|
Patrick Hunt
2010-04-07, 17:28
Doug Cutting
2010-04-07, 19:00
Bernd Fondermann
2010-04-08, 08:41
Doug Cutting
2010-04-08, 16:11
Patrick Hunt
2010-04-08, 16:52
|
-
ZooKeeper as TLP discussion results.Patrick Hunt 2010-04-07, 17:28
Please find the results of the ZooKeeper as TLP discussion here.
http://bit.ly/c4fuZT There was consensus amongst the development team that we will stay as a subproject of Hadoop for the time being. Full details of the discussion can be found in the thread provided. Patrick
-
Re: ZooKeeper as TLP discussion results.Doug Cutting 2010-04-07, 19:00
Patrick Hunt wrote:
> Please find the results of the ZooKeeper as TLP discussion here. > > http://bit.ly/c4fuZT > > There was consensus amongst the development team that we will stay as a > subproject of Hadoop for the time being. Full details of the discussion > can be found in the thread provided. In that discussion you state: > 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 How does the Hadoop PMC assist Zookeeper? I see very little evidence that the Hadoop PMC is involved at all day-to-day operations of Zookeeper. Currently the Hadoop PMC must vote on new Zookeeper committers and releases. These votes usually pass with the minimum required number of PMC votes, often only after an appeal is made for more votes. This does not seem like significant oversight. Beyond that, I see little evidence of involvement by the Hadoop PMC in Zookeeper. So I don't see this as a strong argument not to become a TLP. If a group of committers is operating independently, then they ought to be an independent TLP. The fact that you're a subproject operating independently only hides the lack of diversity, it doesn't help it. > b) Loss of branding and discover-ability This also seems a poor reason to remain a sub-project. We can retain prominent links to Zookeeper from hadoop.apache.org regardless of how the projects are structured. > c) "if ain't broke don't fix it". I have frequent interactions with > Hadoop PMC/Chair and an Apache board member. That should not change as a TLP. Apache encourages cross-project communication and collaboration. The things that would change if Zookeeper were a TLP are: 1. its official website would be at zookeeper.apache.org. 2. it could vote for committers and releases directly rather than through the Hadoop PMC 3. it would submit its quarterly report to the board directly, instead of via the Hadoop PMC. That's pretty much it. The board has a well established report and review system. Each project's quarterly report is closely read and must be individually approved by a quorum of the board's members. PMCs tend not to have such a review mechanism for subprojects. Historically subprojects that develop problems have been slow to identify, and the problems have worsened in the meantime. The focus of each PMC should be on direct decisions about code, committers and releases. The board's job is to make sure that each PMC operates effectively. These are different responsibilities and require different processes. No one is going to force Zookeeper to become a TLP against its will, and no change must be made immediately. But I think such a move would be easy to make, have significant upside for the project in simplifying its formal votes, and have significant upside to the foundation in facilitating the project's direct interaction with the board. Doug
-
Re: ZooKeeper as TLP discussion results.Bernd Fondermann 2010-04-08, 08:41
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 21:00, Doug Cutting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Patrick Hunt wrote: >> >> Please find the results of the ZooKeeper as TLP discussion here. >> >> http://bit.ly/c4fuZT >> >> There was consensus amongst the development team that we will stay as a >> subproject of Hadoop for the time being. Full details of the discussion can >> be found in the thread provided. > > In that discussion you state: >> 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 > > How does the Hadoop PMC assist Zookeeper? I see very little evidence that > the Hadoop PMC is involved at all day-to-day operations of Zookeeper. > Currently the Hadoop PMC must vote on new Zookeeper committers and > releases. These votes usually pass with the minimum required number of PMC > votes, often only after an appeal is made for more votes. This does not > seem like significant oversight. Beyond that, I see little evidence of > involvement by the Hadoop PMC in Zookeeper. So I don't see this as a strong > argument not to become a TLP. > > If a group of committers is operating independently, then they ought to be > an independent TLP. The fact that you're a subproject operating > independently only hides the lack of diversity, it doesn't help it. > >> b) Loss of branding and discover-ability > > This also seems a poor reason to remain a sub-project. We can retain > prominent links to Zookeeper from hadoop.apache.org regardless of how the > projects are structured. > >> c) "if ain't broke don't fix it". I have frequent interactions with >> Hadoop PMC/Chair and an Apache board member. > > That should not change as a TLP. Apache encourages cross-project > communication and collaboration. > > The things that would change if Zookeeper were a TLP are: > 1. its official website would be at zookeeper.apache.org. > 2. it could vote for committers and releases directly rather than through > the Hadoop PMC > 3. it would submit its quarterly report to the board directly, instead of > via the Hadoop PMC. > > That's pretty much it. > > The board has a well established report and review system. Each project's > quarterly report is closely read and must be individually approved by a > quorum of the board's members. PMCs tend not to have such a review > mechanism for subprojects. Historically subprojects that develop problems > have been slow to identify, and the problems have worsened in the meantime. > The focus of each PMC should be on direct decisions about code, committers > and releases. The board's job is to make sure that each PMC operates > effectively. These are different responsibilities and require different > processes. > > No one is going to force Zookeeper to become a TLP against its will, and no > change must be made immediately. But I think such a move would be easy to > make, have significant upside for the project in simplifying its formal > votes, and have significant upside to the foundation in facilitating the > project's direct interaction with the board. > > Doug +1 to all of this. Additional comments. If there would be 3 Zookeeper committers on the Hadoop PMC, then the lack-of-oversight problem would go away and releases could be voted on without delay. I don't want to discuss why this currently is like it is - this should really be discussed on private@hadoop.a.o. However, going TLP requires experienced people. That means Zookeeper will probably need Hadoop PMC members or others (ASF members, etc) to join the initial PMC. Otherwise, in my opinion the proper path could either be Zookeeper growing up here for a while until a proper PMC can be forked from Hadoop, or going through - hold your breath - incubation. You know, this whole umbrella discussion should not result in a mass exodus into TLPs which might collapse sooner or later. Bernd
-
Re: ZooKeeper as TLP discussion results.Doug Cutting 2010-04-08, 16:11
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> However, going TLP requires experienced people. That means Zookeeper > will probably need Hadoop PMC members or others (ASF members, etc) to > join the initial PMC. The Hadoop PMC should use criteria similar to the Incubator for graduation to TLP. http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Graduation+Requirements The only requirement in doubt is diversity. Those diversity requirements are soft, not hard and fast. When I raised this, several board members indicated that they would rather have non-diverse TLPs than non-diverse subprojects, since the board could then directly observe whether diversity is improving within the project, and, if it is not, provide assistance. > Otherwise, in my opinion the proper path could either be Zookeeper > growing up here for a while until a proper PMC can be forked from > Hadoop, or going through - hold your breath - incubation. These projects are already effectively in incubation, under the Hadoop PMC rather than under the Incubator PMC. The question today is whether they're ready to graduate. The board has asked for a report on this. We need not rush into anything. If we have doubts about some cases, then our report to the board might include questions about the criteria to promote subprojects to TLP, to help clarify things. If we, as a PMC, wish to wait for diversity in a subproject to improve, then we must commit to regular monitoring that subproject's diversity, and, if it's not improving, try to figure out why, and act to help it improve. Just as podlings should not languish in the incubator for years, a sub-project's goal should be promotion to TLP within a year or so of founding. If we don't want to commit to this oversight, then either the board or the incubator PMC could. Doug
-
Re: ZooKeeper as TLP discussion results.Patrick Hunt 2010-04-08, 16:52
On 04/08/2010 09:11 AM, Doug Cutting wrote: > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Graduation+Requirements I can speak only for ZK but we are hitting on all cylinders from this list. All the process/infra/legal items have long ago been committed. We have strong partnerships with multiple Apache projects (HBase and Solr in particular) and a dedication to "the apache way". > The only requirement in doubt is diversity. If you read through the full thread, and not just the snippets Doug pulled, you would see a strong community and commitment to both increasing diversity and gaining TLP status. The hurdle we face today wrt diversity is that while usage is picking up, it's been historically hard for us to gain contributors. This is primarily due to the fact that we have a) highly targeted & complex project, and b) relatively mature project and user base. We are not a new project, where the majority of code is yet to be written. We are working to increase diversity, (again, see the thread for some discussion of this) however it's slow going. Recently we have seen a big upswing in users (twitter, digg, Solr, Cassandra, Neo4j, etc...) due to our efforts at evangelism. The hope is that these new users, along with some new areas for development, would stimulate contributor growth. If you have any ideas or could provide help in this area please feel free to discuss on our dev list. Patrick |