I wouldn't describe the ongoing activity as "moderate". It seems pretty busy, at least as busy as ever, anyway. Maybe that's what you meant, but it feels like the word "moderate" carries the connotation of "mediocre" to me. I think we've been pretty active addressing the 2.1 issues. Not everything being investigated results in a commit, though, and you've explained that already when you talk about a decline in GitHub activity... although I don't think that decline is really that significant. You also went on to describe work planned towards a final 1.10 release, work on multiple 2.1 releases, a 3.0 release, work on 3.1, and we also have work on the elasticity branch. This is all happening concurrently, so I don't think "moderate" is a good descriptor.
"metatdata" is misspelled. Should be metadata. While we haven't formally voted or anything, it seems likely that the elasticity work will be a 4.0 release, and that seems like the current plan. Saying we haven't decided yet makes it seem like it could still be a 3.x release, and while that's technically true in that no version number is final until we vote on it, I don't think any of us believe that it will be a 3.x release. I would either omit this entirely, or just mention that it's likely to be a 4.0. You mention the committer and PMC ratio is roughly 1:1. I think it would be good to explain that the discrepancy is due to PMC members voluntarily electing to go emeritus. You could say something like "It is our practice to invite committers to be PMC members at the same time, but some PMC members have subsequently elected to go emeritus". (Even better if you can say that more succinctly than I did.) You say we're working on "two significant development efforts". I would say "*at least* two significant development efforts", as some of us are also working on things that are outside of that (like the no-chop merge feature for 3.1, and some other things like that, which are not dependent on elasticity). Maybe those other things aren't as "significant", but that's subjective, so I think adding "at least" makes it more accurate. On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 12:24 PM dev1 <d...@etcoleman.com> wrote: > > Thanks – fixed in tool. > > FYI: The reason for the caution is that formatting / wrapping / whitespace > with text pasted into the email may differ than what the tool will submit. > > Ed Coleman > > From: Daniel Roberts <ddani...@gmail.com> > Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 10:53 AM > To: dev@accumulo.apache.org <dev@accumulo.apache.org> > Subject: Re: Accumulo Board Report - due by Oct 11th > I know you mentioned that this draft may not be the submitted version, > but "current project status" is duplicated in the same line. >
