Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report

[Matt Rutkowski]

Thx Rodric,

>> 1. "We have explored a corporate donation as suggested (ala Spark and
>> SystemML), but this does not seem possible at this time." I'm curious 
if
>> there are details about the size of the donation that's required (if 
this
>> is for the private list, I can start a thread there).

We recently had a public (and private threads) around "models" for 
donation at Apache which went no where...  My personal forays in addition 
that are mainly what I am reflecting upon in the above statements.  I 
would feel better about talking about corporate donations (and the 
history) on private to be honest.  It is my hope that we can work to 
address 2 things that MAY make public PGs easier 1) get all private PG 
tests into open (and never see another private PG reference anywhere) and 
parallelize these tests in Travis (as much as possible) 2) Author criteria 
/ steps for running a PG and referencing on a PR (as evidence of passage). 
  These two general steps seem to be supported by my previous discussions 
both within and outside IBM.

>> 2. "*100% of release candidate source code has Apache 2 license 
headers*"
>> this is great, thanks to you and your team for a lot of this work, I've
>> noticed the tireless pull requests. Do you expect we will call for a 
vote
>> on a release candidate soon - are we ready?

Almost.  First, massive kudos to Vincent for all his work in automating 
and documenting process in our releae repo. For the record, I am reviewing 
the draft letter which would be sent to the Incubator PMC today but am 
waiting for PR https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/pull/3720 to 
get reviewed/merged by someone other than myself.  Once merged, I plan to 
begin the process (JIRA) and submit the letter. 

Will provide latest details on interchange call tomorrow and hope to 
answer any questions.

-mr

PS have been stealing rr's abbreviated-style signature lately...





From:   Rodric Rabbah 
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
Date:   06/05/2018 02:04 PM
Subject:Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator 
June board report



Thanks Matt for assembling the report. Two questions

1. "We have explored a corporate donation as suggested (ala Spark and
SystemML), but this does not seem possible at this time." I'm curious if
there are details about the size of the donation that's required (if this
is for the private list, I can start a thread there).

2. "*100% of release candidate source code has Apache 2 license headers*"
this is great, thanks to you and your team for a lot of this work, I've
noticed the tireless pull requests. Do you expect we will call for a vote
on a release candidate soon - are we ready?

-r

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Rob Allen  wrote:

> Matt,
>
> Looks good to me. I've fixed a link and left a couple of comments for 
your
> attention.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob
>
> > On 5 Jun 2018, at 18:51, Matt Rutkowski  wrote:
> >
> > Whiskers,
> >
> > I have drafted our project board report for this quarter (June); I 
plan
> to post it tomorrow to the board's Wiki; please review and comment here 
or
> on our CWiki:
> >
> > 
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?

> pageId=85475755
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Matt
> >
> > PS message me if you need CWiki access
>
>
>

aligning client tooling around Go

[Rodric Rabbah]

I pulled out this part of Matt's previous email into a separate thread so
as not to derail the other thread's discussion.

> My first thought was that we were trying to align all our client (CLI,
etc.) tooling around GoLang as it is, in theory, easier for developers to
contribute to and in addition had fewer Java dependencies/legal
complications for binary distribution. [1]

I think the current implementation of the CLI in Go is very difficult to
work with (I can give several reasons why) and in that sense, is not easier
for contributors.

If we are going to build more tooling that is Go based, we need to really
take a look at the current engineering of the CLI and "Client" SDK and
address a number of issues --- because in my view, the choice of language
is secondary to ease of contribution when the code is well engineered.

At the risk of wading into a religious debate on language, I would also
posit that CLI tooling in a language like Python, which can be cross
compiled to Go and also be shipped in binary form, is challenging to beat
in terms of its agility and malleability. That makes it easier to penetrate
for contributors.

-r

[1]
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/fc52f7934f38bc91961ddaad1869da739dd8b493d6cb0f51e330db6d@%3Cdev.openwhisk.apache.org%3E

Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report

[Rob Allen]

Matt,

Looks good to me. I've fixed a link and left a couple of comments for your 
attention.

Regards,

Rob

> On 5 Jun 2018, at 18:51, Matt Rutkowski  wrote:
> 
> Whiskers,
> 
> I have drafted our project board report for this quarter (June); I plan to 
> post it tomorrow to the board's Wiki; please review and comment here or on 
> our CWiki:
> 
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=85475755
> 
> Thanks,
> Matt
> 
> PS message me if you need CWiki access 

Tech Interchange meeting tomorrow

[Tyson Norris]

Hi All -
Reminder: the biweekly call is tomorrow 10 am GMT-5:00 (US Central Time), 
please send any agenda items to the list or myself.
Google cal link below with call details.

Dominic - do you want to continue your presentation from 2 weeks ago?

Current agenda to also include:
* Priti Desai -  to discuss enhancements to wskdeploy
* Vincent - to discuss Apache (source) release progress with focus on JDK 
considerations.

Thanks
Tyson


https://calendar.google.com/calendar/r/eventedit/copy/M3RmZG04YW12cXVib2xwYzFycmEzYmFicGNfMjAxODA1MjNUMTUwMDAwWiBhcGFjaGVvcGVud2hpc2tAbQ/dHlzb25ub3JyaXNAZ21haWwuY29t?scp=ALL=AKUaPmYgpqvJrIPapxAhgpPqCtZr3uZXPgEH0o4LhuRu2k3JFiZjkq4BxBHGsLWVpl8P0Sy6jYLel9AYjRmJ3OizyEB21gEcHA%3D%3D=true=xml