You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@orc.apache.org by Owen O'Malley <om...@apache.org> on 2015/07/07 05:25:34 UTC
[DISCUSS] Creating Orc bylaws
Although a community of Orcs seems unlikely to have any rules (other than
the strongest one makes the rules), Apache projects are supposed to create
a set. I've borrowed heavily from the Hadoop and Hive bylaws, but take a
look to see if they look reasonable.
Comments desired.
https://github.com/omalley/orc/blob/bylaws/site/develop/bylaws.md
.. Owen
Re: [DISCUSS] Creating Orc bylaws
Posted by Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>.
Looks good. The "Release Plan" on the dev list may be excessively
formal for such a focused project. -C
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Owen O'Malley <om...@apache.org> wrote:
> Although a community of Orcs seems unlikely to have any rules (other than
> the strongest one makes the rules), Apache projects are supposed to create
> a set. I've borrowed heavily from the Hadoop and Hive bylaws, but take a
> look to see if they look reasonable.
>
> Comments desired.
>
> https://github.com/omalley/orc/blob/bylaws/site/develop/bylaws.md
>
> .. Owen
Re: [DISCUSS] Creating Orc bylaws
Posted by Lefty Leverenz <le...@gmail.com>.
Just to stir things up, how about oRC?
(Kidding, mostly.)
-- Lefty
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Prasanth J <j....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I also vote for ORC for the same reason.
>
> > On Jul 14, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Sandryhaila, Aliaksei <
> aliaksei.sandryhaila@hp.com> wrote:
> >
> > Since it's an acronym, I prefer ORC.
> >
> >
> > On 07/14/2015 01:14 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
> >> Sorry, I haven't been consistent. I lean toward Orc. What do others
> think?
> >>
> >> .. Owen
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Lefty Leverenz <
> leftyleverenz@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Is the name officially "Orc" instead of "ORC"?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -- Lefty
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Sandryhaila, Aliaksei <
> >>> aliaksei.sandryhaila@hp.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> +1
> >>>>
> >>>> On 07/06/2015 11:25 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
> >>>>> Although a community of Orcs seems unlikely to have any rules (other
> >>> than
> >>>>> the strongest one makes the rules), Apache projects are supposed to
> >>>> create
> >>>>> a set. I've borrowed heavily from the Hadoop and Hive bylaws, but
> take
> >>> a
> >>>>> look to see if they look reasonable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Comments desired.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://github.com/omalley/orc/blob/bylaws/site/develop/bylaws.md
> >>>>>
> >>>>> .. Owen
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Creating Orc bylaws
Posted by Prasanth J <j....@gmail.com>.
I also vote for ORC for the same reason.
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 11:02 AM, Sandryhaila, Aliaksei <al...@hp.com> wrote:
>
> Since it's an acronym, I prefer ORC.
>
>
> On 07/14/2015 01:14 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>> Sorry, I haven't been consistent. I lean toward Orc. What do others think?
>>
>> .. Owen
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Lefty Leverenz <le...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is the name officially "Orc" instead of "ORC"?
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Lefty
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Sandryhaila, Aliaksei <
>>> aliaksei.sandryhaila@hp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> On 07/06/2015 11:25 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>>>>> Although a community of Orcs seems unlikely to have any rules (other
>>> than
>>>>> the strongest one makes the rules), Apache projects are supposed to
>>>> create
>>>>> a set. I've borrowed heavily from the Hadoop and Hive bylaws, but take
>>> a
>>>>> look to see if they look reasonable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments desired.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/omalley/orc/blob/bylaws/site/develop/bylaws.md
>>>>>
>>>>> .. Owen
>>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Creating Orc bylaws
Posted by "Sandryhaila, Aliaksei" <al...@hp.com>.
Since it's an acronym, I prefer ORC.
On 07/14/2015 01:14 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
> Sorry, I haven't been consistent. I lean toward Orc. What do others think?
>
> .. Owen
>
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Lefty Leverenz <le...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Is the name officially "Orc" instead of "ORC"?
>>
>>
>> -- Lefty
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Sandryhaila, Aliaksei <
>> aliaksei.sandryhaila@hp.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On 07/06/2015 11:25 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>>>> Although a community of Orcs seems unlikely to have any rules (other
>> than
>>>> the strongest one makes the rules), Apache projects are supposed to
>>> create
>>>> a set. I've borrowed heavily from the Hadoop and Hive bylaws, but take
>> a
>>>> look to see if they look reasonable.
>>>>
>>>> Comments desired.
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/omalley/orc/blob/bylaws/site/develop/bylaws.md
>>>>
>>>> .. Owen
>>>>
>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Creating Orc bylaws
Posted by Owen O'Malley <om...@apache.org>.
Sorry, I haven't been consistent. I lean toward Orc. What do others think?
.. Owen
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Lefty Leverenz <le...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Is the name officially "Orc" instead of "ORC"?
>
>
> -- Lefty
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Sandryhaila, Aliaksei <
> aliaksei.sandryhaila@hp.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On 07/06/2015 11:25 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
> > > Although a community of Orcs seems unlikely to have any rules (other
> than
> > > the strongest one makes the rules), Apache projects are supposed to
> > create
> > > a set. I've borrowed heavily from the Hadoop and Hive bylaws, but take
> a
> > > look to see if they look reasonable.
> > >
> > > Comments desired.
> > >
> > > https://github.com/omalley/orc/blob/bylaws/site/develop/bylaws.md
> > >
> > > .. Owen
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Creating Orc bylaws
Posted by Owen O'Malley <om...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Lefty Leverenz <le...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I have some questions and comments, plus a long list of edits and trivia.
> I'll put the latter in a separate message tomorrow.
>
> Introduction
>
> - '*Be collaborative.* Working together on the open lists to make
> decisions helps the project grow.' -- Does 'open lists' mean the mailing
> lists? How about 'open mailing lists, JIRA, and review board'? (or
> 'bug
> database' instead of JIRA)
>
Yes, I meant the open mailing lists. Ok, to keep things general, I'll use
"open mailing lists and bug database". (We don't have a review board set up
and have been using the github integration.)
>
> Committers
>
> - Please explain active vs. emeritus, for example by adding a sentence
> such as 'Emeritus committers are inactive and lose their ability to
> commit code or cast binding votes.'
>
ok
> - Are emeritus committers removed from the Apache committers mailing
> list?
>
There aren't any committer only email lists, but no I don't think we
should remove emeritus pmc members from private.
> Release Manager
>
> - Why must release managers be committers? (In Hive that's not
> required.)
>
It makes everything much easier if they are committers. In particular, they
should make the release branch at Apache instead of github. That only works
if they are committers.
> - 'The RM shall publish a Release Plan on the dev mailing list' -- Note
> that the Actions section doesn't include release plans, so this sentence
> implies that the RM makes all the decisions.
>
I think that formal approval of the release plans shouldn't be required. If
the PMC doesn't accept the release plan, they can vote against the release.
>
> Project Management Committee
>
> - Again, explain active vs. emeritus.
> - Are emeritus PMC members taken off the private mailing list?
>
> Voting
>
> - Although it's hedged with 'In general ...', I have qualms about saying
> a +1 vote indicates willingness to make it happen. I've already given
> some
> +1 votes on the Orc project without any intention of lifting a finger to
> take the action. [DISCUSS]
> - Why no vanilla '0' vote, as well as '+0' and '-0'? [DISCUSS]
> - 'Non binding votes are still useful for those with binding votes to
> understand the perception of an action in the wider Orc community.' --
Re: [DISCUSS] Creating Orc bylaws
Posted by Owen O'Malley <om...@apache.org>.
Ok, I've tried to incorporate the changes from Lefty here:
https://github.com/omalley/orc/commit/18ec4e206af6b0668d33061480e3ada632119d90
.. Owen
Re: [DISCUSS] Creating Orc bylaws
Posted by Owen O'Malley <om...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Lefty Leverenz <le...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Aarrgh, accidental Send. Continuing, with overlap:
>
> Voting
>
> - Although it's hedged with 'In general ...', I have qualms about saying
> a +1 vote indicates willingness to make it happen. I've already given
> some
> +1 votes on the Orc project without any intention of lifting a finger to
> take the action. [DISCUSS]
>
Your votes are encouraged, Lefty. :) And I certainly appreciate your
efforts reviewing these
bylaws. The intent is to encourage voters to volunteer to work on issues
that are important to them.
> - Why no vanilla '0' vote, as well as '+0' and '-0'? [DISCUSS]
>
I just added that.
> - 'Non binding votes are still useful for those with binding votes to
> understand the perception of an action in the wider Orc community.' -- I
> get the meaning, but find the phrasing of 'for those with binding votes'
> awkward. Besides, non-binding votes are useful to the whole community.
> Sometimes they stimulate lively discussions.
>
How about:
All participants in the ORC project are encouraged to show their
agreement for or against a particular action by voting, regardless of
whether their vote is binding. Nonbinding votes are useful for
encouraging discussion and understanding the scope of opinions within
the project.
> Vetoes
>
> - 'If a veto is not withdrawn, any action that has been vetoed must be
> reversed in a timely manner.' -- Should that say 'any action that has
> already been taken'?
>
ok
>
> Actions
>
> - Why no action for release plans?
>
As I said above, I think we don't need to make the release plans a formal
vote. A discussion should be fine.
> - Code Change: 'The code can be committed after the first +1.' --
> Without any wait time?
>
Hive was a pretty special case. Very few projects have a wait period after
the code approval. Many let commits happen and review afterwards.
> - Product Release: Why lazy majority instead of lazy consensus?
> [DISCUSS]
>
Mostly because Apache requires three active +1's for a release.
>
> New PMC Member
>
> - 'To promote a committer to a PMC member, ...' -- This implies a
> requirement of becoming a committer before joining the PMC. None of the
> current PMC members did that. ;) But seriously, do we want that
> implication?
>
By far the majority of PMC members that are added to projects are first
added as committers. I think it makes the standard flow clearer.
>
> Committer Removal & PMC Member Removal
>
> - Why allow removals with lazy majority instead of (non-lazy)
> consensus? I have serious misgivings about that. Of course I don't
> expect
> it will ever be a problem, but if there were a minority faction then its
> members could be booted out one by one. That doesn't sound like the
> Apache
> Way. [DISCUSS]
>
In a lot of ways, it is completely academic. I've never been on an Apache
project that removed anyone's access. To use the non-lazy form, you'd need
to be very aggressive about dropping people to emeritus. Otherwise, you'd
never get enough votes.
>
> Voting Timeframes
>
> - 72 hours: Should we add some flexibility? Should releases have
> longer timeframes? What about long weekends or convention weeks? I
> suggest making the timeframe for releases longer and making 72 hours the
> minimum, with an option of longer timeframes when appropriate.
>
Hmm. I agree that having flexibility is good. I'd rather not make the
minimum vote length even longer. I'd like ORC to be able make quick
releases for a while.
> - 'Votes relating to code changes are not subject to a strict timetable
> but should be made as timely as possible.' -- What does that mean? The
> Code Change section says patches can be committed after the first +1,
> which
> implies immediately after. Doesn't that cut off debate? If anyone
> wants
> to give a -1 vote to a patch, they'd better be quick about it.
> [DISCUSS]
>
> Whew! Sorry about the long list. (Aren't you glad I omitted the trivial
> items?)
>
If there is contention, we can always roll things back out. I'd rather not
have a mandatory
waiting period, if we can avoid it.
.. Owen
>
> -- Lefty
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Lefty Leverenz <le...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I have some questions and comments, plus a long list of edits and trivia.
> > I'll put the latter in a separate message tomorrow.
> >
> > Introduction
> >
> > - '*Be collaborative.* Working together on the open lists to make
> > decisions helps the project grow.' -- Does 'open lists' mean the
> mailing
> > lists? How about 'open mailing lists, JIRA, and review board'? (or
> 'bug
> > database' instead of JIRA)
> >
> > Committers
> >
> > - Please explain active vs. emeritus, for example by adding a sentence
> > such as 'Emeritus committers are inactive and lose their ability to
> > commit code or cast binding votes.'
> > - Are emeritus committers removed from the Apache committers mailing
> > list?
> >
> > Release Manager
> >
> > - Why must release managers be committers? (In Hive that's not
> > required.)
> > - 'The RM shall publish a Release Plan on the dev mailing list' --
> > Note that the Actions section doesn't include release plans, so this
> > sentence implies that the RM makes all the decisions.
> >
> > Project Management Committee
> >
> > - Again, explain active vs. emeritus.
> > - Are emeritus PMC members taken off the private mailing list?
> >
> > Voting
> >
> > - Although it's hedged with 'In general ...', I have qualms about
> > saying a +1 vote indicates willingness to make it happen. I've
> already
> > given some +1 votes on the Orc project without any intention of
> lifting a
> > finger to take the action. [DISCUSS]
> > - Why no vanilla '0' vote, as well as '+0' and '-0'? [DISCUSS]
> > - 'Non binding votes are still useful for those with binding votes to
> > understand the perception of an action in the wider Orc community.' --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Lefty
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Lefty Leverenz <
> leftyleverenz@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Is the name officially "Orc" instead of "ORC"?
> >>
> >>
> >> -- Lefty
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Sandryhaila, Aliaksei <
> >> aliaksei.sandryhaila@hp.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> On 07/06/2015 11:25 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
> >>> > Although a community of Orcs seems unlikely to have any rules (other
> >>> than
> >>> > the strongest one makes the rules), Apache projects are supposed to
> >>> create
> >>> > a set. I've borrowed heavily from the Hadoop and Hive bylaws, but
> take
> >>> a
> >>> > look to see if they look reasonable.
> >>> >
> >>> > Comments desired.
> >>> >
> >>> > https://github.com/omalley/orc/blob/bylaws/site/develop/bylaws.md
> >>> >
> >>> > .. Owen
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Creating Orc bylaws
Posted by Lefty Leverenz <le...@gmail.com>.
Aarrgh, accidental Send. Continuing, with overlap:
Voting
- Although it's hedged with 'In general ...', I have qualms about saying
a +1 vote indicates willingness to make it happen. I've already given some
+1 votes on the Orc project without any intention of lifting a finger to
take the action. [DISCUSS]
- Why no vanilla '0' vote, as well as '+0' and '-0'? [DISCUSS]
- 'Non binding votes are still useful for those with binding votes to
understand the perception of an action in the wider Orc community.' -- I
get the meaning, but find the phrasing of 'for those with binding votes'
awkward. Besides, non-binding votes are useful to the whole community.
Sometimes they stimulate lively discussions.
Vetoes
- 'If a veto is not withdrawn, any action that has been vetoed must be
reversed in a timely manner.' -- Should that say 'any action that has
already been taken'?
Actions
- Why no action for release plans?
- Code Change: 'The code can be committed after the first +1.' --
Without any wait time?
- Product Release: Why lazy majority instead of lazy consensus?
[DISCUSS]
New PMC Member
- 'To promote a committer to a PMC member, ...' -- This implies a
requirement of becoming a committer before joining the PMC. None of the
current PMC members did that. ;) But seriously, do we want that
implication?
Committer Removal & PMC Member Removal
- Why allow removals with lazy majority instead of (non-lazy)
consensus? I have serious misgivings about that. Of course I don't expect
it will ever be a problem, but if there were a minority faction then its
members could be booted out one by one. That doesn't sound like the Apache
Way. [DISCUSS]
Voting Timeframes
- 72 hours: Should we add some flexibility? Should releases have
longer timeframes? What about long weekends or convention weeks? I
suggest making the timeframe for releases longer and making 72 hours the
minimum, with an option of longer timeframes when appropriate.
- 'Votes relating to code changes are not subject to a strict timetable
but should be made as timely as possible.' -- What does that mean? The
Code Change section says patches can be committed after the first +1, which
implies immediately after. Doesn't that cut off debate? If anyone wants
to give a -1 vote to a patch, they'd better be quick about it. [DISCUSS]
Whew! Sorry about the long list. (Aren't you glad I omitted the trivial
items?)
-- Lefty
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:38 AM, Lefty Leverenz <le...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I have some questions and comments, plus a long list of edits and trivia.
> I'll put the latter in a separate message tomorrow.
>
> Introduction
>
> - '*Be collaborative.* Working together on the open lists to make
> decisions helps the project grow.' -- Does 'open lists' mean the mailing
> lists? How about 'open mailing lists, JIRA, and review board'? (or 'bug
> database' instead of JIRA)
>
> Committers
>
> - Please explain active vs. emeritus, for example by adding a sentence
> such as 'Emeritus committers are inactive and lose their ability to
> commit code or cast binding votes.'
> - Are emeritus committers removed from the Apache committers mailing
> list?
>
> Release Manager
>
> - Why must release managers be committers? (In Hive that's not
> required.)
> - 'The RM shall publish a Release Plan on the dev mailing list' --
> Note that the Actions section doesn't include release plans, so this
> sentence implies that the RM makes all the decisions.
>
> Project Management Committee
>
> - Again, explain active vs. emeritus.
> - Are emeritus PMC members taken off the private mailing list?
>
> Voting
>
> - Although it's hedged with 'In general ...', I have qualms about
> saying a +1 vote indicates willingness to make it happen. I've already
> given some +1 votes on the Orc project without any intention of lifting a
> finger to take the action. [DISCUSS]
> - Why no vanilla '0' vote, as well as '+0' and '-0'? [DISCUSS]
> - 'Non binding votes are still useful for those with binding votes to
> understand the perception of an action in the wider Orc community.' --
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Lefty
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Lefty Leverenz <le...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Is the name officially "Orc" instead of "ORC"?
>>
>>
>> -- Lefty
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Sandryhaila, Aliaksei <
>> aliaksei.sandryhaila@hp.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On 07/06/2015 11:25 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>>> > Although a community of Orcs seems unlikely to have any rules (other
>>> than
>>> > the strongest one makes the rules), Apache projects are supposed to
>>> create
>>> > a set. I've borrowed heavily from the Hadoop and Hive bylaws, but take
>>> a
>>> > look to see if they look reasonable.
>>> >
>>> > Comments desired.
>>> >
>>> > https://github.com/omalley/orc/blob/bylaws/site/develop/bylaws.md
>>> >
>>> > .. Owen
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Creating Orc bylaws
Posted by Lefty Leverenz <le...@gmail.com>.
I have some questions and comments, plus a long list of edits and trivia.
I'll put the latter in a separate message tomorrow.
Introduction
- '*Be collaborative.* Working together on the open lists to make
decisions helps the project grow.' -- Does 'open lists' mean the mailing
lists? How about 'open mailing lists, JIRA, and review board'? (or 'bug
database' instead of JIRA)
Committers
- Please explain active vs. emeritus, for example by adding a sentence
such as 'Emeritus committers are inactive and lose their ability to
commit code or cast binding votes.'
- Are emeritus committers removed from the Apache committers mailing
list?
Release Manager
- Why must release managers be committers? (In Hive that's not
required.)
- 'The RM shall publish a Release Plan on the dev mailing list' -- Note
that the Actions section doesn't include release plans, so this sentence
implies that the RM makes all the decisions.
Project Management Committee
- Again, explain active vs. emeritus.
- Are emeritus PMC members taken off the private mailing list?
Voting
- Although it's hedged with 'In general ...', I have qualms about saying
a +1 vote indicates willingness to make it happen. I've already given some
+1 votes on the Orc project without any intention of lifting a finger to
take the action. [DISCUSS]
- Why no vanilla '0' vote, as well as '+0' and '-0'? [DISCUSS]
- 'Non binding votes are still useful for those with binding votes to
understand the perception of an action in the wider Orc community.' --
-- Lefty
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:26 AM, Lefty Leverenz <le...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Is the name officially "Orc" instead of "ORC"?
>
>
> -- Lefty
>
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Sandryhaila, Aliaksei <
> aliaksei.sandryhaila@hp.com> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On 07/06/2015 11:25 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>> > Although a community of Orcs seems unlikely to have any rules (other
>> than
>> > the strongest one makes the rules), Apache projects are supposed to
>> create
>> > a set. I've borrowed heavily from the Hadoop and Hive bylaws, but take a
>> > look to see if they look reasonable.
>> >
>> > Comments desired.
>> >
>> > https://github.com/omalley/orc/blob/bylaws/site/develop/bylaws.md
>> >
>> > .. Owen
>> >
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Creating Orc bylaws
Posted by Lefty Leverenz <le...@gmail.com>.
Is the name officially "Orc" instead of "ORC"?
-- Lefty
On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Sandryhaila, Aliaksei <
aliaksei.sandryhaila@hp.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On 07/06/2015 11:25 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
> > Although a community of Orcs seems unlikely to have any rules (other than
> > the strongest one makes the rules), Apache projects are supposed to
> create
> > a set. I've borrowed heavily from the Hadoop and Hive bylaws, but take a
> > look to see if they look reasonable.
> >
> > Comments desired.
> >
> > https://github.com/omalley/orc/blob/bylaws/site/develop/bylaws.md
> >
> > .. Owen
> >
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Creating Orc bylaws
Posted by "Sandryhaila, Aliaksei" <al...@hp.com>.
+1
On 07/06/2015 11:25 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
> Although a community of Orcs seems unlikely to have any rules (other than
> the strongest one makes the rules), Apache projects are supposed to create
> a set. I've borrowed heavily from the Hadoop and Hive bylaws, but take a
> look to see if they look reasonable.
>
> Comments desired.
>
> https://github.com/omalley/orc/blob/bylaws/site/develop/bylaws.md
>
> .. Owen
>