+1
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:06 AM Nick Vatamaniuc <vatam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 10:25 AM Wendall Cada <wenda...@apache.org> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 7:08 AM Adam Kocoloski <kocol...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > On Jul 30, 2019, at 4:27 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
