - Add qualified vote option: done, changes proposed were not
> ratified
>
> - Roadmap: proposal done, detailed discussions TBD, includes
> deprecations
>
> - Onboarding: ASF onboarding links shared, CouchDB specific onboarding
> TBD.
>
> - (Re-)Branding: tentatively: 3.0 is the last release before FDB
> CouchDB and 4.0 is the FDB CouchDB. If we need nicknames, we can
> decide on those later.
>
> - FoundationDB Governance: FoundationDB is currently loosely organised
> between Apple and a few key stakeholder companies invested in the
> technology. Apple contributions are trending downwards relatively,
> approaching 50%, which means in the future, more non-Apple than Apple
> contributions are likely.
>
> In addition, the CouchDB PMC has requested addition to the current
> organisational FDB weekly meeting, which is where any more formal
> governance decisions are going to be made and the CouchDB PMC can be
> a part of the surrounding discussions.
>
> - FoundationDB Operations knowledge: IBM has intends to share this
> knowledge as they acquire it in conjunction with Apache CouchDB in
> terms of general ops knowledge, best practices and tooling.
>
> - Proj. Mgmt.: RFC process + outline list of TBD RFCs allow for enough
> visibility and collaboration opportunities, everyone on dev@ list is
> encouraged to participate.
>
> - Tech deep dives: DISCUSS threads and RFCs are covering this, current
> list of TBD DISCUSS/RFCs, for the proposal. Most of which were
> already discussed on dev@ or RFC’d in our documentation repo:
>
> * JSON doc storage and storage of edit conflicts
> * revision management
> * _changes feed
> * _db_updates
> * _all_docs
> * database creation and deletion
> * attachments
> * mango indexes (including collation)
> * map-only views / search / geo
> * reduces
> * aggregate metrics (data_size, etc.)
> * release engineering
> * local/desktop/dev install security
>
> * * *
>
> As shown above, all topics we wanted to have clarity on have been
> advanced to a point where we are now ready to make a decision:
>
> Should Apache CouchDB adopt FoundationDB?
>
> Since this is a big decision, I suggest we make this a Lazy 2/3
> Majority Vote with PMC Binding Votes, and a 7 day duration (as per our
> bylaws[3]).
>
> You can cast your votes now.
>
> Best
> Jan
> —
> [1]:
>
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.apache.org_thread.html_04e7889354c077a6beb91fd1292b6d38b7a3f2c6a5dc7d20f5b87c44-40-253Cdev.couchdb.apache.org-253E&d=DwIFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=PKZ65oA9tV05sXjYYyZUJf_d-ASaaLXiLw-gQdWPDsQ&m=qsM6eX1QVPJG5W8VM7Kg5qnsZNRqCUU8wJt-EVgeMiw&s=foiSfiz7cUIVHJ6iFa7lBFPeH5jsJutOUbowC5qXkbg&e=
> [2]:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.foundationdb.org&d=DwIFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=PKZ65oA9tV05sXjYYyZUJf_d-ASaaLXiLw-gQdWPDsQ&m=qsM6eX1QVPJG5W8VM7Kg5qnsZNRqCUU8wJt-EVgeMiw&s=lXeAOVGHLU5S2NzLoB1RCrDsDbqeewi-JCJhPbsDOjU&e=
> [3]:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__couchdb.apache.org_bylaws.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=PKZ65oA9tV05sXjYYyZUJf_d-ASaaLXiLw-gQdWPDsQ&m=qsM6eX1QVPJG5W8VM7Kg5qnsZNRqCUU8wJt-EVgeMiw&s=JmjcTii6e8eiGNoQyhPeWY5-2LWfaZ1QX3ThoehIzQQ&e=
>
>
>
