FAQ
Please find the results of the ZooKeeper as TLP discussion here.

http://bit.ly/c4fuZT

There was consensus amongst the development team that we will stay as a
subproject of Hadoop for the time being. Full details of the discussion
can be found in the thread provided.

Patrick

Search Discussions

  • Doug Cutting at Apr 7, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    Patrick Hunt wrote:
    Please find the results of the ZooKeeper as TLP discussion here.

    http://bit.ly/c4fuZT

    There was consensus amongst the development team that we will stay as a
    subproject of Hadoop for the time being. Full details of the discussion
    can be found in the thread provided.
    In that discussion you state:
    a) I do not think ZooKeeper currently has a sufficiently large and
    diverse enough community such that it can fend for itself as a
    TLP
    How does the Hadoop PMC assist Zookeeper? I see very little evidence
    that the Hadoop PMC is involved at all day-to-day operations of
    Zookeeper. Currently the Hadoop PMC must vote on new Zookeeper
    committers and releases. These votes usually pass with the minimum
    required number of PMC votes, often only after an appeal is made for
    more votes. This does not seem like significant oversight. Beyond
    that, I see little evidence of involvement by the Hadoop PMC in
    Zookeeper. So I don't see this as a strong argument not to become a TLP.

    If a group of committers is operating independently, then they ought to
    be an independent TLP. The fact that you're a subproject operating
    independently only hides the lack of diversity, it doesn't help it.
    b) Loss of branding and discover-ability
    This also seems a poor reason to remain a sub-project. We can retain
    prominent links to Zookeeper from hadoop.apache.org regardless of how
    the projects are structured.
    c) "if ain't broke don't fix it". I have frequent interactions with
    Hadoop PMC/Chair and an Apache board member.
    That should not change as a TLP. Apache encourages cross-project
    communication and collaboration.

    The things that would change if Zookeeper were a TLP are:
    1. its official website would be at zookeeper.apache.org.
    2. it could vote for committers and releases directly rather than
    through the Hadoop PMC
    3. it would submit its quarterly report to the board directly, instead
    of via the Hadoop PMC.

    That's pretty much it.

    The board has a well established report and review system. Each
    project's quarterly report is closely read and must be individually
    approved by a quorum of the board's members. PMCs tend not to have such
    a review mechanism for subprojects. Historically subprojects that
    develop problems have been slow to identify, and the problems have
    worsened in the meantime. The focus of each PMC should be on direct
    decisions about code, committers and releases. The board's job is to
    make sure that each PMC operates effectively. These are different
    responsibilities and require different processes.

    No one is going to force Zookeeper to become a TLP against its will, and
    no change must be made immediately. But I think such a move would be
    easy to make, have significant upside for the project in simplifying its
    formal votes, and have significant upside to the foundation in
    facilitating the project's direct interaction with the board.

    Doug
  • Bernd Fondermann at Apr 8, 2010 at 8:42 am

    On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 21:00, Doug Cutting wrote:
    Patrick Hunt wrote:
    Please find the results of the ZooKeeper as TLP discussion here.

    http://bit.ly/c4fuZT

    There was consensus amongst the development team that we will stay as a
    subproject of Hadoop for the time being. Full details of the discussion can
    be found in the thread provided.
    In that discussion you state:
    a) I do not think ZooKeeper currently has a sufficiently large and
    diverse enough community such that it can fend for itself as a
    TLP
    How does the Hadoop PMC assist Zookeeper?  I see very little evidence that
    the Hadoop PMC is involved at all day-to-day operations of Zookeeper.
    Currently the Hadoop PMC must vote on new Zookeeper committers and
    releases.  These votes usually pass with the minimum required number of PMC
    votes, often only after an appeal is made for more votes.  This does not
    seem like significant oversight.  Beyond that, I see little evidence of
    involvement by the Hadoop PMC in Zookeeper.  So I don't see this as a strong
    argument not to become a TLP.

    If a group of committers is operating independently, then they ought to be
    an independent TLP.  The fact that you're a subproject operating
    independently only hides the lack of diversity, it doesn't help it.
    b) Loss of branding and discover-ability
    This also seems a poor reason to remain a sub-project.  We can retain
    prominent links to Zookeeper from hadoop.apache.org regardless of how the
    projects are structured.
    c) "if ain't broke don't fix it". I have frequent interactions with
    Hadoop PMC/Chair and an Apache board member.
    That should not change as a TLP.  Apache encourages cross-project
    communication and collaboration.

    The things that would change if Zookeeper were a TLP are:
    1. its official website would be at zookeeper.apache.org.
    2. it could vote for committers and releases directly rather than through
    the Hadoop PMC
    3. it would submit its quarterly report to the board directly, instead of
    via the Hadoop PMC.

    That's pretty much it.

    The board has a well established report and review system.  Each project's
    quarterly report is closely read and must be individually approved by a
    quorum of the board's members.  PMCs tend not to have such a review
    mechanism for subprojects.  Historically subprojects that develop problems
    have been slow to identify, and the problems have worsened in the meantime.
    The focus of each PMC should be on direct decisions about code, committers
    and releases.  The board's job is to make sure that each PMC operates
    effectively.  These are different responsibilities and require different
    processes.

    No one is going to force Zookeeper to become a TLP against its will, and no
    change must be made immediately.  But I think such a move would be easy to
    make, have significant upside for the project in simplifying its formal
    votes, and have significant upside to the foundation in facilitating the
    project's direct interaction with the board.

    Doug
    +1 to all of this.

    Additional comments.
    If there would be 3 Zookeeper committers on the Hadoop PMC, then the
    lack-of-oversight problem would go away and releases could be voted on
    without delay.
    I don't want to discuss why this currently is like it is - this should
    really be discussed on private@hadoop.a.o.

    However, going TLP requires experienced people. That means Zookeeper
    will probably need Hadoop PMC members or others (ASF members, etc) to
    join the initial PMC.
    Otherwise, in my opinion the proper path could either be Zookeeper
    growing up here for a while until a proper PMC can be forked from
    Hadoop, or going through - hold your breath - incubation.

    You know, this whole umbrella discussion should not result in a mass
    exodus into TLPs which might collapse sooner or later.

    Bernd
  • Doug Cutting at Apr 8, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    Bernd Fondermann wrote:
    However, going TLP requires experienced people. That means Zookeeper
    will probably need Hadoop PMC members or others (ASF members, etc) to
    join the initial PMC.
    The Hadoop PMC should use criteria similar to the Incubator for
    graduation to TLP.

    http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Minimum+Graduation+Requirements

    The only requirement in doubt is diversity. Those diversity
    requirements are soft, not hard and fast. When I raised this, several
    board members indicated that they would rather have non-diverse TLPs
    than non-diverse subprojects, since the board could then directly
    observe whether diversity is improving within the project, and, if it is
    not, provide assistance.
    Otherwise, in my opinion the proper path could either be Zookeeper
    growing up here for a while until a proper PMC can be forked from
    Hadoop, or going through - hold your breath - incubation.
    These projects are already effectively in incubation, under the Hadoop
    PMC rather than under the Incubator PMC. The question today is whether
    they're ready to graduate. The board has asked for a report on this.

    We need not rush into anything. If we have doubts about some cases,
    then our report to the board might include questions about the criteria
    to promote subprojects to TLP, to help clarify things.

    If we, as a PMC, wish to wait for diversity in a subproject to improve,
    then we must commit to regular monitoring that subproject's diversity,
    and, if it's not improving, try to figure out why, and act to help it
    improve. Just as podlings should not languish in the incubator for
    years, a sub-project's goal should be promotion to TLP within a year or
    so of founding. If we don't want to commit to this oversight, then
    either the board or the incubator PMC could.

    Doug
  • Patrick Hunt at Apr 8, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    I can speak only for ZK but we are hitting on all cylinders from this
    list. All the process/infra/legal items have long ago been committed. We
    have strong partnerships with multiple Apache projects (HBase and Solr
    in particular) and a dedication to "the apache way".
    The only requirement in doubt is diversity.
    If you read through the full thread, and not just the snippets Doug
    pulled, you would see a strong community and commitment to both
    increasing diversity and gaining TLP status. The hurdle we face today
    wrt diversity is that while usage is picking up, it's been historically
    hard for us to gain contributors. This is primarily due to the fact that
    we have a) highly targeted & complex project, and b) relatively mature
    project and user base. We are not a new project, where the majority of
    code is yet to be written. We are working to increase diversity, (again,
    see the thread for some discussion of this) however it's slow going.
    Recently we have seen a big upswing in users (twitter, digg, Solr,
    Cassandra, Neo4j, etc...) due to our efforts at evangelism. The hope is
    that these new users, along with some new areas for development, would
    stimulate contributor growth. If you have any ideas or could provide
    help in this area please feel free to discuss on our dev list.

    Patrick

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupgeneral @
categorieshadoop
postedApr 7, '10 at 5:30p
activeApr 8, '10 at 4:53p
posts5
users3
websitehadoop.apache.org
irc#hadoop

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase