Garren, RFCs are intended for major changes to our projects, not for minor improvments.
Do you foresee massive changes to nano and fauxton? Do you not see that a single employer driving ~all the development of either or both of these as a significant concern re: the health of our community? -Joan ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Garren Smith" <gar...@apache.org> > To: "priv...@couchdb.apache.org Private" <priv...@couchdb.apache.org>, "Joan > Touzet" <woh...@apache.org> > Cc: "CouchDB Developers" <dev@couchdb.apache.org> > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2019 2:56:04 AM > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed Bylaws changes > > I'm also not super keen on the "not directly affiliated with the > proposer's > employer”. I think this will put unnecessary strain on the community. > Take > the Fauxton and Nano.js project. The majority of work on those > projects > come from IBM affiliated developers. We do have a smaller group of > community developers. That small group of community developers would > have > to review all RFC's and approve them and ideally not hold up > development on > a feature for a few weeks while they try and find time to get to it. > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:49 AM Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Thanks. I'll make another attempt to sway others, and I'd like to > > hear > > from more people on this thread. > > > > I don't see the harm in this, it would rarely if ever be invoked, > > and > > it allows us to point to a concrete, solid action we have taken to > > ensure we don't have a runaway project in the future. I would think > > it could be a guiding light for other ASF projects that have lost > > their > > way (where we, I continue to assert, have not). > > > > Remember that votes on RFCs are the *committer* community, not the > > PMC. > > I'd be shocked if the PMC remained entirely silent on a proposal, > > but > > it indeed could be possible that committers could get an RFC > > together > > "while the PMC isn't looking" (say, over a holiday). Granted it'd > > be in > > bad form, and the PMC could still take steps to correct things > > after > > the action, but it'd be annoying to deal with. > > > > Again all I am trying to do here is put in a limiter in case the > > PMC > > and committer base /were/ to get stacked against the community. If > > that > > were to occur, your argument that the PMC could step in at that > > point > > is moot, because the PMC would already be stacked in that > > direction. > > This would protect the community from the negative effects of that > > happening. > > > > -Joan > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Robert Samuel Newson" <rnew...@apache.org> > > > To: "Joan Touzet" <woh...@apache.org> > > > Cc: "CouchDB Developers" <dev@couchdb.apache.org>, "CouchDB PMC" > > > < > > priv...@couchdb.apache.org> > > > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 4:46:35 PM > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed Bylaws changes > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Sure. > > > > > > Any member of the PMC who is railroading changes through on > > > behalf of > > > their employer to the detriment of this project should be > > > disciplined, ultimately losing their PMC membership (and their > > > binding vote on future changes). > > > > > > The "not directly affiliated with proposer's employer” seems to > > > presume bad faith on the part of some of those with binding votes > > > at > > > worst, and, at best, is stating that the PMC already distrusts > > > its > > > members that happen to be employed by IBM. If that is currently > > > the > > > case, the PMC should act directly and censure those members who > > > have > > > acted contrary to the requirements of an ASF PMC member. > > > > > > I don’t see how this piece is coupled with RFC, especially when > > > writing RFC’s, and taking them through a community review > > > process, > > > is likely to mitigate the issue of significant work being > > > designed > > > in private but ultimately contributed to CouchDB publicly. > > > > > > If the “RFC before code” approach does not work out, I will add > > > my > > > support to the affiliation requirement, but with a heavy heart. > > > To > > > presume such bad faith within the PMC, or to suspect it so > > > strongly > > > as to embed pre-emptive measures into our bylaws, points at > > > issues > > > deeper than a bylaw change can reasonably address. Other, > > > stronger > > > responses would seem more appropriate should that come to pass. > > > > > > B. > > > > > > > On 14 Feb 2019, at 21:31, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Robert, > > > > > > > > Care to give any more detail on your -1? > > > > > > > > I gave a fairly extensive argument as to why I think such a > > > > safeguard is important for our community. I also feel it would > > > > be meaningless to push through an RFC without community > > > > support. > > > > But our current bylaws would make this very straightforward. > > > > Why not put in this "backstop?" > > > > > > > > -Joan > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > >> From: "Robert Samuel Newson" <rnew...@apache.org> > > > >> To: "CouchDB PMC" <priv...@couchdb.apache.org> > > > >> Cc: "Joan Touzet" <woh...@apache.org>, "CouchDB Developers" > > > >> <dev@couchdb.apache.org> > > > >> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2019 4:26:31 PM > > > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Proposed Bylaws changes > > > >> > > > >> I am +1 on the RFC’s and -1 on the "not directly affiliated > > > >> with > > > >> the > > > >> proposer's employer” item. > > > >> > > > >> B. > > > >> > > > >>> On 13 Feb 2019, at 11:13, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Sounds fantastic, thanks too for the additional context! I’d > > > >>> love > > > >>> for us to lead the way here (yet again). > > > >>> > > > >>> Best > > > >>> Jan > > > >>> — > > > >>> > > > >>>> On 12. Feb 2019, at 20:15, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Hi everyone, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> There appears to be general consensus on the RFC process, > > > >>>> with > > > >>>> no > > > >>>> objections to the proposal itself. