date:20171130

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC1

2017-11-30 Thread Sebastian


+1 (binding)

On 01.12.2017 04:30, Chris Olivier wrote:

+1

Additional note:

This MXNet v1.0 release is planned to be announced at the NIPS conference
starting Monday, 04-Dec and hence would request your support in meeting
this timeline. We will continue to address any non-critical issues after
this release as well.

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Chris Olivier 
wrote:



Hello All,


This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0, release
candidate 1.


Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.


*Vote thread:*

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/568bf0c9960f14640b753a5
fb6766c7b0074339d286f405c04ffec96@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E


*Result thread:*

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/558a60f4d0c16b0311c96af
d059082ebde0f773c56a03cb9e00bc19f@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E


*The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:*

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.0.0.rc1/



*The release tag can be found here: *

https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/1.0.0.rc1



*The release hash is *25720d0e3c29232a37e2650f3ba3a2454f9367bb* and can
be found here:*





*Release artifacts are signed with the following key:*

16DD B2E2 FE0C 3925 CB13  38D7 21F3 F9AB C622 DF82



*KEY files are available here:*

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS



*For information about the contents of this release, see:*





The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.


[ ] +1 Release this package as 1.0.0

[ ] +0 no opinion

[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...


Thanks,


-Chris Olivier

cjolivie...@apache.org





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC1

2017-11-30 Thread Justin Mclean

Hi,

+1 binding (if the issues below are put in a JIRA and fixed for next release)

Much improved over RC0 but rat results are still hard to review. It’s reporting
2138 unknown licenses and I count 625 files without a license header so it’s
easy to miss something and I probably have. As suggested before, a rat
exclusion file would help here.

Also there one outstanding question from the last release how is this file
licensed? (if you follow the URL mentioned in the file it is unclear). [24] but
it unclear of the code come form that site or was written for the project by
the author of that site.

I checked:
- incubating in names
- signatures and hashes good
- LICENSE has a number of minor issues (see below)
- NOTICE is fine
- No unexpected binary files in the source release
- hard to say if all files have the correct header or not

A number of minor issues:
- this file has an ASF header looks to be BSD licensed. [1] Other files that
are licensed in similar confusing ways include [2][3][4][14]
- same with with MIT licensed files. [9][18][19]
- this file is BSD licensed [5] so would need to be added to LICENSE. As are a
dozen files here [6] and this file [13, and this one [14] and 6 files here [15]
and this one [16] and also this one [23]
- some file are still missing headers. For instance [7] and probable more.
- This file is listed at Apache 2.0 licensed in the LICNSE but is actually MIT
licensed. [8] As I think is this [10] and these [17][20] (or it should be
mentioned in license)
- This file has two apache headers [22]

Thanks,
Justin

1.
apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating.tar/apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/prepare_mkl.sh
2. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/src/operator/nn/im2col.h / im2col.c
3.
apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/src/operator/contrib/nn/deformable_im2col.h
/ deformable_im2col.c
4.
apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/contrib/moderngpu/include/mgpuenums.h
5.
apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/contrib/moderngpu/include/mgpudevice.cuh
6.
apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/src/operator/contrib/ctc_include/contrib/moderngpu/include/device/
7. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/perl-package/AI-NNVMCAPI/Makefile.PL
8.
apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating.tar/apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/nnvm/tvm/HalideIR/LICENSE
9.
apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating.tar/apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/example/rcnn/rcnn/cython/setup.py
10. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/example/rcnn/rcnn/cython/gpu_nms.pyx
11.
apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating.tar/apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/example/rcnn/rcnn/cython/cpu_nms.pyx
12. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/example/rcnn/rcnn/cython/bbox.pyx
13.
apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/nnvm/tvm/dmlc-core/cmake/Modules/FindCrypto.cmake
14.
apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/example/ssd/dataset/pycocotools/coco.py
15. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/example/rcnn/rcnn/pycocotools
16.
apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/dmlc-core/cmake/Modules/FindCrypto.cmake
17. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/example/rcnn/rcnn/cython/gpu_nms.pyx
18. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/example/rcnn/rcnn/cython/nms_kernel.cu
19. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/example/rcnn/rcnn/cython/setup.py
20.
apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating.tar/apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/example/rcnn/rcnn/cython/cpu_nms.pyx
21. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/example/rcnn/rcnn/cython/bbox.pyx
22. apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/tools/license_header.py
23.
apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating.tar/apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/cub/experimental/spmv_compare.cu
24.
./apache-mxnet-src-1.0.0.rc1-incubating/example/image-classification/predict-cpp/image-classification-predict.cc
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC1

2017-11-30 Thread Chris Olivier

+1

Additional note:

This MXNet v1.0 release is planned to be announced at the NIPS conference
starting Monday, 04-Dec and hence would request your support in meeting
this timeline. We will continue to address any non-critical issues after
this release as well.

