Hi Folks, Lots of good points raised here. I remain convinced that the time to split Hadoop into TLPs in here, but I think we should also consider the practical concerns raised.
Hadoop 2.0 has been years of work in the making and is finally relatively close. I think it would be a mistake to throw another impediment in the way of getting a stable version of 2.0 done, as many folks have pointed out. So I'd suggest that we plan to do a split once there is a broad consensus that 2.0 is stable and widely deployed. Perhaps folks interested in planning a split or concerned that a split might impact them can meet to refine a proposal that we can all consider implementing once 2.0 is stable. What do folks think? Thanks, E14 On Aug 31, 2012, at 9:08 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote: > Hey Doug, > > On Aug 31, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Doug Cutting wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) >> <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: >>> I am saying that the current members of the Apache Software Foundation's >>> Hadoop >>> Project Management Committee exhibit the characteristics (not just during >>> discrete events; it's been happening for a long time) of folks who in >>> reality >>> shouldn't belong to the same project management committee. Note: this is >>> NOT a bad thing. There are probably plenty of (sub-)sets of groups at Apache >>> and elsewhere that folks wouldn't fit in to. I've enumerated some of >>> those characteristics that you can see sometimes spill over >>> (meta thought discussions about moving things around; or drawing arbitrary >>> lines around pieces of code that really have nothing to do with technical >>> stuff, and more to do about insulating and control;), >> >> Hadoop's community is not perfect. But the divisions in the community >> are not primarily aligned with subcomponent boundaries. A project >> split will thus not likely fix the majority of these community >> imperfections. It may fix some, but ought to be pursued carefully so >> that it doesn't cause more harm than good. > > My own personal opinion of this is that yeah they aren't necessarily > aligned subcomponent boundaries too so +1 agree with you. > >> >>> but there are also other >>> concerns such as frameworks put in to place (exclusivity amongst others) >>> that themselves are pretty high indicators that this is an umbrella project. >> >> The partitioning of committers has now been removed in a separate >> vote. Hadoop is not a classic umbrella project. > > Despite me thinking that's a band-aid it's probably at least a good start. > Let's hope it leads to some better interactions amongst the community > members and to better health overall. > > Cheers, > Chris > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Senior Computer Scientist > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246 > Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >
