You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@couchdb.apache.org by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> on 2019/07/30 08:27:08 UTC
[VOTE] Adopt FoundationDB
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
Re: [VOTE] Adopt FoundationDB
Posted by 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
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Adopt FoundationDB
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
> On 30. Jul 2019, at 10:27, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> 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?
+1
Best
Jan
—
>
> 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
>
>
--
Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
https://neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
Re: [VOTE] Adopt FoundationDB
Posted by Paul Davis <pa...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:06 AM Nick Vatamaniuc <va...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:25 AM Wendall Cada <we...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 7:08 AM Adam Kocoloski <ko...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > > On Jul 30, 2019, at 4:27 AM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
Re: [VOTE] Adopt FoundationDB
Posted by Nick Vatamaniuc <va...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:25 AM Wendall Cada <we...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 7:08 AM Adam Kocoloski <ko...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > > On Jul 30, 2019, at 4:27 AM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Adopt FoundationDB
Posted by Wendall Cada <we...@apache.org>.
+1
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 7:08 AM Adam Kocoloski <ko...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
> > On Jul 30, 2019, at 4:27 AM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> 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
> >
> >
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Adopt FoundationDB
Posted by Adam Kocoloski <ko...@apache.org>.
+1
> On Jul 30, 2019, at 4:27 AM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> 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
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Adopt FoundationDB
Posted by Robert Newson <rn...@apache.org>.
+1
B.
> On 30 Jul 2019, at 09:51, Garren Smith <ga...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> +1
>
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:27 AM Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> 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
>>
>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Adopt FoundationDB
Posted by Garren Smith <ga...@apache.org>.
+1
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:27 AM Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> 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
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Adopt FoundationDB
Posted by Kyle Snavely <kj...@gmail.com>.
Thank you all!
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019, 10:41 AM Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> The vote passes. Thanks all for participating.
>
> Onwards!
>
> Best
> Jan, excited
> —
>
> > On 30. Jul 2019, at 10:27, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> 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
> >
> >
>
> --
> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> https://neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Adopt FoundationDB
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
The vote passes. Thanks all for participating.
Onwards!
Best
Jan, excited
—
> On 30. Jul 2019, at 10:27, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> 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
>
>
--
Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
https://neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
Re: [VOTE] Adopt FoundationDB
Posted by Peng Hui Jiang <ji...@cn.ibm.com>.
+1
From: Jay Doane <ja...@apache.org>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Cc: "private@couchdb.apache.org Private"
<pr...@couchdb.apache.org>
Date: 2019/07/31 12:31 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [VOTE] Adopt FoundationDB
+1
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:27 AM Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.apache.org_thread.html_04e7889354c077a6beb91fd1292b6d38b7a3f2c6a5dc7d20f5b87c44-40-253Cdev.couchdb.apache.org-253E&d=DwIFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=PKZ65oA9tV05sXjYYyZUJf_d-ASaaLXiLw-gQdWPDsQ&m=qsM6eX1QVPJG5W8VM7Kg5qnsZNRqCUU8wJt-EVgeMiw&s=foiSfiz7cUIVHJ6iFa7lBFPeH5jsJutOUbowC5qXkbg&e=
> [2]:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.foundationdb.org&d=DwIFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=PKZ65oA9tV05sXjYYyZUJf_d-ASaaLXiLw-gQdWPDsQ&m=qsM6eX1QVPJG5W8VM7Kg5qnsZNRqCUU8wJt-EVgeMiw&s=lXeAOVGHLU5S2NzLoB1RCrDsDbqeewi-JCJhPbsDOjU&e=
> [3]:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__couchdb.apache.org_bylaws.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=PKZ65oA9tV05sXjYYyZUJf_d-ASaaLXiLw-gQdWPDsQ&m=qsM6eX1QVPJG5W8VM7Kg5qnsZNRqCUU8wJt-EVgeMiw&s=JmjcTii6e8eiGNoQyhPeWY5-2LWfaZ1QX3ThoehIzQQ&e=
>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Adopt FoundationDB
Posted by Jay Doane <ja...@apache.org>.
+1
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 1:27 AM Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> 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
>
>
>