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I'd like to propose the following changes to our bylaws: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > https://github.com/apache/couchdb-www/commit/8ae3a5a230b1717d7affe23625eeb288635aa542 > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Quick summary: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> * Added the RFC proposal process > > > >>>> * The RFC will become an official template as part of this > > > >>>> * https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/1914 adds Bob's > > > >>>> request > > > >>>> to include a Security section > > > >>>> > > > >>>> * Proposed a new "qualified lazy majority" approval model > > > >>>> for > > > >>>> RFCs: > > > >>>> * Requires 3 binding +1 votes > > > >>>> * Requires more binding +1 votes than binding -1 votes > > > >>>> * (NEW) Requires at least +1 binding vote from an > > > >>>> individual > > > >>>> not directly affiliated with the proposer's employer (if > > > >>>> applicable) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> * Changed URLs to use the new Pony Mail web interface (yay!) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> While today we are in a great situation where no single > > > >>>> entity > > > >>>> dominates > > > >>>> CouchDB development (to the exclusion of others), I believe > > > >>>> this > > > >>>> new > > > >>>> approval model (just for RFCs) will prevent that from > > > >>>> occurring > > > >>>> in > > > >>>> the > > > >>>> future, and will ease a long-standing concern I have held. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> If there is no strong objection, I will start the VOTE later > > > >>>> this > > > >>>> week. > > > >>>> As this is both creating and amending our official > > > >>>> documents, > > > >>>> the > > > >>>> vote > > > >>>> will be a lazy 2/3 majority vote, with binding votes only > > > >>>> from > > > >>>> PMC > > > >>>> members. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Why is this so important to me? Recently, on another ASF > > > >>>> mailing > > > >>>> list, > > > >>>> there was a discussion about some of the changes happening > > > >>>> in > > > >>>> the > > > >>>> commercial world, and as it relates to big companies giving > > > >>>> back > > > >>>> to open > > > >>>> source. (You may have read about some competing database > > > >>>> projects > > > >>>> changing their license, for instance.) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Allen Wittenauer graciously allowed me to excerpt his post, > > > >>>> which > > > >>>> is > > > >>>> critical of the Apache Hadoop community, and share it here > > > >>>> as a > > > >>>> cautionary tale: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>> This pretty much ignores the committer hoarding that > > > >>>>>> is > > > >>>>>> happening in a lot of ASF projects. It’s something > > > >>>>>> that > > > >>>>>> Jeff > > > >>>>>> hinted at in a previous reply that I think people > > > >>>>>> completely > > > >>>>>> missed: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> The obvious reality is that the companies who build > > > >>>>>>> service > > > >>>>>>> around > > > >>>>>>> "pay to call me when it breaks" are very, very often the > > > >>>>>>> same > > > >>>>>>> companies who hire all the committers, who fund all the > > > >>>>>>> dev, > > > >>>>>>> who end > > > >>>>>>> up in danger when a cloud provider offers their product > > > >>>>>>> as a > > > >>>>>>> service. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Most of the Hadoop vendors tried to hire as many of > > > >>>>>> the > > > >>>>>> committers as they possibly could and was even part > > > >>>>>> of > > > >>>>>> some > > > >>>>>> PR campaigns (“We have more!” “Ours were first!”) > > > >>>>>> This > > > >>>>>> resulted in the community outside of those vendors > > > >>>>>> being > > > >>>>>> mostly ignored. This also built a feedback loop where > > > >>>>>> PMC > > > >>>>>> members promote their coworkers at a significantly > > > >>>>>> higher > > > >>>>>> rate than non-coworkers because the only > > > >>>>>> contributions > > > >>>>>> that > > > >>>>>> were being looked at were the ones that helped their > > > >>>>>> employers. (Anecdotally, coworkers: committer in 6 > > > >>>>>> months, > > > >>>>>> non-coworkers, ~1-2 years, if ever) As a result, the > > > >>>>>> project > > > >>>>>> is a shell of its former self since it was impossible > > > >>>>>> for > > > >>>>>> outsiders to make major, disruptive advancements in > > > >>>>>> the > > > >>>>>> project. Worse yet, Hadoop is now overwhelmingly > > > >>>>>> controlled > > > >>>>>> by one company since two of those vendors were forced > > > >>>>>> to > > > >>>>>> merge. > > > >>>>> [snip] > > > >>>>>> This is probably the key reason why a lot of > > > >>>>>> companies > > > >>>>>> participate in open source. Maybe if companies > > > >>>>>> didn’t > > > >>>>>> feel > > > >>>>>> the need to hire every single person they could get > > > >>>>>> their > > > >>>>>> hands on to try and control the project, maybe the > > > >>>>>> cloud > > > >>>>>> providers would be more willing to donate man power. > > > >>>>>> As > > > >>>>>> it > > > >>>>>> is, there is little point for anyone outside of a > > > >>>>>> company > > > >>>>>> whose mission is to be “the source” for their project > > > >>>>>> (officially or unofficially) to contribute to > > > >>>>>> non-diverse > > > >>>>>> projects. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> From my informal chats with people at ApacheCon 2018 in > > > >>>> Montreal, > > > >>>> this > > > >>>> is a hot-button topic. I'd like to get CouchDB out from > > > >>>> under > > > >>>> this > > > >>>> cloud. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Again I am NOT ASSERTING that this is where we are today. I > > > >>>> think > > > >>>> our > > > >>>> dev community works well together and is not controlled by a > > > >>>> single > > > >>>> entity. I just want to remove the possibility for this sort > > > >>>> of > > > >>>> abuse to > > > >>>> occur, and I think that doing so thru the RFC process is the > > > >>>> right > > > >>>> step > > > >>>> at this time. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> It is in everyone's best interest that RFCs happen, that we > > > >>>> have > > > >>>> consensus agreement on them, and that an open vote happens > > > >>>> where > > > >>>> it's > > > >>>> clear that no single party is forcing through changes > > > >>>> against > > > >>>> the > > > >>>> will > > > >>>> of other committed parties. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -Joan > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB: > > > >>> https://neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/ > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > >
