On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote:
> Cloudera's primary influence is to get you to ask to go emeritus, i.e. stop
> contributing.
>
> You have contributed in the past.  That's great.  And now you work for
> Cloudera.

I started building on a new code base and left the PMC from about mid
2012 and began at Cloudera in July 2013. Right -- check the archives?
I mean... it doesn't add up even time-wise.

It's only relevant in that I hope to expose and defuse this suggestion
of some kind of plot. Certainly, it's best to steer clear of what
might be perceived as vendor stone-throwing... I am sure it's not
relevant to dev@.


> Getting a paycheck is also a legitimate reason for you do this.  And it
> should be recognized where the paycheck comes from and what is really going
> on.

A plot so deep even the plotters are unaware! I am definitely paid to
write open source code as are a lot of people here and it's a Good
Thing. Surely we do not suggest otherwise?


> Well, I think that it is a hypocrisy fail going on.  I get criticized all
> the time by Cloudera employees for "not being open".  And now the shoe is
> on the other foot where Cloudera decides it is better to not contribute to
> an existing open source project and, indeed, even hires away a key
> developer of same.

I don't understand the equivalence -- was it not clear that Oryx is
open source not proprietary? -- but pursuing it is just going to look
like vendor spat.

I don't understand the idea that contributing to one open source
project is wrong, but to another is right. Mahout is not more sacred
than any other, nor more open or important by having an Apache badge.
It can't be that, because Mahout exists, nobody else should try to
write anything like ML on Hadoop.

Ted sorry to be on your black list -- a lesson to anyone else thinking
of leaving an Apache project? ay, you know where I live! I am happy to
be accused of working on another open project now, but hope nobody
agrees with the other suggestions. I'd feel bad if it were read widely
this way.

Reply via email to