Mike D, good catch. Our last report was due at the 18 Apr board meeting, so I made a date range from 18 Apr to 17 Jul, which is the day before the board meeting this month. Those number may fluctuate between now and the board meeting time but should stay constant after the 17. To Mike Walch's point, I summed the open and closed to get the total for created and closed during the time range for both issues and PRs.
Josh, added a comment that we will review the contributors before the next meeting. Always happy to skip middle steps. Thanks guys. Mike -------------- [DRAFT] [REPORT] Apache Accumulo - July 2018 The Apache Accumulo PMC decided to draft its quarterly board reports on the dev list. Here is a draft of our report which is due by Wednesday, Jul 11, 1 week before the board meeting on Wednesday, Jul 18. Please let me know if you have any suggestions. I am a little earlier with this one since I will be on vacation 5-15 Jul. My plan is to submit this report sometime on Mon, Jul 9. Mike ---------- ## Description: - The Apache Accumulo sorted, distributed key/value store is a robust, scalable, high performance data storage system that features cell-based access control and customizable server-side processing. It is based on Google's BigTable design and is built on top of Apache Hadoop, Zookeeper, and Thrift. ## Issues: - There are no issues requiring board attention at this time. ## Activity: - There were 2 new releases, Accumulo 1.9.0 and Accumulo 1.9.1 since the last report. The 1.9.0 release [1] had a critical bug in the Write Ahead Log (WAL) process that is fixed in 1.9.1 [2]. - The PMC approved the use of the Apache Accumulo trademark for the 5th annual Accumulo Summit, to be held on October 15, 2018 in Columbia, MD. - There were no new committers since the last report. All committers are also PMC members. We will review contributors during the next 3 months to see if anyone should be invited to become a committer. - The PMC decided to switch to using github issue for the project and all subprojects [3], which is why the Jira activity dropped off. Github issues and pull request statistics are included below. - Another bug has been found in the WAL process and a 1.9.2 is in the works. ## Health report: - The project remains healthy. Activity levels on mailing lists, issues and pull requests remain constant. ## PMC changes: - Currently 34 PMC members. - No new PMC members added in the last 3 months - Last PMC addition was Nick Felts on Thu Mar 22 2018 ## Committer base changes: - See PMC changes, all committers are PMC members currently. ## Releases: - accumulo-1.9.0 was released on Tue Apr 17 2018 - accumulo-1.9.1 was released on Sun May 13 2018 ## Mailing list activity: - Nothing significant in the figures ## Issue activity: - 49 issued created [4] and 28 closed [5] in the last 3 months - 75 pull requests created [6] and 67 closed [7] in the last 3 months [1]: https://accumulo.apache.org/release/accumulo-1.9.0/ [2]: https://accumulo.apache.org/release/accumulo-1.9.1/ [3]: https://accumulo.apache.org/blog/2018/03/16/moving-to-github-issues.html [4]: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+created%3A2018-04-18..2018-07-17+ [5]: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+closed%3A2018-04-18..2018-07-17+ [6]: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+created%3A2018-04-18..2018-07-17+ [7]: https://github.com/apache/accumulo/pulls?q=is%3Apr+closed%3A2018-04-18..2018-07-17+ On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 5:14 PM Josh Elser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 7/9/18 4:54 PM, Michael Wall wrote: > > Josh, I am not clear on what you are suggesting for another action item. > > Are you suggesting a pass over contributors to add see if anyone should > be > > invited to become a committer or are you suggesting we revisit that every > > committer becomes a PMC member? > > If we say that we have no added any new committers/PMC members in a long > period of time, the board will most assuredly say "Have you looked at > your contributors to see if you should invite some to be committers?" > > I was trying to suggest that we proactively tell them "we know we need > to see if there are contributors to invite to be committers" in order to > save that middle step. No need to do this -- just trying to be helpful > based on what I see over and over again from the board :) >
