+1 B.
> On 30 Jul 2019, at 09:51, Garren Smith <gar...@apache.org> wrote: > > +1 > >> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:27 AM Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Dear CouchDB developers, >> >> This vote decides whether the CouchDB project accepts the proposal[1] >> to switch our underlying storage and distributed systems technology out >> for FoundationDB[2]. >> >> At the outset, we said that we wanted to cover these topic areas before >> making a vote: >> >> - Bylaw changes >> - RFC process: done, passed >> - Add qualified vote option: done, changes proposed were not >> ratified >> >> - Roadmap: proposal done, detailed discussions TBD, includes >> deprecations >> >> - Onboarding: ASF onboarding links shared, CouchDB specific onboarding >> TBD. >> >> - (Re-)Branding: tentatively: 3.0 is the last release before FDB >> CouchDB and 4.0 is the FDB CouchDB. If we need nicknames, we can >> decide on those later. >> >> - FoundationDB Governance: FoundationDB is currently loosely organised >> between Apple and a few key stakeholder companies invested in the >> technology. Apple contributions are trending downwards relatively, >> approaching 50%, which means in the future, more non-Apple than Apple >> contributions are likely. >> >> In addition, the CouchDB PMC has requested addition to the current >> organisational FDB weekly meeting, which is where any more formal >> governance decisions are going to be made and the CouchDB PMC can be >> a part of the surrounding discussions. >> >> - FoundationDB Operations knowledge: IBM has intends to share this >> knowledge as they acquire it in conjunction with Apache CouchDB in >> terms of general ops knowledge, best practices and tooling. >> >> - Proj. Mgmt.: RFC process + outline list of TBD RFCs allow for enough >> visibility and collaboration opportunities, everyone on dev@ list is >> encouraged to participate. >> >> - Tech deep dives: DISCUSS threads and RFCs are covering this, current >> list of TBD DISCUSS/RFCs, for the proposal. Most of which were >> already discussed on dev@ or RFC’d in our documentation repo: >> >> * JSON doc storage and storage of edit conflicts >> * revision management >> * _changes feed >> * _db_updates >> * _all_docs >> * database creation and deletion >> * attachments >> * mango indexes (including collation) >> * map-only views / search / geo >> * reduces >> * aggregate metrics (data_size, etc.) >> * release engineering >> * local/desktop/dev install security >> >> * * * >> >> As shown above, all topics we wanted to have clarity on have been >> advanced to a point where we are now ready to make a decision: >> >> Should Apache CouchDB adopt FoundationDB? >> >> Since this is a big decision, I suggest we make this a Lazy 2/3 >> Majority Vote with PMC Binding Votes, and a 7 day duration (as per our >> bylaws[3]). >> >> You can cast your votes now. >> >> Best >> Jan >> — >> [1]: >> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/04e7889354c077a6beb91fd1292b6d38b7a3f2c6a5dc7d20f5b87c44@%3Cdev.couchdb.apache.org%3E >> [2]: https://www.foundationdb.org >> [3]: https://couchdb.apache.org/bylaws.html >> >> >>
