I agree with Ben here. I think we do need sometime to get more bodies contributing to the ZooKeeper codebase. Being a subproject of Hadoop gives us quite a few benefits like branding/discoverability (as Pat mentioned). These benefits are important to us given our small developer base and the limited amount we can spend on evangelizing ZooKeeper.
Being a TLP in the near future would be good goal to have but for now, I would like to see a more diverse community before we move to a TLP. Thanks mahadev On 3/22/10 5:07 PM, "Benjamin Reed" <br...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote: > pat, i think you articulated well the problems with becoming a TLP. you > don't seem to have voted for one of the options though :) > > i guess my view corresponds to option 2). it does seem like a good idea > in the long term for ZooKeeper to become its own project, but for the > near term, for the reasons you've enumerated, i think would should > remain under hadoop. btw, i think the diverse developer community is the > most problematic. i think we should stick with apache rules and make > sure that we have active committers from at least 3 different > organizations. i think it is an important milestone. > > ben > > On 03/22/2010 11:32 AM, Patrick Hunt wrote: >> You have probably heard by now that there is a discussion going on in >> the Hadoop PMC as to whether a number of the subprojects (Hbase, Avro, >> Zookeeper, Hive, and Pig) should move out from under the Hadoop >> umbrella and become top level Apache projects (TLP). This discussion >> has picked up recently since the Apache board has clearly communicated >> to the Hadoop PMC that it is concerned that Hadoop is acting as an >> umbrella project with many disjoint subprojects underneath it. They >> are concerned that this gives Apache little insight into the health >> and happenings of the subproject communities which in turn means >> Apache cannot properly mentor those communities. >> >> The purpose of this email is to start a discussion within the >> ZooKeeper community about this topic. Let me cover first what becoming >> TLP would mean for ZooKeeper, and then I'll go into what options I >> think we as a community have. >> >> Becoming a TLP would mean that ZooKeeper would itself have a PMC that >> would report directly to the Apache board. Who would be on the PMC >> would be something we as a community would need to decide. Common >> options would be to say all active committers are on the PMC, or all >> active committers who have been a committer for at least a year. We >> would also need to elect a chair of the PMC. This lucky person would >> have no additional power, but would have the additional responsibility >> of writing quarterly reports on ZooKeeper's status for Apache board >> meetings, as well as coordinating with Apache to get accounts for new >> committers, etc. We currently submit these same reports, however they >> are forwarded to the board through the Hadoop PMC Chair. For more >> information see >> http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles >> >> Becoming a TLP would not mean that we are ostracized from the Hadoop >> community. We would continue to be invited to Hadoop Summits, HUGs, >> etc. >> >> I see three ways that we as a community can respond to this: >> >> 1) Say yes, we want to be a TLP now. >> >> 2) Say yes, we want to be a TLP, but not yet. We feel we need more >> time to mature. If we choose this option we need to be able to clearly >> articulate how much time we need and what we hope to see change in >> that time. >> >> 3) Say no, we feel the benefits for us staying with Hadoop outweigh >> the drawbacks of being a disjoint subproject. If we choose this, we >> need to be able to say exactly what those benefits are and why we feel >> they will be compromised by leaving the Hadoop project. >> >> There may other options that I haven't thought of. Please feel free to >> suggest any you think of. >> >> Here are the thoughts I've formed so far on the subject: >> >> Benefits of moving to TLP: >> >> a) Here's the boards view as communicated to me: >> >> "we're looking to ensure that proper and effective oversight is >> reached, and umbrellas can get in the way of that. If you *also* think >> that all of your communities have proper oversight, and that you're >> communicating enough about each/all of them to the Board, so that *it* >> can provide oversight, then that's just fine. Go do the review and >> come back and say, "we're all good. no changes are necessary."" >> >> b) setting our own course - we would have our own PMC and therefore >> have more latitude (within the apache rules of course) in setting >> direction. PMC members would be focused on ZooKeeper exclusively. >> >> >> Serious reservations I personally have with a move to TLP today: >> >> a) I do not think ZooKeeper currently has a sufficiently large and >> diverse enough community such that it can fend for itself as a >> TLP. Our community is working hard to establish a critical mass, given >> our maturity level, complexity of code, and the stakes involved (ZK is >> literally the linchpin of many of our user's computing >> infrastructures) it has been hard to attract/promote developers. We >> currently have 5 active committers, 4 from one company and 1 from >> a separate one (who only recently joined the committer ranks). The >> board has stated they are willing to break their own rules here (form >> a TLP with less than acceptable diversity) however I don't believe that >> would be prudent from our perspective. >> >> b) Loss of branding and discover-ability - "in the land of the cloud >> the elephant is king". IMO being associated with Hadoop is a huge win >> for us in terms of branding and discover-ability. This is similar to >> the benefits we get of being an Apache project. People who are serious >> about the cloud need to look at Hadoop. In the process they discover >> ZooKeeper. >> >> c) "if ain't broke don't fix it". I have frequent interactions with >> Hadoop PMC/Chair and an Apache board member. We are getting excellent >> representation through this process and I don't see how visibility >> "up" or support "down" could be improved. >> >> Questions? Thoughts? Rebuttal? Let the discussion begin. >> >> Patrick >> >> >