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
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.
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.
> 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
>> Becoming a TLP would not mean that we are ostracized from the Hadoop
>> community. We would continue to be invited to Hadoop Summits, HUGs,
>> 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
>> 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.