I think I misunderstood the 3rd party reference to imply Uber instead
of the 3rd party folder. I feel the same regardless, and defer to the
experts on what do do about the 3rd party folder.

As for the other license issues, we don't have to add license info to
readme or informational files. It is specifically called out as an
exception [1]:

"Other files may make sense to have no license header. Three examples are:
Short informational text files; for example README, INSTALL files. The
expectation is that these files make it obvious which product they
relate to.
Test data for which the addition of a source header would cause the
tests to fail.
'Snippet' files that are combined as form a larger file where the
larger file would have duplicate licensing headers."

I certainly wouldn't add headers to the markdown files as this would
create havoc in the website rendering until that is configured to
handle it. Besides, we're covered on these file as we have an Apache
copyright footer on the website. Also from the Apache page on headers
[1]:

"...Our web sites do not have an associated NOTICE file. Instead we
may soon be making the terms of such content explicit through a "Terms
of Use" or "Legal Information" link in the footer of web pages. At
this point, no action is required for Apache web sites."

I can think of a few examples where markdown files are not rendered on
the website, but as they're informational text files they're "obvious
which product they relate to" and therefore I think they can be
excluded.

I looked at the rat-exclude, and if pom.xml files (for example) are
supposed to have licenses, then we should probably add that and
tighten up the excludes for .*xml. But if we can do that in the next
release, that would be great. (I'm not sure how to gauge the
importance of these license headers vis-a-vis project usability.) Not
to muddy the waters, by why is the R package excluded entirely?

