On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Jonathan Gray <jg...@facebook.com> wrote: > Annoyance has really not gotten us anywhere. And I don't think it matters to > those in Hadoop whether we are a TLP or SP, they will not (or should not) be > offended if we break off. Do you think they would take us (or our patches) > less seriously if we were a TLP? >
No. > What has pushed things forward is continuing to make HBase better so that > more people want to use it. A larger community and involvement from larger > companies will help push Hadoop changes aimed at HBase, especially when those > companies are Hadoop contributors. > Agreed. > If we do think we can get some HBase committers onto the Hadoop PMC, and we > think that this will make a material difference in outcomes for us, then my > opinion may change. Today I don't really think the issue is whether we are > on the Hadoop PMC or not... my understanding is that big decisions are not > voted on for a majority, if someone votes against it then it is tabled. > The quoted rule where long-time Hadoop subproject committers become Hadoop PMC members may not actually hold. Or, to put it a another way, efforts at trying to take advantage of this rule have run into resistance, understandably so -- as in, how does hbase expertise entitle a committer to hdfs commit rights? -- and I do not intend to push it further. So, that leaves the Jay Booth "stay and be annoying -- in a good way" opinion, outstanding as a reason not to move. My current thought on this is that the work involved will be the same regardless -- i.e. the patch making, JIRA bashing, and consensus building -- whether we're under the hadoop umbrella or up on a TLP perch. St.Ack
