Hey all, Unfortunately, we're going to have to reschedule this meeting. A few critical folks ended up having to back out at the last minute. I'll send an update when I've coordinated a new time. Ideally, I'd like to do it later this week, but we'll see.
Cheers, Chris On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Chris Riccomini <[email protected]> wrote: > Invite sent for 8/2 from 3pm-5pm Pacific time! Here's the dial-in info: > > Join from PC, Mac, Linux, iOS or Android: https://wepay.zoom.us/j/ > 994482435 > > Or iPhone one-tap (US Toll): +16465588656 <(646)%20558-8656>,,994482435# > or +14086380968 <(408)%20638-0968>,,994482435# > > Or Telephone: > Dial: +1 646 558 8656 <(646)%20558-8656> (US Toll) or +1 408 638 0968 > <(408)%20638-0968> (US Toll) > +1 855 880 1246 <(855)%20880-1246> (US Toll Free) > +1 877 369 0926 <(877)%20369-0926> (US Toll Free) > Meeting ID: 994 482 435 > International numbers available: https://wepay.zoom.us/ > zoomconference?m=wHL1YsNLTvoAf8xdE8ki9yNEPVcus_eF > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Chris Riccomini <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Great! I'll send an invite. >> >> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Dan Davydov < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Same as Alex, would be great to be able to remote in though I'm very >>> interested. >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Alex Guziel <[email protected] >>> .invalid >>> > wrote: >>> >>> > Yeah, I could call in but I probably won't be able to come down that >>> day. >>> > >>> > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Maxime Beauchemin < >>> > [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> > > Works for me! Dan said he might confcall in. Alex? >>> > > >>> > > Max >>> > > >>> > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:25 AM, Chris Riccomini < >>> [email protected] >>> > > >>> > > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > > Wednesday 8/2 is perfect. Want to do it like 3-5? I booked a room >>> for >>> > 12 >>> > > > people (and video conferencing) at WePay in this time slot. Should >>> > allow >>> > > > you to head home easily afterwards. :) That work for you guys? >>> > > > >>> > > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Maxime Beauchemin < >>> > > > [email protected]> wrote: >>> > > > >>> > > > > The week of the 31st sound good. Wednesday? >>> > > > > >>> > > > > About React we may not need a frontend lib like it (or at least >>> not >>> > > just >>> > > > > yet). We can talk about it at the meeting. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > Max >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Bolke de Bruin < >>> [email protected]> >>> > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > We avoid React for the same reasons as the ASF and use Polymer >>> 2 >>> > > > instead. >>> > > > > > Would that work? >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > Bolke. >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > On 20 Jul 2017, at 19:35, Chris Riccomini < >>> [email protected] >>> > > >>> > > > > wrote: >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Hey Max, >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Want to come down to WePay? We can set up a zoom for those >>> that >>> > > want >>> > > > to >>> > > > > > > join online, and record it as well to post for the community. >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Since Joy is just getting started, and it looks like there's >>> > going >>> > > to >>> > > > > be >>> > > > > > a >>> > > > > > > K8s discussion next week, maybe we can shoot for the week >>> after >>> > > (the >>> > > > > week >>> > > > > > > of the 31st of July)? Care to float a few times that week? >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > Cheers, >>> > > > > > > Chris >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Maxime Beauchemin < >>> > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: >>> > > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> Sounds awesome, count me in! >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> * check out the prototype in my fork, I went far enough to >>> hit >>> > > some >>> > > > > > >> hurdles, try different workarounds. I hooked up the Airflow >>> > > > Bootstrap >>> > > > > > >> template too so that we feel at home in this new UI >>> > > > > > >> * using a single `id` field is a requirement for FAB that >>> > airflow >>> > > > > > doesn't >>> > > > > > >> respect (composite pks), either we add the feature to >>> support >>> > that >>> > > > in >>> > > > > > FAB, >>> > > > > > >> or we align on the Airflow side and modify the models and >>> add a >>> > > > > > migration >>> > > > > > >> script. This upgrade would require downtime and might be >>> > annoying >>> > > to >>> > > > > the >>> > > > > > >> Airflow community, but could help with db performance a bit >>> > > (smaller >>> > > > > > >> index)... I probably could be convinced either way but I'm >>> > leaning >>> > > > on >>> > > > > > >> improving FAB >>> > > > > > >> * I'm a maintainer for FAB so I can help get stuff through >>> there >>> > > > > > >> * React is in limbo at the ASF for licensing reasons, so no >>> > React >>> > > at >>> > > > > > least >>> > > > > > >> for now >>> > > > > > >> * npm/webpack/ES6, javascript only in `.js` files >>> > > > > > >> * I vote for eslint + eslint-config-airbnb as a set of >>> linting >>> > > rules >>> > > > > > for JS >>> > > > > > >> * Keep out of apache (for now), this new app ships as its >>> own >>> > pypi >>> > > > > > package >>> > > > > > >> `airflow-webserver`, have a period of overlap (maintaining >>> 2 web >>> > > > apps) >>> > > > > > >> before ripping out `airflow/www` from the core package >>> > > > > > >> * You need to get in touch with Marty Kausas, an intern at >>> > Airbnb >>> > > > > who's >>> > > > > > >> been working on a Flask blueprint for improved, more >>> > personalized >>> > > > > views >>> > > > > > on >>> > > > > > >> DAGs that we were planning on merging into the main branch >>> > > > eventually. >>> > > > > > Some >>> > > > > > >> of Marty's idea and code could be merged into this effort. >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> These are ideas on how I would proceed personally on this >>> but >>> > > > > definitely >>> > > > > > >> everything here is up for discussion. >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> Let's meet physically at either WePay or Airbnb. Folks from >>> the >>> > > > > > community, >>> > > > > > >> let us know on this thread if you want to be part of this >>> > effort, >>> > > > > we'll >>> > > > > > be >>> > > > > > >> happy to include you. >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> Thanks, >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> Max >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Joy Gao <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> Hey everyone, >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> I recently transferred to Data Infra team here at WePay to >>> > focus >>> > > on >>> > > > > > >>> Airflow-related initiatives. >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> Given the RBAC design is mostly hashed out, I'm happy to >>> get >>> > this >>> > > > > > feature >>> > > > > > >>> off the ground for Q3, starting with converting Airflow to >>> Fab, >>> > > if >>> > > > > > there >>> > > > > > >>> are no objections. >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> Cheers, >>> > > > > > >>> Joy >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 7:32 AM, Gurer Kiratli < >>> > > > > > >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>>> Hey all, >>> > > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > > >>>> We talked about this internally. We would like to work on >>> this >>> > > > > feature >>> > > > > > >>> but >>> > > > > > >>>> given the immediate priorities we are not going to be >>> working >>> > on >>> > > > it >>> > > > > in >>> > > > > > >>> Q3. >>> > > > > > >>>> Comes end of Q3 we will reevaluate. Likely scenario is we >>> can >>> > > work >>> > > > > on >>> > > > > > >> it >>> > > > > > >>>> late Q4 or Q12018. >>> > > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > > >>>> Cheers, >>> > > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > > >>>> Gurer >>> > > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > > >>>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Chris Riccomini < >>> > > > > > >> [email protected]> >>> > > > > > >>>> wrote: >>> > > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>> I think FAB sounds like the right approach. Waiting to >>> hear >>> > > back >>> > > > > with >>> > > > > > >>>> notes >>> > > > > > >>>>> on AirBNB H2 discussion to see if they want to take this >>> up. >>> > > > > > >>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>> @Gurer, any idea when this will happen? >>> > > > > > >>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Bolke de Bruin < >>> > > > [email protected] >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> wrote: >>> > > > > > >>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>> One downside I see from FAB is that is does not do >>> Business >>> > > Role >>> > > > > > >>>> mapping >>> > > > > > >>>>>> to FAB role. I would prefer to create groups in >>> IPA/LDAP/AD >>> > > and >>> > > > > > >> have >>> > > > > > >>>>> those >>> > > > > > >>>>>> map to FAB roles instead of needing to manage that in >>> FAB. >>> > > > > > >>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>> B. >>> > > > > > >>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On 22 Jun 2017, at 09:36, Bolke de Bruin < >>> > [email protected]> >>> > > > > > >>> wrote: >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi Guys, >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks for putting the thinking in! It is about time >>> that >>> > we >>> > > > get >>> > > > > > >>> this >>> > > > > > >>>>>> moving. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> The design looks pretty sound. One can argue about the >>> > > > different >>> > > > > > >>>> roles >>> > > > > > >>>>>> that are required, but that will be situation dependent >>> I >>> > > guess. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Implementation wise I would argue together with Max >>> that >>> > FAB >>> > > > is a >>> > > > > > >>>>> better >>> > > > > > >>>>>> or best fit. The ER model that is being described is >>> pretty >>> > > > much a >>> > > > > > >>> copy >>> > > > > > >>>>> of >>> > > > > > >>>>>> a normal security model. So a reimplementation of that >>> is 1) >>> > > > > > >>>> significant >>> > > > > > >>>>>> duplication of effort and 2) bound to have bugs that >>> have >>> > been >>> > > > > > >> solved >>> > > > > > >>>> in >>> > > > > > >>>>>> the other framework. Moreover, FAB does have >>> integration out >>> > > of >>> > > > > the >>> > > > > > >>> box >>> > > > > > >>>>>> with some enterprisey systems like IPA, >>> ActiveDirectory, and >>> > > > LDAP. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> So while you argue that using FAB would increase the >>> scope >>> > of >>> > > > the >>> > > > > > >>>>>> proposal significantly, but I think that is not true. >>> Using >>> > > FAB >>> > > > > > >> would >>> > > > > > >>>>> allow >>> > > > > > >>>>>> you to focus on what kind of out-of-the-box permission >>> sets >>> > > and >>> > > > > > >> roles >>> > > > > > >>>> we >>> > > > > > >>>>>> would need and maybe address some issues that FAB lacks >>> > (maybe >>> > > > how >>> > > > > > >> to >>> > > > > > >>>>> deal >>> > > > > > >>>>>> with non web access - ie. in DAGs, maybe Kerberos, >>> probably >>> > > how >>> > > > to >>> > > > > > >>> deal >>> > > > > > >>>>>> with API calls that are not CRUD). Implementation wise >>> it >>> > > > probably >>> > > > > > >>>>>> simplifies what we need to do. Maybe - using Max’s >>> early POC >>> > > as >>> > > > an >>> > > > > > >>>>> example >>> > > > > > >>>>>> - we can slowly move over? >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> On a side note: Im planning to hire 2-3 ppl to work on >>> > > Airflow >>> > > > > > >>> coming >>> > > > > > >>>>>> year. Improvement of Security, Enterprise Integration, >>> > Revamp >>> > > UI >>> > > > > > >> are >>> > > > > > >>> on >>> > > > > > >>>>> the >>> > > > > > >>>>>> todo list. However, this is not confirmed yet as >>> business >>> > > > > > >> priorities >>> > > > > > >>>>> might >>> > > > > > >>>>>> change. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Bolke. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On 15 Jun 2017, at 21:45, kalpesh dharwadkar < >>> > > > > > >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> @Dan: >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks for your feedback. I will remove the >>> REFRESH_DAG >>> > > > > > >>> permission. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> @Max: >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Thanks for your response. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> The scope of my proposal was just to add RBAC security >>> > > feature >>> > > > > > >> to >>> > > > > > >>>>>> Airflow >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> without replacing any existing frameworks. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I understand that adopting FAB would serve Airflow >>> better >>> > > > moving >>> > > > > > >>>>>> forward, >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> however porting Airflow to using FAB significantly >>> > increases >>> > > > the >>> > > > > > >>>> scope >>> > > > > > >>>>>> of >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the proposal and I don't have the time and expertise >>> to >>> > > carry >>> > > > > > >> out >>> > > > > > >>>> the >>> > > > > > >>>>>> tasks >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> in the extended scope. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Hence, I'm curious to know if there's a plan for >>> Airflow >>> > to >>> > > > > > >>> migrate >>> > > > > > >>>> to >>> > > > > > >>>>>> FAB >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> this year? >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> - Kalpesh >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 6:16 PM, Maxime Beauchemin < >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> It would be nice to go with a framework for this. I >>> did >>> > > some >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> experimentation using FlaskAppBuilder to go in this >>> > > > direction. >>> > > > > > >> It >>> > > > > > >>>>>> provides >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> auth on different authentication backends out of the >>> box >>> > > > > > >> (oauth, >>> > > > > > >>>>>> openid, >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> ldap, registration, ...), generates perms for each >>> view >>> > > that >>> > > > > > >> has >>> > > > > > >>> an >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> @has_access decorator, generates at set of perms for >>> each >>> > > ORM >>> > > > > > >>> model >>> > > > > > >>>>>> (show, >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> edit, delete, add, ...) and enforces it in the CRUD >>> views >>> > > as >>> > > > > > >> well >>> > > > > > >>>> as >>> > > > > > >>>>>> in the >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> generated REST api that you get for free as a >>> byprdoduct >>> > of >>> > > > > > >>>> deriving >>> > > > > > >>>>>> FAB's >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> models (essentially it's SqlAlchemy with a layer on >>> top). >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I started a POC on FAB here a while ago: >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/mistercrunch/airflow_webserver >>> at the >>> > > > time >>> > > > > > >> my >>> > > > > > >>>>> main >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> motivation was the free/instantaneous REST api. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> I think FAB is a decent fit as the porting should be >>> > fairly >>> > > > > > >>>>>> straightforward >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> (moving the flask views over and deprecating >>> Flask-Admin >>> > in >>> > > > > > >> favor >>> > > > > > >>>> of >>> > > > > > >>>>>> FAB's >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> crud) though there was a few blockers. From memory I >>> > think >>> > > > FAB >>> > > > > > >>>> didn't >>> > > > > > >>>>>> like >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> the compound PKs we use in some of the Airflow >>> models. >>> > We'd >>> > > > > > >> have >>> > > > > > >>> to >>> > > > > > >>>>>> either >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> write a db migration script on the Airflow side, or >>> add >>> > > > support >>> > > > > > >>> for >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> compound keys to FAB (I recently became a maintainer >>> of >>> > the >>> > > > > > >>>> project, >>> > > > > > >>>>>> so I >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> could help with that) >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> The only downside of FAB is that it's not as mature >>> as >>> > > > > > >> something >>> > > > > > >>>> like >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Django, but porting to Django would surely be much >>> more >>> > > work. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Then there's the flask-security suite, but that looks >>> > like >>> > > a >>> > > > > > >> bit >>> > > > > > >>>> of a >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> patchwork to me, I guess we can pick and choose >>> which we >>> > > want >>> > > > > > >> to >>> > > > > > >>>> use. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Max >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Dan Davydov < >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Looks good to me in general, thanks for putting this >>> > > > together! >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I think the ability to integrate with external RBAC >>> > > systems >>> > > > > > >> like >>> > > > > > >>>>> LDAP >>> > > > > > >>>>>> is >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> important (i.e. the Airflow DB should not be >>> decoupled >>> > > with >>> > > > > > >> the >>> > > > > > >>>> RBAC >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> database wherever possible). >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't be too worried about the permissions >>> about >>> > > > > > >> refreshing >>> > > > > > >>>>>> DAGs, as >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> far as I know this functionality is no longer >>> required >>> > > with >>> > > > > > >> the >>> > > > > > >>>> new >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> webservers which reload state periodically, and will >>> > > > certainly >>> > > > > > >>> be >>> > > > > > >>>>>> removed >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> when we have a better DAG consistency story. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> I think it would also be good to think about this >>> > > > > > >>>>>> proposal/implementation >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> and how it applied in the API-driven world (e.g. >>> when >>> > > > > > >> webserver >>> > > > > > >>>> hits >>> > > > > > >>>>>> APIs >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> like /clear on behalf of users instead of running >>> > commands >>> > > > > > >>> against >>> > > > > > >>>>> the >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> database directly). >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Bolke de Bruin < >>> > > > > > >>>> [email protected] >>> > > > > > >>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Will respond but im traveling at the moment. Give >>> me a >>> > > few >>> > > > > > >>> days. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12 Jun 2017, at 13:39, Chris Riccomini < >>> > > > > > >>>> [email protected]> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey all, >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Checking in on this. We spent a good chunk of time >>> > > > thinking >>> > > > > > >>>> about >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> this, >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> and >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> want to move forward with it, but want to make >>> sure >>> > > we're >>> > > > > > >> all >>> > > > > > >>> on >>> > > > > > >>>>> the >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> same >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> page. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Max? Bolke? Dan? Jeremiah? >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Chris >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:49 PM, kalpesh >>> dharwadkar < >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello everyone, >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> As you all know, currently Airflow doesn’t have a >>> > > > built-in >>> > > > > > >>> Role >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Based >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Access Control(RBAC) capability. It does provide >>> > very >>> > > > > > >>> limited >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> authorization capability by providing admin, >>> > > > data_profiler, >>> > > > > > >>> and >>> > > > > > >>>>>> user >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> roles. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> However, associating these roles to authenticated >>> > > > > > >> identities >>> > > > > > >>> is >>> > > > > > >>>>> not >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> a >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> simple effort. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> To address this issue, I have created a design >>> > proposal >>> > > > for >>> > > > > > >>>>>> building >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> RBAC >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> into Airflow and simplifying user access >>> management >>> > via >>> > > > the >>> > > > > > >>>>> Airflow >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> UI. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The design proposal is located at >>> > > > > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/ >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Airflow+RBAC+proposal >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any comments/questions/feedback are much >>> appreciated. >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Kalpesh >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>>> >>> > > > > > >>>> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> -- >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> Joy Gao >>> > > > > > >>> Software Engineer >>> > > > > > >>> 350 Convention Way, Suite 200 >>> > > > > > >>> Redwood City, CA 94063 >>> > > > > > >>> Mobile: 669-224-9305 >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >>> Payments partner to the platform economy >>> > > > > > >>> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >> >> >
