Re: Issue with releases / feedback from ASF board
Hi Justin, as there have been a couple of mails on the dev@ list prior to your mail to general@ list and your mail contains a dramatic opening, I'd like to provide some context here. The problem in the current focus is how to ensure the http://mxnet.apache.org/get_started page is compliant with ASF policies. The page currently provides names of third-party binary distributions not controlled by the PPMC which may confuse some users. Let's take a look at the timeline first: On May 5th 2020 I have opened LEGAL-515 and asked (among other questions) how the MXNet PPMC can correctly reference third-party distributions on the website. Unfortunately that question was not answered. In fact the majority of questions in LEGAL-515 remained unanswered throughout May (starting May 8th). Note that prior to my question in LEGAL-515, the MXNet website has been mentioning the names of third-party distributions already. You just now stated: > You were asked to do something about this a few weeks ago and as far > as I can see have not done so. Please do so as soon as you can. That's not entirely correct. I note that there a two different requests. On May 24th you have contacted the PPMC, requesting the PPMC to (among other things) improve the clarity of the Getting Started page: > It also needs to be clear what a user is installed from this install > page [http://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/get_started] PPMC has been working on resolving this question in LEGAL-515 since May 5th and has also requested guidance from the trademark@ team. This was still ongoing at the time of your email today. Today you have contacted the PPMC with a different request about the Getting Started page: > It’s quite clear they should not be linked to from an Apache page > like this as users will think these are Apache releases. Please remove > them, after that bring it up on the incubator general list and we can > discuss what needs to be done. In response I have asked you, if it wouldn't be possible to first decide how to properly disclaim links to third-parties on the website, before removing the links and then potentially adding them back with a disclaimer later. This is a very simple question. It's quite late in my timezone and updating the website will take some time. Why not udpate the website once correctly instead of taking a route that requires multiple updates? To resolve the situation, I suggest we start from your statement here: > No Apache project should be distributing 3rd party releases from their > web site without clearly informing the users of what they are getting. Does adding the following notice pior to any mentioning of a third-party binary release work for clearly informing users? > WARNING: The following binary release is not provided by the Apache > Software Foundation and third-party members of the MXNet community. > They may contain closed-source components with restrictive licenses. > You may want to download the official Apache MXNet (incubating) source > release instead and build from source instead. If so, PPMC can initiate the process of adding this statement to the website tomorrow. If not, do you have a better suggestion? And in either case, if the Incubator prefers the route of updating the website multiple times and leaves a partially empty website in the intermediate time, then let it be that way and PPMC may initiate that process tomorrow. >> I'm not sure what you mean. Note that Github automatically creates these >> release pages based on the presence of git tags in the version control >> history. > > Yes they do but they consists of Apache releases it looks like you > have non Apache releases there. Other projects tag these add notes to > make it very clear they are not Apache releases. The context here is that I requested you to clarify on your mail from May 24th in which you stated: > The GitHub download page [2] is also confusing as it contains a mix of > Apache and non-Apache releases My understanding of your statement was that you refer to the source archives created by Github, which are not the official ASF source archives. MXNet project uploaded the ASF source archives in addition to the Github source archives to ensure users can easily discover them. But it appears this is not what you meant with "confusing" . But given your response, I now believe you may be referring to git tags that were made prior to MXNet joining the incubator on 2017-01-23 / on which no vote by the PPMC took place? Adding notes to those releases can be done easily if that is what you request. Best regards Leonard - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache TubeMQ (Incubating) 0.3.0-incubating RC0
+1 (binding) Checked build, signature, NOTICE, DISCLAIMER. Regards JB > Le 2 juin 2020 à 04:18, Guangxu Cheng a écrit : > > Hello Incubator Community, > > This is a call for a vote to release Apache TubeMQ(incubating) version > 0.3.0-incubating RC0 > > The Apache TubeMQ community has voted on and approved a proposal to release > Apache TubeMQ(incubating) version 0.3.0-incubating RC0 > > We now kindly request the Incubator PMC members review and vote on this > incubator release. > > Apache TubeMQ community vote thread: > • > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r1ff624f8aebc910e862e57477536ff3eb2aa9b0d376f97a50807c1c5%40%3Cdev.tubemq.apache.org%3E > > Vote result thread: > • > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/r03e9d5898a8ed0d766e2f6c531d8362f1c393e3d13070b508a3ac480%40%3Cdev.tubemq.apache.org%3E > > The release candidate: > • > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/tubemq/0.3.0-incubating-RC0 > > Git tag for the release: > • https://github.com/apache/incubator-tubemq/tree/0.3.0-incubating-RC0 > > Release notes: > • > https://github.com/apache/incubator-tubemq/blob/0.3.0-incubating-RC0/CHANGES.md > > The artifacts signed with PGP key 57EC647A, corresponding to > gxch...@apache.org, that can be found in keys file: > • https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/tubemq/KEYS > > The vote will be open for at least 72 hours or until necessary number of > votes are reached. > > Please vote accordingly: > > [ ] +1 approve > [ ] +0 no opinion > [ ] -1 disapprove with the reason > > Thanks, > On behalf of Apache TubeMQ (Incubating) community > > > Best Regards, > Guangxu - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Issue with releases / feedback from ASF board
Hi, > The status quo has been in place since a while. Do you think we have > time to first discuss the correct solution on the Incubator list, before > we delete the existing pages? I’ll ask again. Please remove any releases that are not Apache releases, that includes any releases that are not compatible with the Apache license and include Category X compiled code. You can’t put 3rd party releases on that page as there is no indication that they are not Apache releases. No Apache project should be distributing 3rd party releases from their web site without clearly informing the users of what they are getting. You were asked to do something about this a few weeks ago and as far as I can see have not done so. Please do so as soon as you can. > I'm not sure what you mean. Note that Github automatically creates these > release pages based on the presence of git tags in the version control > history. Yes they do but they consists of Apache releases it looks like you have non Apache releases there. Other projects tag these add notes to make it very clear they are not Apache releases. > So is your recommendation here to take down the ASF source archives No I’m not asking that. I would just clearly mark the releases that are not Apache ones or not compatible with the Apache license. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Release Apache TubeMQ (Incubating) 0.3.0-incubating RC0
Hi, +1 (binding) I checked: - incubating in name. - Signatures and hashes are fine but please drop the md5 hash it’s not needed - DISCLAIMER exists (WIP type) - LICENSE needs more work (see blow) - NOTICE may need more work (if other ALv2 code is included) - No unexpected binary files - all source file have ASF headers - can't compile from source I can’t compile from source as I have a newer version of protobuf installed (3.6) and it looks like the build expects 2.5. Perhaps you should consider updating to a newer version? With your LICENSE I think you have included far too many things. You only need to mention something if it is bundled in the release you don’t have to mention licenses of all dependancies. I can see data tables and jQuery but not much else is bundled in your source release. There's also no need to have multiple copies of the ALv2 license text. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Project proposal - Apache AgensGraph Extension
Hi Justin, I just started the bootstrapping process by updating the podlings.xml, creating podling status page and requesting DNS and LDAP setup for new podling. We will continue creating rest of the resources for podling. We submitted a report, even though not a lot of progress has been made. Regards Kevin On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:33 AM Justin Mclean wrote: > Hi, > > I’m not seeing any bootstrapping going on for this new podling. Don't > forget your first report is also due today. > > Thanks, > Justin > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >