incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Fluo graduation as TLP
Date Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:32:57 GMT
Hi -

Top posting. These are all excellent reasons to remain separate.

Best Regards,

> On Jul 5, 2017, at 12:29 PM, Christopher <> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 1:52 PM Dave Fisher <> wrote:
>> Hi Josh,
>> I have some questions:
>>> On Jul 5, 2017, at 10:18 AM, Josh Elser <> wrote:
>>> As a mentor, I consciously avoided an explicit "+1" until we got some
>> IPMC discussion. Let me expand:
>>> The current members of Fluo are great, get the Apache Way, and are
>> self-sufficient. I have no concerns over them operating as a TLP -- I think
>> they are ready. However, they have only added a single committer and I see
>> none in the pipeline -- Fluo is defined by the current committers.
>> (1) Seems to be a niche project as you state below which is just within
>> the range of 5 contributors. Am I wrong?
>>> My hesitation is balancing the Incubators goal of "pushing podlings to
>> graduate" and ensuring adequate diversity in the podling. This is
>> especially difficult for Fluo as they're "niche on niche" (it's a difficult
>> dist-sys problem/software, and not many people use the tech they're
>> building on top of given my view of the world).
>>> I realize that this discussion could easily spiral out of control,
>> turning into some meta-discussion about Incubator goals. I want to avoid
>> that.
>>> I'm looking for some feelings from other IPMC folks about how to
>> approach the Fluo podling given their specific circumstances. If other
>> people are also hesitant, I would also be interested in suggestions about
>> what we would concretely change (because I don't know what to suggest that
>> "fix" the diversity issue for them that isn't changing the core of their
>> project). If people aren't worried, I'm happy to give an explicit +1.
>> (2) Has any consideration been given to becoming a project within
>> Accumulo? Or are the goals of Fluo distinct from and not wholly dependent
>> on Accumulo?
> I'd like to answer this number (2): This possibility was mentioned by me
> after one of our previous status reports as a discussion I'd like to have
> on the list. However, I never raised it again on the list to formally
> discuss. There's a few potential reasons why I now think that might not
> work well, and why I never brought it up again (and probably why nobody
> raised it with the Accumulo PMC):
> 1. The committers do overlap (all but one Fluo PPMC/committer is also an
> Accumulo PMC/committer), but Accumulo's PMC is much larger than Fluo's
> PPMC. It would not make sense for the Fluo PPMC to grant majority control
> to an Accumulo PMC which does not necessarily share the consensus direction
> that Fluo is headed. I'm sure Fluo would be happy to incrementally onboard
> Accumulo developers as they began participating in Fluo development, but
> bringing them in without vetting their merits from the Fluo team's
> perspective seems like a bad idea. The Fluo team would probably prefer
> decide on the merits of new committers/PMC based on their contributions to
> Fluo, rather than automatically inherit any committers from another project.
> 2. While Fluo is currently implemented on Accumulo, it is not necessarily
> the intent for it to remain this way. Under an Accumulo PMC, it is likely
> this coupling would solidify, rather than be abstracted. When Fluo was
> proposed to the incubator, it was mentioned that we'd be willing to accept
> contributions to expand Fluo's feature set so that it works on other
> databases. The proposed TLP resolution reflects this willingness to expand
> beyond Accumulo by not mentioning Accumulo in its mission statement.
> 3. Accumulo uses a JIRA-based workflow with pull requests on GitHub and
> C-T-R. Fluo is using GitBox with R-T-C. The workflows are very different.
> Accumulo's existing bylaws explicitly contradict Fluo's own workflow that
> the developers seem comfortable with.
> 4. Speaking as an Accumulo PMC member, I don't know that I'd want to set a
> precedence for accepting Accumulo-related projects as subprojects of
> Accumulo, simply because it can be a bit of scope creep for Accumulo. The
> Accumulo PMC has already been approached to accept several other extensions
> to Accumulo as subprojects from "drive-by" sources who (from appearances)
> simply want to offload the maintenance work without community
> participation. I can't speak for the rest of the Accumulo PMC, but it seems
> preferable to me that the Accumulo PMC protect itself from such DOA code
> dumps by leaning towards resisting subprojects (though, having gone through
> Incubation can be proof that the code is not going to be DOA). Speaking as
> a Fluo PPMC member, I would not want to burden the Accumulo PMC with the
> responsibility to regularly evaluate whether to accept bulk code as
> subprojects, by opening those flood gates and distracting the PMC from its
> primary responsibilities to its existing code.
>> (3) Corollary - it seems a large number of Fluo Initial Committers were
>> also Accumulo PMC. (I not intentionally rehashing any prior conversation.)
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>>> - Josh
>>> On 7/3/17 4:15 PM, John D. Ament wrote:
>>>> Hi Christopher,
>>>> Thanks for the heads up.  A few nits on my part, but overall I would be
>>>> happy to see Fluo graduate.  When reading my notes, please also consult
>> the
>>>> graduation guide at [1].
>>>> - The discussion and vote should have happened on your public dev list,
>> not
>>>> private.  It's good that at least discussion happened publicly, and the
>>>> actual vote isn't required so it's not a big deal.
>>>> - I don't see any sign that you added new committers or PPMC members
>> since
>>>> incubating.  See also [2].  I don't see that as a show stopper, as it
>> looks
>>>> like a diverse group.
>>>> - Of the proposed PMC, how many are actively committing to Fluo?  Was
>> there
>>>> an ask at any point to see who was still interested?
>>>> - Only one mentor voted on the graduation.  Would be great to see if the
>>>> other mentors are equally on board.
>>>> John
>>>> [1]:
>>>> [2]:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 2:12 PM Christopher <> wrote:
>>>>> Greetings Incubator,
>>>>> The Fluo podling has decided to pursue graduation to a TLP. The result
>> of
>>>>> the internal PPMC vote is at [1] (apologies that it occurred on our
>> private
>>>>> list instead of on our dev list; the discuss thread [2] which preceded
>> it
>>>>> did occur on the dev list). Our podling status page has recently been
>>>>> updated and can be found here[3].
>>>>> Below, you can view the proposed TLP resolution which we'd like to
>> present
>>>>> to the board with the support of the IPMC, after sufficient discussion
>> here
>>>>> and subsequent IPMC vote.
>>>>> [1]:
>>>>> [2]:
>>>>> [3]:
>>>>> **********
>>>>> Establish the Apache Fluo Project
>>>>> WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests
>>>>> the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to
>> establish
>>>>> a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and
>> maintenance
>>>>> of open-source software, for distribution at no charge to the public,
>>>>> related to the storage and incremental processing of large data sets.
>>>>> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management Committee
>>>>> (PMC), to be known as the "Apache Fluo Project", be and hereby is
>>>>> established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation; and be it further
>>>>> RESOLVED, that the Apache Fluo Project be and hereby is responsible for
>>>>> the creation and maintenance of software related to the storage and
>>>>> incremental processing of large data sets; and be it further
>>>>> RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Apache Fluo" be and
>> hereby
>>>>> is created, the person holding such office to serve at the direction
>>>>> the Board of Directors as the chair of the Apache Fluo Project, and to
>>>>> have primary responsibility for management of the projects within the
>>>>> scope of responsibility of the Apache Fluo Project; and be it further
>>>>> RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby are
>>>>> appointed to serve as the initial members of the Apache Fluo Project:
>>>>> * Billie Rinaldi <>
>>>>> * Chris McTague <>
>>>>> * Christopher Tubbs <>
>>>>> * Corey J. Nolet <>
>>>>> * Drew Farris <>
>>>>> * Josh Elser <>
>>>>> * Keith Turner <>
>>>>> * Mike Walch <>
>>>>> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Keith Turner be appointed
>>>>> to the office of Vice President, Apache Fluo, to serve in accordance
>>>>> with and subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the
>>>>> Bylaws of the Foundation until death, resignation, retirement, removal
>>>>> or disqualification, or until a successor is appointed; and be it
>>>>> further
>>>>> RESOLVED, that the initial Apache Fluo PMC be and hereby is tasked with
>>>>> the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open development
>>>>> and increased participation in the Apache Fluo Project; and be it
>>>>> further
>>>>> RESOLVED, that the Apache Fluo Project be and hereby is tasked with the
>>>>> migration and rationalization of the Apache Incubator Fluo podling; and
>>>>> be it further
>>>>> RESOLVED, that all responsibilities pertaining to the Apache Incubator
>>>>> Fluo podling encumbered upon the Apache Incubator PMC are hereafter
>>>>> discharged.
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message