Sheng, It is in the wiki, I also added a TOC to find it easily. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/PROPOSAL%3A+Apache+MXNet%28Incubating%29+Office+Hours#PROPOSAL:ApacheMXNet(Incubating)OfficeHours-How ? How?
Developers would have 1 hour every week to dedicate to office hours meeting. Typical flow for process is like this: - at least 24 hours before office hours session user signs up for one of 2 slots (each slot is 30 minutes) by filing jira issue. In that issue user will provide questions/concerns and relevant details pertaining to subject. - before or on a day *preceding* office hours session the developer who leads office-hours for that week reviews existing queue <https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=Project%3D%22Apache%20MXNet%22%20and%20issuetype%3D%22Office%20hours%22%20%20and%20component%20in%20(Keras%2C%20Gluon%2C%20%22Scala%20API%22%2C%20%22Java%20API%22%2C%20ModelServer%2C%20ONNX)> of filed issues and investigates 1 or 2 filed for upcoming session. The goal is to prepare for session as much as possible in advance. - Every week one of the Apache MXNet community members (committer/developer) could drive this effort in each area that is offered is support with. - if necessary they could to engage SME that has a lot of expertise in area relevant to question/issue filed. - at a scheduled time the developer leading office hours dials into meeting bridge and verifies that corresponding user has joined the line. - if by the end of time slot issue/question has not been fully addressed, developer would propose to take further conversation to the public forum(dev@ list or JIRA). This way office hours slots won't spill over and both slots could be accommodated for. - if any of the questions have not been fully addressed during session, developer will follow up and address outstanding scope of issue/question. Corresponding jira issue filed for session should be used as the outlet for following up. - one possible follow up could end up being new feature request or bug fix. If that is the case - developers would convert corresponding office hours issue into normal GitHub issue. - We request SMEs to help in following up by the issues. - At the end of the office hours conversation, developer who helped the user would summarize their interaction on the JIRA filed. On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:04 PM, Sheng Zha <szha....@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Naveen, > > While your enthusiasm is certainly appreciated, next time, shall we include > the "new Issue Type" in the discussion first? I found no prior mention on > this. > > Also, a reminder to everyone that next time, let's respect Apache Infra's > time by following the instructions to have an Apache mentor to create issue > after discussion, instead of "just create". Thanks. > > -sz > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 7:36 PM, Naveen Swamy <mnnav...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hey All, just created a INFRA ticket(https://issues.apache.o > > rg/jira/browse/INFRA-16805) requesting a new Issue Type "Office Hours" > on > > JIRA to better manage and support Office hours request. > > > > One feedback I received was that "Apache" was neither mentioned in the > > discussion nor in the PROPOSAL on the wiki. This is a valid feedback and > I > > have fixed the PROPOSAL. > > I propose the office hours under discussion should be explicitly called > > "Apache MXNet Office hours". > > > > Also, Apache INFRA asked to create INFRA tickets only through mentors > > > > Can one of the mentors kindly help take this ticket forward. > > > > Thanks, Naveen > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Pedro Larroy < > > pedro.larroy.li...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > Yes Naveen, I think you are saying exactly the same as I hinted. Sheng > > also > > > agreed with this. > > > > > > Pedro. > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 6:54 PM Naveen Swamy <mnnav...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > I do not think there needs to be a distinction made for > > > > support/office-hours by committer or contributors(in this case Amazon > > > > employed contributors) -- correct me if I misunderstood your guess > :). > > > > Like I said, I would rather call it MXNet Office hours and categorize > > the > > > > kind of support that is offered, we might be able to find > contributors > > > > willing to do this in different parts of the world regardless of > their > > > day > > > > job or not. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Sheng Zha <szha....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'm guessing Mu's intention is to make it clear that such > invitation > > is > > > > > extended by teams in Amazon/AWS instead of by committers, so as to > > > avoid > > > > > the confusion of the naming "MXNet SDK". Suggestions to achieve the > > > same > > > > > goal are welcome. > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > -sz > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Isabel Drost-Fromm < > > isa...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18/07/18 23:30, Mu Li wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> A minor suggestion: rename MXNet SDK to AWS MXNet SDK or Amazon > > > MXNet > > > > > SDK. > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > What exactly is the Amazon MXNet SDK? What is the AWS MXNet SDK? > > > > > > > > > > > > Your suggestion triggered my question because: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/#products > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Isabel > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
