Re: [VOTE] Adopt FoundationDB

[Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>]

I am concerned about the impact to small installations, and especially
the release engineering / packaging work that will be required, but this
is clearly the best way to improve our storage and clustering layer
without bringing on >10 devs with years to burn and ample experience.

+1


On 2019-07-30 4:27, Jan Lehnardt 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://lists.apache.org/thread.html/04e7889354c077a6beb91fd1292b6d38b7a3f2c6a5dc7d20f5b87c44@%3Cdev.couchdb.apache.org%3E
> [2]: https://www.foundationdb.org
> [3]: https://couchdb.apache.org/bylaws.html
> 
>