You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@crunch.apache.org by Matthias Friedrich <ma...@mafr.de> on 2013/03/03 08:56:03 UTC
Bylaws for Crunch
Hey guys,
according to the Board's graduation resolution, we have been "tasked
with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open
development and increased participation in the Apache Crunch Project".
It would be good to get this done until our first board report is due
in two weeks.
It seems to me that most Apache projects use slight variations of the
same document [1][2][3] ([3] seems to be the nicest). I suggest we do
the same, maybe modify the code change rule to incorporate our peer
review process for larger changes.
What do you think?
Regards,
Matthias
[1] http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html
[2] http://pig.apache.org/bylaws.html
[3] http://zookeeper.apache.org/bylaws.html
Re: Bylaws for Crunch
Posted by Matthias Friedrich <ma...@mafr.de>.
OK, I trust Patrick's experience in these things. I'll add it to the
draft document - based on Pig's model, one year term, lazy consensus
unless someone has a better idea.
Regards,
Matthias
On Monday, 2013-03-04, Josh Wills wrote:
> I would have resigned the chair after a year anyway, so I have no problem
> with having that formalized. Good to spread the joy and the pain around. ;-)
>
> J
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I'd suggest having a fixed term for the PMC chair. 1 year is good imo.
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Matthias Friedrich <ma...@mafr.de> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, 2013-03-03, Gabriel Reid wrote:
> > >> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Josh Wills <jw...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Matthias Friedrich <ma...@mafr.de>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >>>> Nope, that seems to be it. I'm perfectly happy with the Zookeeper
> > >>>> model. I'd use it as a template and fine-tune it a bit:
> > >
> > >>>> I'd remove everything about sub-projects; the consensus at Apache
> > >>>> seems to be that we shouldn't have them.
> > >
> > >>>> I'm not sure if we need to do anything about code changes. I can live
> > >>>> with lazy approval - people are still likely to ask for feedback on
> > >>>> larger or potentially controversal changes. We're a small project,
> > >>>> no need to over-regulate things.
> > >
> > >>> +1 to all of the above.
> > >
> > >> +1 from me as well.
> > >
> > > Great. I'll leave this thread up for a few more days so others have
> > > a chance to comment. If no changes are requested I'll create a
> > > document that we can vote on. 2/3 majority seems appropriate.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Matthias
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Director of Data Science
> Cloudera <http://www.cloudera.com>
> Twitter: @josh_wills <http://twitter.com/josh_wills>
Re: Bylaws for Crunch
Posted by Josh Wills <jw...@cloudera.com>.
I would have resigned the chair after a year anyway, so I have no problem
with having that formalized. Good to spread the joy and the pain around. ;-)
J
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org> wrote:
> I'd suggest having a fixed term for the PMC chair. 1 year is good imo.
>
> Patrick
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Matthias Friedrich <ma...@mafr.de> wrote:
> > On Sunday, 2013-03-03, Gabriel Reid wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Josh Wills <jw...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Matthias Friedrich <ma...@mafr.de>
> wrote:
> >
> >>>> Nope, that seems to be it. I'm perfectly happy with the Zookeeper
> >>>> model. I'd use it as a template and fine-tune it a bit:
> >
> >>>> I'd remove everything about sub-projects; the consensus at Apache
> >>>> seems to be that we shouldn't have them.
> >
> >>>> I'm not sure if we need to do anything about code changes. I can live
> >>>> with lazy approval - people are still likely to ask for feedback on
> >>>> larger or potentially controversal changes. We're a small project,
> >>>> no need to over-regulate things.
> >
> >>> +1 to all of the above.
> >
> >> +1 from me as well.
> >
> > Great. I'll leave this thread up for a few more days so others have
> > a chance to comment. If no changes are requested I'll create a
> > document that we can vote on. 2/3 majority seems appropriate.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Matthias
>
--
Director of Data Science
Cloudera <http://www.cloudera.com>
Twitter: @josh_wills <http://twitter.com/josh_wills>
Re: Bylaws for Crunch
Posted by Patrick Hunt <ph...@apache.org>.
I'd suggest having a fixed term for the PMC chair. 1 year is good imo.
Patrick
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Matthias Friedrich <ma...@mafr.de> wrote:
> On Sunday, 2013-03-03, Gabriel Reid wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Josh Wills <jw...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Matthias Friedrich <ma...@mafr.de> wrote:
>
>>>> Nope, that seems to be it. I'm perfectly happy with the Zookeeper
>>>> model. I'd use it as a template and fine-tune it a bit:
>
>>>> I'd remove everything about sub-projects; the consensus at Apache
>>>> seems to be that we shouldn't have them.
>
>>>> I'm not sure if we need to do anything about code changes. I can live
>>>> with lazy approval - people are still likely to ask for feedback on
>>>> larger or potentially controversal changes. We're a small project,
>>>> no need to over-regulate things.
>
>>> +1 to all of the above.
>
>> +1 from me as well.
>
> Great. I'll leave this thread up for a few more days so others have
> a chance to comment. If no changes are requested I'll create a
> document that we can vote on. 2/3 majority seems appropriate.
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
Re: Bylaws for Crunch
Posted by Matthias Friedrich <ma...@mafr.de>.
On Sunday, 2013-03-03, Gabriel Reid wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Josh Wills <jw...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Matthias Friedrich <ma...@mafr.de> wrote:
>>> Nope, that seems to be it. I'm perfectly happy with the Zookeeper
>>> model. I'd use it as a template and fine-tune it a bit:
>>> I'd remove everything about sub-projects; the consensus at Apache
>>> seems to be that we shouldn't have them.
>>> I'm not sure if we need to do anything about code changes. I can live
>>> with lazy approval - people are still likely to ask for feedback on
>>> larger or potentially controversal changes. We're a small project,
>>> no need to over-regulate things.
>> +1 to all of the above.
> +1 from me as well.
Great. I'll leave this thread up for a few more days so others have
a chance to comment. If no changes are requested I'll create a
document that we can vote on. 2/3 majority seems appropriate.
Regards,
Matthias
Re: Bylaws for Crunch
Posted by Gabriel Reid <ga...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Josh Wills <jw...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Matthias Friedrich <ma...@mafr.de> wrote:
>
> > Nope, that seems to be it. I'm perfectly happy with the Zookeeper
> > model. I'd use it as a template and fine-tune it a bit:
> >
> > I'd remove everything about sub-projects; the consensus at Apache
> > seems to be that we shouldn't have them.
> >
> > I'm not sure if we need to do anything about code changes. I can live
> > with lazy approval - people are still likely to ask for feedback on
> > larger or potentially controversal changes. We're a small project,
> > no need to over-regulate things.
> >
>
> +1 to all of the above.
>
>
+1 from me as well.
- Gabriel
Re: Bylaws for Crunch
Posted by Josh Wills <jw...@cloudera.com>.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Matthias Friedrich <ma...@mafr.de> wrote:
> Nope, that seems to be it. I'm perfectly happy with the Zookeeper
> model. I'd use it as a template and fine-tune it a bit:
>
> I'd remove everything about sub-projects; the consensus at Apache
> seems to be that we shouldn't have them.
>
> I'm not sure if we need to do anything about code changes. I can live
> with lazy approval - people are still likely to ask for feedback on
> larger or potentially controversal changes. We're a small project,
> no need to over-regulate things.
>
+1 to all of the above.
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
>
> On Sunday, 2013-03-03, Josh Wills wrote:
> > Agree that the hadoop model has too much overhead for where we are at as
> a
> > project. It seems like the major difference between Pig and Zookeeper is
> > whether or not we have a fixed term for the PMC chair: Pig has a one-year
> > term, Zookeeper has the same chair until the chair resigns. Is that
> right,
> > or did I miss something else?
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Matthias Friedrich <ma...@mafr.de>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey guys,
> > >
> > > according to the Board's graduation resolution, we have been "tasked
> > > with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open
> > > development and increased participation in the Apache Crunch Project".
> > > It would be good to get this done until our first board report is due
> > > in two weeks.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that most Apache projects use slight variations of the
> > > same document [1][2][3] ([3] seems to be the nicest). I suggest we do
> > > the same, maybe modify the code change rule to incorporate our peer
> > > review process for larger changes.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Matthias
> > >
> > > [1] http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > > [2] http://pig.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > > [3] http://zookeeper.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Director of Data Science
> > Cloudera <http://www.cloudera.com>
> > Twitter: @josh_wills <http://twitter.com/josh_wills>
>
--
Director of Data Science
Cloudera <http://www.cloudera.com>
Twitter: @josh_wills <http://twitter.com/josh_wills>
Re: Bylaws for Crunch
Posted by Matthias Friedrich <ma...@mafr.de>.
Nope, that seems to be it. I'm perfectly happy with the Zookeeper
model. I'd use it as a template and fine-tune it a bit:
I'd remove everything about sub-projects; the consensus at Apache
seems to be that we shouldn't have them.
I'm not sure if we need to do anything about code changes. I can live
with lazy approval - people are still likely to ask for feedback on
larger or potentially controversal changes. We're a small project,
no need to over-regulate things.
Regards,
Matthias
On Sunday, 2013-03-03, Josh Wills wrote:
> Agree that the hadoop model has too much overhead for where we are at as a
> project. It seems like the major difference between Pig and Zookeeper is
> whether or not we have a fixed term for the PMC chair: Pig has a one-year
> term, Zookeeper has the same chair until the chair resigns. Is that right,
> or did I miss something else?
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Matthias Friedrich <ma...@mafr.de> wrote:
>
> > Hey guys,
> >
> > according to the Board's graduation resolution, we have been "tasked
> > with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open
> > development and increased participation in the Apache Crunch Project".
> > It would be good to get this done until our first board report is due
> > in two weeks.
> >
> > It seems to me that most Apache projects use slight variations of the
> > same document [1][2][3] ([3] seems to be the nicest). I suggest we do
> > the same, maybe modify the code change rule to incorporate our peer
> > review process for larger changes.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Matthias
> >
> > [1] http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > [2] http://pig.apache.org/bylaws.html
> > [3] http://zookeeper.apache.org/bylaws.html
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Director of Data Science
> Cloudera <http://www.cloudera.com>
> Twitter: @josh_wills <http://twitter.com/josh_wills>
Re: Bylaws for Crunch
Posted by Josh Wills <jw...@cloudera.com>.
Agree that the hadoop model has too much overhead for where we are at as a
project. It seems like the major difference between Pig and Zookeeper is
whether or not we have a fixed term for the PMC chair: Pig has a one-year
term, Zookeeper has the same chair until the chair resigns. Is that right,
or did I miss something else?
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Matthias Friedrich <ma...@mafr.de> wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> according to the Board's graduation resolution, we have been "tasked
> with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open
> development and increased participation in the Apache Crunch Project".
> It would be good to get this done until our first board report is due
> in two weeks.
>
> It seems to me that most Apache projects use slight variations of the
> same document [1][2][3] ([3] seems to be the nicest). I suggest we do
> the same, maybe modify the code change rule to incorporate our peer
> review process for larger changes.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
>
> [1] http://hadoop.apache.org/bylaws.html
> [2] http://pig.apache.org/bylaws.html
> [3] http://zookeeper.apache.org/bylaws.html
>
--
Director of Data Science
Cloudera <http://www.cloudera.com>
Twitter: @josh_wills <http://twitter.com/josh_wills>