[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers

Cheers,
Aaron

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:23 PM Michael Wall <mjw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Qing,
>
> I see 3 options
>
> Option 1:
> Do nothing.  I don't know how a RESTARTED vote works.  Steffen counted the
> binding votes from the before it was restarted.  Unsure if that actually
> works.  There has been one +1 votes since the restart, but it is
> non-binding as best I can tell even though it labeled as binding.  To be a
> binding vote for the general@incubator.a.o VOTE you must be on the
> Incubator PMC or IPMC.  Users on the MXNet Podling PMC or PPMC have a
> binding vote only on the dev@mxnet VOTE thread.   See
> https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#releases.  In addition,
> those binding +1 votes may need to be changes based on
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval which reads
>
> "Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download all
> signed source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that they meet
> all requirements of ASF policy on releases as described below, validate all
> cryptographic signatures, compile as provided, and test the result on their
> own platform."
>
> Luciano's -1 was because the release does not meet the licensing policy at
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers
>
> For this reason, I can not give a +1 on the general@incubator.a.o VOTE
> thread.  Sorry, that is why I have not voted.
>
> Option 2:
> Start another vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the original
> vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o and the canceled vote thread.  Likely that
> need to be open for 72 hours unless the IPMC agrees otherwise.  I list this
> because I don't know if a RESTART recounting votes from a prior thread is
> valid.  But this option has the same risk of not being approved for the
> reasons listed above.
>
> Option 3:
> 1 - Fix the header issues.  I dug a little more, and the excludes file at
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/v1.4.x/tests/nightly/apache_rat_license_check/rat-excludes
> is
> overly broad and excludes files from the check that should have license
> headers, again per
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers
> 2 - Start a vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o.  Doesn't have to be open 72 hours
> according to Justin's note if the PPMC agrees.  Expect this would need to
> be documented on the mailing list, but could be part of the vote I think.
> 3 - Start a vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the new vote
> thread from step 2.  Will likely need to be open 72 hours.
>
> Clearly option 1 would be faster, but the risk is the vote not passing.
> Option 2 may not be needed if the restart in option 1 is valid.  Option 3
> is the most correct I think according to what I read in ASF policy.  But
> rushing a vote does have risks, such as less testing on the code being
> released.
>
> To make this more confusing, the VOTE thread is showing up on both
> dev@mxnet.a.o and general@incubator.a.o.  There is an additional +1 vote on
> the dev@mxnet.a.o list that doesn't show up on the general@incubator, but
> this too is non binding best I can tell.
>
> Tough position to be in with Horovod being released.  Nothing in ASF policy
> makes allowances for such an event that I could find.  Perhaps we should
> ask for more clarification on general@incubator.a.o to get more thoughts
> from the IPMC.
>
> Mike
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:53 PM Qing Lan <lanking...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > Could you please guide how to proceed with this? Given that we have a
> > possibility of announcing MXNet support in Horovod with their next release
> > and this would help MXNet increase our visibility.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Qing
> >
> > On 2/12/19, 2:16 PM, "Michael Wall" <mjw...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >     Team,
> >
> >     Here is my read on the situation.  The vote has been canceled.
> > Justin's
> >     point was that a -1 doesn't mean you must cancel a vote for the
> > reasons he
> >     outlined.  But here the vote needs to be restarted and the issue
> > Luciano
> >     found needs to be addressed.
> >
> >     That issue is that there are files in MXNet source tree that do not
> > have
> >     the required licenses headers,
> >     http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers.  For
> >     example, the top level README.md is missing the header
> >
> > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/master/README.md.
> >     Excluding 3rd party files from the RAT check is fine, but not files
> >     originating from the MXNet repo.
> >
> >     It would be good to know exactly how Luciano ran the RAT check, cc'd.
> > Here
> >     is a link to the thread
> >
> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/51e9ab05edae2089c74a253000a92d5aa5c6406f54e5bd0a0b3c3879@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> >     .
> >
> >     Justin's other point, aIso cc'd, was that the vote with the podling
> > doesn't
> >     have to take 72 hours before going to the incubator list.
> >
> >     I realize this is not what everyone is pushing for, so interested in
> >     other's thoughts.  Especially other mentors.
> >
> >     Mike
> >
> >     On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:47 PM Aaron Markham <
> > aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com>
> >     wrote:
> >
> >     > +1
> >     > I disagree about 3rd party considerations. This is an ecosystem
> > after all.
> >     > The distributed training story is quite nice with Horovod. Given my
> >     > interaction with tensorflow with  Horovod and dynamic training with
> > MXNet
> >     > and the kvstore, this new route is, IMO, easier to setup and manage.
> >     > I see the benefit for getting it out there sooner than later, and
> > market
> >     > timings are important to the project and adoption. If Uber's
> > announcement
> >     > drives traffic to MXNet, but then people can't set it up with a
> > stable
> >     > release package, there's a lost opportunity for growing the
> > community. Why
> >     > miss the opportunity for a RAT license?
> >     >
> >     > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 13:14 Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> >     >
> >     > > Hi -
> >     > >
> >     > > Third party vendor considerations do not matter. Are you voting +1
> > with
> >     > > your Apache hat on or your Amazon hat?
> >     > >
> >     > > Regards,
> >     > > Dave
> >     > >
> >     > > > On Feb 11, 2019, at 10:16 PM, Lin Yuan <apefor...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >     > > >
> >     > > > +1 binding
> >     > > > Horovod is going to release it's 0.16.0 in the coming week with
> > MXNet
> >     > > > integration. We need to release 1.4.0 which includes all the
> >     > dependencies
> >     > > > for Horovod integration.
> >     > > >
> >     > > > Best,
> >     > > >
> >     > > > Lin
> >     > > >
> >     > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:30 PM Steffen Rochel <
> >     > steffenroc...@gmail.com>
> >     > > > wrote:
> >     > > >
> >     > > >> Dear community -
> >     > > >> based on Justin's and community feedback I'm suggesting to
> > restart the
> >     > > >> vote.
> >     > > >> Current status:
> >     > > >> binding votes:
> >     > > >> +1: 2 votes (Henri, Jason)
> >     > > >> -1:  1 vote (Luciano)
> >     > > >>
> >     > > >> non-binding:
> >     > > >> +1: 1 vote (Kellen)
> >     > > >>
> >     > > >> The community is investigating feedback from Luciano that the
> >     > exclusion
> >     > > >> file is to broad and potentially missing files which can and
> > must have
> >     > > >> apache license headers not to be checked.
> >     > > >>
> >     > > >> Regards,
> >     > > >> Steffen
> >     > > >>
> >     > > >>
> >     > > >>
> >     > > >>
> >     > > >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:08 AM Hagay Lupesko <
> > lupe...@gmail.com>
> >     > > wrote:
> >     > > >>
> >     > > >>> Based on Justin's feedback, can we resume the vote instead of
> >     > > cancelling
> >     > > >>> it?
> >     > > >>>
> >     > > >>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:02 AM Justin Mclean <
> >     > > jus...@classsoftware.com
> >     > > >>>
> >     > > >>> wrote:
> >     > > >>>
> >     > > >>>> Hi,
> >     > > >>>>
> >     > > >>>> In future don’t be so hasty to cancel a release vote, people
> > mind
> >     > can
> >     > > >> be
> >     > > >>>> changed and a -1 is not a veto on a release.
> >     > > >>>>
> >     > > >>>> Thanks,
> >     > > >>>> Justin
> >     > > >>>>
> >     > > >>>>
> >     > > >>>>
> >     > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >     > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >     > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> > general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >     > > >>>>
> >     > > >>>>
> >     > > >>>
> >     > > >>
> >     > >
> >     > >
> >     >
> >
> >
> >

Reply via email to