Mike, add the "--all" parameter to the log statement to go across the entire repo:
git log --all --pretty=format:"%an" --since="6 months ago" | sort | uniq -c This is slightly more portable for those of us on OSX w/ BSD date. On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com> wrote: > I would like to think that the ASF would prevent us from doing something > incredibly stupid, because we have to refer removal votes to them anyway. > What problem are you trying to address, Dave? Both unanimous votes to > remove, and lazy consensus vote to re-instate can be ground to a halt by a > single voice of reason. > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:53 PM, John Vines <vi...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Because there may, someday (ideally never), be someone who needs to > removed > > who should not be granted access back. > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:46 PM, <dlmar...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > We are not removing them as a committer, we are just revoking their > > commit > > > access to the code repo due to inactivity. I agree with consensus for > > > removing them as a committer in general, but not for revoking commit > > access > > > due to inactivity. I would imagine that all they have to do to regain > > their > > > access is send an email to the list saying, "I tried to commit a code > > > change > > > but could not login." > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: John Vines [mailto:vi...@apache.org] > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 4:41 PM > > > To: Accumulo Dev List > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo Bylaws > > > > > > Because it should be hard to remove someone but easy to bring them > back. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 4:36 PM, <dlmar...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > " I do think it's in our interest to keep the committership and PMC > > > > membership mostly active. For example, having many inactive > committers > > > > brings a higher risk of a compromised committer account causing > > trouble." > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > Do we know which committers have not committed a change in 6 months? > > > > > > > > I see that " Commit access can be revoked by a unanimous vote of all > > > > the active PMC members", but re-instatement is by lazy concensus. Why > > > > are they different? > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Bill Havanki [mailto:bhava...@clouderagovt.com] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 11:39 AM > > > > To: dev@accumulo.apache.org > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Accumulo Bylaws > > > > > > > > My comments and minor edits are in the doc, I'll bring up bigger > > > > issues on this list. > > > > > > > > Re emeritus status for committers: I'd like it not to constitute an > > > > automatic "kicking you off the island" action. For example, I > wouldn't > > > > want to close off commit access on day 181. It can be a time when we > > > > automatically check on the level of involvement an emeritus / emerita > > > > wishes to keep. I'm fine with softening the bylaw verbiage in that > > > > regard. > > > > > > > > I do think it's in our interest to keep the committership and PMC > > > > membership mostly active. For example, having many inactive > committers > > > > brings a higher risk of a compromised committer account causing > > > > trouble. > > > > Also, it'd be hard collecting a 2/3 majority of PMC members when many > > > > are not paying any attention. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Joey Echeverria > > > > <joey...@clouderagovt.com>wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Emeritus" is not an official ASF designation. As far as the ASF is > > > > > concerned, you're either a Committer, a PMC member, or both, or not > > > > > at > > > > all. > > > > > > > > > > The reason other projects use the emeritus designation is to avoid > > > > > overstating active involvement. An "emeritus" member does not lose > > > > > any privileges as far as ASF is concerned. If you want to remove > > > > > privileges, I believe that the PMC has to vote to that effect. > > > > > > > > > > -Joey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Sean Busbey > > > > > <busbey+li...@cloudera.com > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > If people have substantive questions (as opposed to requests for > > > > > > edits / clarification), I'd rather they be here on the list. > > > > > > > > > > > > My main issue is the automatic transition to emeritus status for > > > > > committers > > > > > > / PMCs at 6 months. That's a significant change. Do we know what > > > > > > the current impact of that would be? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Bill Havanki > > > > > > <bhava...@clouderagovt.com > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have some minor edits and some questions about it, which I'll > > > > > > > add as comments in the doc. I also agree that a weather > > > > > > > allowance is a good > > > > > > idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Mike Drob < > mad...@cloudera.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for putting it in a Google Doc, Arshak! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What issues do y'all see with this document in it's current > > > state? > > > > > > > > Personally, I think it looks fine and would be willing to > > > > > > > > start a > > > > > vote > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > it, but I get the impression that east coast weather has > > > > > > > > prevented > > > > > some > > > > > > > > folk from looking at it, so maybe another couple of days is > > fine. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 7:18 AM, Arshak Navruzyan > > > > > > > > <arsh...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oops, yes of course! It's editable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Bill Havanki < > > > > > > > bhava...@clouderagovt.com > > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Arshak! Can you either allow editing or > commenting? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Arshak Navruzyan < > > > > > > arsh...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Say no more ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uR8vhIQcKGA6IEtbbF5D7UL_e6WGtfXM > > > > > UQ > > > > > Hp8Fwvg_E/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Christopher < > > > > > > ctubb...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps some ambitious volunteer could start a > > > > > > > > > > > > collaborative > > > > > > > draft > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > > Accumulo's bylaws in Google Docs or something, using > > > > > > > > > > > > ZK as a > > > > > > > > starting > > > > > > > > > > > > point. After it stabilizes a bit, we could push it to > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > project > > > > > > > > > > > > webpage as a draft and vote on it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Christopher L Tubbs II http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Mike Drob < > > > > > > mad...@cloudera.com> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't get that impression from reading their > > > document. > > > > > > > While C > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > PMC > > > > > > > > > > > > > are two distinct roles, there is nothing stating > that > > > > > > > > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > cannot > > > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > > > overlap, and the fact that there is 100% overlap is > > > > > entirely > > > > > > > > > > > orthogonal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Josh Elser < > > > > > > > > josh.el...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> This would change the existing Committer == PMC, > no? > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> That's the biggest thing I noticed scanning over > the > > > > > > document. > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 2/14/14, 1:19 PM, Mike Drob wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I think we should have some Bylaws, as that gives > > us > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> more > > > > > > > > > structure > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> operate under. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> I propose that we adopt the ZooKeeper bylaws, > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> replacing > > > > > all > > > > > > > > > > > references > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> ZK with Accumulo. > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> http://zookeeper.apache.org/bylaws.html > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> What say ye? > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > | - - - > > > > | Bill Havanki > > > > | Solutions Architect, Cloudera Government Solutions > > > > | - - - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