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Chris Olivier 
wrote:

>
> Hello All,
>
>
> This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0, release
> candidate 1.
>
>
> Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.
>
>
> *Vote thread:*
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/568bf0c9960f14640b753a5
> fb6766c7b0074339d286f405c04ffec96@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>
>
> *Result thread:*
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/558a60f4d0c16b0311c96af
> d059082ebde0f773c56a03cb9e00bc19f@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>
>
> *The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:*
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.0.0.rc1/
>
>
>
> *The release tag can be found here: *
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/1.0.0.rc1
>
>
>
> *The release hash is *25720d0e3c29232a37e2650f3ba3a2454f9367bb* and can
> be found here:*
>
>  29232a37e2650f3ba3a2454f9367bb>
>
>
>
> *Release artifacts are signed with the following key:*
>
> 16DD B2E2 FE0C 3925 CB13  38D7 21F3 F9AB C622 DF82
>
>
>
> *KEY files are available here:*
>
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS
>
>
>
> *For information about the contents of this release, see:*
>
>  MXNet+%28incubating%29+1.0+Release+Notes>
>
>
>
> The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.
>
>
> [ ] +1 Release this package as 1.0.0
>
> [ ] +0 no opinion
>
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because...
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> -Chris Olivier
>
> cjolivie...@apache.org
>

[VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC1

2017-11-30 Thread Chris Olivier

Hello All,


This is a call for releasing Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0, release
candidate 1.


Apache MXNet community has voted and approved the release.


*Vote thread:*

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/568bf0c9960f14640b753a5fb6766c
7b0074339d286f405c04ffec96@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E


*Result thread:*

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/558a60f4d0c16b0311c96afd059082
ebde0f773c56a03cb9e00bc19f@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E


*The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc. can be found at:*

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/1.0.0.rc1/



*The release tag can be found here: *

https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/tree/1.0.0.rc1



*The release hash is *25720d0e3c29232a37e2650f3ba3a2454f9367bb* and can be
found here:*





*Release artifacts are signed with the following key:*

16DD B2E2 FE0C 3925 CB13  38D7 21F3 F9AB C622 DF82



*KEY files are available here:*

https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/mxnet/KEYS



*For information about the contents of this release, see:*





The vote will be open for at least 72 hours.


[ ] +1 Release this package as 1.0.0

[ ] +0 no opinion

[ ] -1 Do not release this package because...


Thanks,


-Chris Olivier

cjolivie...@apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

2017-11-30 Thread Meghna Baijal

Hello Sergio,
This is how the NOTICE file looks at the moment -
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/v1.0.0/NOTICE

I had worked on the NOTICE file prior to the 0.11.0 Release and had
followed the link you mentioned.
I had added a few notices into this file, including Caffe, MS coco etc but
there were comments during the general voting process for 0.11.0 to remove
these.
These comments are tracked in this Github issue -
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/7748.

According to me the NOTICE file is ok, but do you think you could help us
review it ?

Thanks,
Meghna Baijal



On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Bhavin Thaker 
wrote:

> Hi Sergio,
>
> Thanks for guidance.
>
> The binary file has been removed now.
> See: https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/tree/master/apps/android_rpc/
> gradle/wrapper
>
> We are testing the changes currently and expect to submit a new RC by end
> of today.
>
> Regards,
> Bhavin Thaker.
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:40 AM Sergio Fernández 
> wrote:
>
> > Generally speaking, I follow these key aspects:
> >
> > * Don't put anything in NOTICE for the sake of an MIT or a 3-clause BSD
> > licensed dependency.
> > * For an ALv2 dependency, follow the instructions in the licensing howto:
> > http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
> > * For all other licenses, either guess or ask.
> >
> > The changes introduced by Meghna Baijal (PR #8873 and #/8876) address
> some
> > issues. What I still don't see handled correctly is the inclusion of a
> > binary file within the source release. Please, address that, and cast a
> > vote for a RC2.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:54 PM, John D. Ament 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:52 PM Hen  wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Justin Mclean 
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > >> - A number of source file are missing license headers e.g.
> > [15][16]
> > > > [18]
> > > > > >> [19] and many others
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Many of these are not Apache MXNet files but from dependencies.
> > I'll
> > > > > > suggest on dev@ that these submodules be moved into a
> third-party/
> > > > > > directory.
> > > > >
> > > > > Having that clearly identified would certainly make the release a
> lot
> > > > > easier to review.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Why would it be? We only have to include the LICENSE from TVM, we
> > > don't
> > > > > > need to name them.
> > > > >
> > > > > In general all bundled software need to be added. [1]
> > > > >
> > > > > > If TVM want to be identified, they should add a NOTICE file.
> > > > >
> > > > > Licenses of permissively bundled software go in LICENSE with a few
> > > > > exceptions. [2] Apache licensed (v2) doesn't have to me listed [3]
> > but
> > > is
> > > > > useful to list and you're listing other Apache licensed software in
> > > > LICENSE
> > > > > so it seemed odd to omit it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again I suggest you run rat over the release and see if you can fix
> > up
> > > > > what it finds. An annotated rat exclusion file would also be a lot
> of
> > > > help.
> > > > > Just try not to make the exclusions too wide as you may miss
> > something.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Justin
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-
> principle
> > > > > 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> > > > > 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fair enough.
> > > >
> > > > My argument would be that it's Apache v2, so its LICENSE is in the
> > MXNet
> > > > package already, but if it's out of sorts with other items already
> > being
> > > > listed then that's a weak argument :)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, but it's a valid point.  the more correct thing to do is not to
> > list
> > > those files, and just make it clear that every thing's Apache Licensed
> > > unless listed specifically.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hen
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

2017-11-30 Thread Bhavin Thaker

Hi Sergio,

Thanks for guidance.

The binary file has been removed now.
See: https://github.com/dmlc/tvm/tree/master/apps/android_rpc/gradle/wrapper

We are testing the changes currently and expect to submit a new RC by end
of today.

Regards,
Bhavin Thaker.

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:40 AM Sergio Fernández  wrote:

> Generally speaking, I follow these key aspects:
>
> * Don't put anything in NOTICE for the sake of an MIT or a 3-clause BSD
> licensed dependency.
> * For an ALv2 dependency, follow the instructions in the licensing howto:
> http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
> * For all other licenses, either guess or ask.
>
> The changes introduced by Meghna Baijal (PR #8873 and #/8876) address some
> issues. What I still don't see handled correctly is the inclusion of a
> binary file within the source release. Please, address that, and cast a
> vote for a RC2.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:54 PM, John D. Ament 
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:52 PM Hen  wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Justin Mclean 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > >> - A number of source file are missing license headers e.g.
> [15][16]
> > > [18]
> > > > >> [19] and many others
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Many of these are not Apache MXNet files but from dependencies.
> I'll
> > > > > suggest on dev@ that these submodules be moved into a third-party/
> > > > > directory.
> > > >
> > > > Having that clearly identified would certainly make the release a lot
> > > > easier to review.
> > > >
> > > > > Why would it be? We only have to include the LICENSE from TVM, we
> > don't
> > > > > need to name them.
> > > >
> > > > In general all bundled software need to be added. [1]
> > > >
> > > > > If TVM want to be identified, they should add a NOTICE file.
> > > >
> > > > Licenses of permissively bundled software go in LICENSE with a few
> > > > exceptions. [2] Apache licensed (v2) doesn't have to me listed [3]
> but
> > is
> > > > useful to list and you're listing other Apache licensed software in
> > > LICENSE
> > > > so it seemed odd to omit it.
> > > >
> > > > Again I suggest you run rat over the release and see if you can fix
> up
> > > > what it finds. An annotated rat exclusion file would also be a lot of
> > > help.
> > > > Just try not to make the exclusions too wide as you may miss
> something.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Justin
> > > >
> > > > 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
> > > > 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> > > > 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
> > >
> > >
> > > Fair enough.
> > >
> > > My argument would be that it's Apache v2, so its LICENSE is in the
> MXNet
> > > package already, but if it's out of sorts with other items already
> being
> > > listed then that's a weak argument :)
> > >
> >
> > Well, but it's a valid point.  the more correct thing to do is not to
> list
> > those files, and just make it clear that every thing's Apache Licensed
> > unless listed specifically.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hen
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

2017-11-30 Thread Sergio Fernández

Generally speaking, I follow these key aspects:

* Don't put anything in NOTICE for the sake of an MIT or a 3-clause BSD
licensed dependency.
* For an ALv2 dependency, follow the instructions in the licensing howto:
http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html
* For all other licenses, either guess or ask.

The changes introduced by Meghna Baijal (PR #8873 and #/8876) address some
issues. What I still don't see handled correctly is the inclusion of a
binary file within the source release. Please, address that, and cast a
vote for a RC2.


On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:54 PM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 7:52 PM Hen  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Justin Mclean 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > >> - A number of source file are missing license headers e.g. [15][16]
> > [18]
> > > >> [19] and many others
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Many of these are not Apache MXNet files but from dependencies. I'll
> > > > suggest on dev@ that these submodules be moved into a third-party/
> > > > directory.
> > >
> > > Having that clearly identified would certainly make the release a lot
> > > easier to review.
> > >
> > > > Why would it be? We only have to include the LICENSE from TVM, we
> don't
> > > > need to name them.
> > >
> > > In general all bundled software need to be added. [1]
> > >
> > > > If TVM want to be identified, they should add a NOTICE file.
> > >
> > > Licenses of permissively bundled software go in LICENSE with a few
> > > exceptions. [2] Apache licensed (v2) doesn't have to me listed [3] but
> is
> > > useful to list and you're listing other Apache licensed software in
> > LICENSE
> > > so it seemed odd to omit it.
> > >
> > > Again I suggest you run rat over the release and see if you can fix up
> > > what it finds. An annotated rat exclusion file would also be a lot of
> > help.
> > > Just try not to make the exclusions too wide as you may miss something.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Justin
> > >
> > > 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#guiding-principle
> > > 2. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#permissive-deps
> > > 3. http://www.apache.org/dev/licensing-howto.html#alv2-dep
> >
> >
> > Fair enough.
> >
> > My argument would be that it's Apache v2, so its LICENSE is in the MXNet
> > package already, but if it's out of sorts with other items already being
> > listed then that's a weak argument :)
> >
>
> Well, but it's a valid point.  the more correct thing to do is not to list
> those files, and just make it clear that every thing's Apache Licensed
> unless listed specifically.
>
>
> >
> > Hen
> >
>

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Griffin-0.1.6-incubating released

2017-11-30 Thread William Guo

Hi all,


The Apache Griffin (incubating) team is pleased to announce the
release of Griffin 0.1.6-incubating.


Apache Griffin is data quality solution for modern data system,
it defines a standard process to define, measure data quality for
well-known dimensions.


The release is available at:
https://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/incubator/griffin


Thanks,


The Apache Griffin (incubating) team




=
*DISCLAIMER*
Apache Griffin is an effort undergoing incubation at the Apache
Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the Apache Incubator.


Incubation is required of all newly accepted projects until a further
review indicates that the infrastructure, communications, and decision
making process have stabilized in a manner consistent with other
successful ASF projects.


While incubation status is not necessarily a reflection of the
completeness or stability of the code, it does indicate that the
project has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF.

Re: [PROPOSAL] SkyWalking - proposal for Apache Incubation

2017-11-30 Thread ???? Sheng Wu

> This was in private chat and a zoom video call between Sheng and myself.
> So it's not a documented event.
> Sheng, maybe you also had similar conversations also with Luke?

Mick,
Yes, I and Luke talked about this too. 


John,
Mick and I wrote down this section, because some of our committers have concern 
and been shy about their own English. Our mentors and I will help them. And 
hope English speakers have patiences for them, and feel free to communicate 
with us and contribute for SkyWalking. We will try our best.


--
Sheng Wu
SkyWalking


 




-- Original --
From:  "mck";;
Date:  Thu, Nov 30, 2017 07:13 PM
To:  "general";

Subject:  Re: [PROPOSAL] SkyWalking - proposal for Apache Incubation



John, thanks for the time and input. My replies are inline.


> > = Proposal =
> > The goal of this proposal is to bring the existing Skywalking
> > https://github.com/OpenSkywalking/skywalking codebase and existing
> > developers and community into the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) in
> > order to build a global, diverse and self-governed open source community
> > in APM field.
> >
> 
> Who owns this code? Will an SGA be provided, or ICLAs from contributors?
> If ICLAs, are there any of the current 16 contributors who will not
> provide an ICLA?


I gone through this wil Sheng. An SGA will be provided as well as an
ICLA from contributors.
Sheng will bring this up with the community and seek confirmation from
all the committors there, including that he shall be the representative
of the 'OpenSkywalking Organization' to sign the SGA.


> > This project started in Open Source on GitHub about more than 2 years
> > ago. Beginning with a small SDK and collector. So far the OpenSkywalking
> > https://github.com/OpenSkywalking/Organization governs the project
> > through the PMC and Committer Team. The major contributors are from
> > Huawei DevCloud Team, Tydic, Oneapm (APM vendor),  Alibaba Group,
> > dangdang.com and cloudwise (APM vendor).
> >
> >
> While its understandable outside of Apache the contributions come from
> companies, while within Apache the contributions should be expected from
> individuals.  Although I highly like the openness I see from this
> project.


The language here has been corrected. 
That companies have been behind *individuals* is information provided
separately in the "Affiliations" section.
Is it a problem in the other places it is mention in the proposal?



> > == Core Developers ==
> > The core developers are a diverse group of experienced open source
> > developers and team leaders.
> >  * PMC members ?C
> >
> > https://github.com/OpenSkywalking/Organization/blob/master/README.md#project-management-committee-pmc
> >  * Committer Team members ?C
> >
> > https://github.com/OpenSkywalking/Organization/blob/master/README.md#committer-team
> 
> 
> Please replace this with a list of all current contributors, with names
> in english.


The PMC section is removed. And all names in english, with the name in
chinese following.
It's also been pointed out the english names should appear in the "from"
field in emails sent to the list.



> > === Language and Culture ===
> > Concerns have been raised about language challenges and, as is typical
> > for developers not strong in english, aware that the community can be
> > shy in a debate or disagreement when english is used. Having looked
> > through the project's history this concern can be seen to be minor. The
> > commitlog is in english, and so are the tickets and the pull requests.
> > The website and documentation is equally both english and chinese. The
> > community has been strict upon itself to ensure it became and stays so.
> > The use of chinese should not be seen as a problem, it is a multilingual
> > world, but it is important that english speakers feel included and able
> > to contribute freely to the project without having to ask for
> > translations. To deal with poor or broken english it's important that a
> > gentler and inclusive community is fostered.
> >
> 
> Where have concerns over language challenges been raised?


This was in private chat and a zoom video call between Sheng and myself.
So it's not a documented event.
Sheng, maybe you also had similar conversations also with Luke?



> > == Git Repositories ==
> >  * https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-skywalking.git
> >  * https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-skywalking-ui.git
> >
> >
> The ASF does offer "gitbox" or writable github repositories.  If this is
> something useful to you, I would recommend it, especially if you're
> already using github.


Thanks for this info!
This is desired. The proposal has been updated.


> > == Initial Incubator PMC ==
> >  * , Sheng Wu  @wu-sheng
> >  * ??, Yongsheng Peng  @peng-yongsheng
> >  * , Xin Zhang  @ascrutae
> >
> > == Initial Committer ==
> >  * , Sheng Wu  @wu-sheng
> >  * ??,

Re: [PROPOSAL] SkyWalking - proposal for Apache Incubation

2017-11-30 Thread ???? Sheng Wu

The vote is almost finished. All OpenSkywalking members and Initial Committers 
agree that. Thanks to Mick's guidances and helps.


--
Sheng Wu
SkyWalking


 




-- Original --
From:  "mck";;
Date:  Thu, Nov 30, 2017 07:20 PM
To:  "general";

Subject:  Re: [PROPOSAL] SkyWalking - proposal for Apache Incubation




> > 
> > Who owns this code? Will an SGA be provided, or ICLAs from contributors?
> > If ICLAs, are there any of the current 16 contributors who will not
> > provide an ICLA?
> 
> 
> I gone through this wil Sheng. An SGA will be provided as well as an
> ICLA from contributors.
> Sheng will bring this up with the community and seek confirmation from
> all the committors there, including that he shall be the representative
> of the 'OpenSkywalking Organization' to sign the SGA.


This has been done here:
https://github.com/OpenSkywalking/Organization/issues/14

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Podling user@ lists (was: [PROPOSAL] SkyWalking - proposal for Apache Incubation)

2017-11-30 Thread Greg Stein

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 3:51 AM, sebb  wrote:

> On 29 November 2017 at 13:44, John D. Ament  wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:59 AM sebb  wrote:
> >
> >> Top posting
> >>
> >> The proposal includes a user@ mailing list.
> >> This is generally not recommended for podlings as their focus needs to
> >> be on building the developer community.
> >>
> >
> > Podlings are more than welcomed to include user@ lists.
>

They might be "welcome" to have such a list. But as sebb quotes my
explanation from years back: it is a Bad Idea.

Community growth is almost directly proportional to activity. You cannot
attract people to "crickets" mailing lists. And dividing/partitioning your
(potential) community is the fastest way to crickets.

The Incubator is about teaching people how to build a functional Apache
community. Keeping users/devs on the same list is one of the easiest and
most straight-forward lessons to teach.

-g

>
> That is not my recollection.
>
> See for example:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201009.mbox/%
> 3CAANLkTim7NzJ%2BBLY8AtkR5ZmDUXHR%2BNZxr44VSqGJ_O3D%40mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> > There's nothing stopping them from building developers and users at the
> same time.
>
> That's extra work.
>
> If there is already an external users list, let that continue until
> the project is ready to graduate, then migrate users across.
>
> But it seems wrong to create a new user list initially.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [PROPOSAL] SkyWalking - proposal for Apache Incubation

2017-11-30 Thread mck


> > 
> > Who owns this code? Will an SGA be provided, or ICLAs from contributors?
> > If ICLAs, are there any of the current 16 contributors who will not
> > provide an ICLA?
> 
> 
> I gone through this wil Sheng. An SGA will be provided as well as an
> ICLA from contributors.
> Sheng will bring this up with the community and seek confirmation from
> all the committors there, including that he shall be the representative
> of the 'OpenSkywalking Organization' to sign the SGA.


This has been done here:
https://github.com/OpenSkywalking/Organization/issues/14

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [PROPOSAL] SkyWalking - proposal for Apache Incubation

2017-11-30 Thread mck

John, thanks for the time and input. My replies are inline.


> > = Proposal =
> > The goal of this proposal is to bring the existing Skywalking
> > https://github.com/OpenSkywalking/skywalking codebase and existing
> > developers and community into the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) in
> > order to build a global, diverse and self-governed open source community
> > in APM field.
> >
> 
> Who owns this code? Will an SGA be provided, or ICLAs from contributors?
> If ICLAs, are there any of the current 16 contributors who will not
> provide an ICLA?


I gone through this wil Sheng. An SGA will be provided as well as an
ICLA from contributors.
Sheng will bring this up with the community and seek confirmation from
all the committors there, including that he shall be the representative
of the 'OpenSkywalking Organization' to sign the SGA.


> > This project started in Open Source on GitHub about more than 2 years
> > ago. Beginning with a small SDK and collector. So far the OpenSkywalking
> > https://github.com/OpenSkywalking/Organization governs the project
> > through the PMC and Committer Team. The major contributors are from
> > Huawei DevCloud Team, Tydic, Oneapm (APM vendor),  Alibaba Group,
> > dangdang.com and cloudwise (APM vendor).
> >
> >
> While its understandable outside of Apache the contributions come from
> companies, while within Apache the contributions should be expected from
> individuals.  Although I highly like the openness I see from this
> project.


The language here has been corrected. 
That companies have been behind *individuals* is information provided
separately in the "Affiliations" section.
Is it a problem in the other places it is mention in the proposal?



> > == Core Developers ==
> > The core developers are a diverse group of experienced open source
> > developers and team leaders.
> >  * PMC members –
> >
> > https://github.com/OpenSkywalking/Organization/blob/master/README.md#project-management-committee-pmc
> >  * Committer Team members –
> >
> > https://github.com/OpenSkywalking/Organization/blob/master/README.md#committer-team
> 
> 
> Please replace this with a list of all current contributors, with names
> in english.


The PMC section is removed. And all names in english, with the name in
chinese following.
It's also been pointed out the english names should appear in the "from"
field in emails sent to the list.



> > === Language and Culture ===
> > Concerns have been raised about language challenges and, as is typical
> > for developers not strong in english, aware that the community can be
> > shy in a debate or disagreement when english is used. Having looked
> > through the project's history this concern can be seen to be minor. The
> > commitlog is in english, and so are the tickets and the pull requests.
> > The website and documentation is equally both english and chinese. The
> > community has been strict upon itself to ensure it became and stays so.
> > The use of chinese should not be seen as a problem, it is a multilingual
> > world, but it is important that english speakers feel included and able
> > to contribute freely to the project without having to ask for
> > translations. To deal with poor or broken english it's important that a
> > gentler and inclusive community is fostered.
> >
> 
> Where have concerns over language challenges been raised?


This was in private chat and a zoom video call between Sheng and myself.
So it's not a documented event.
Sheng, maybe you also had similar conversations also with Luke?



> > == Git Repositories ==
> >  * https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-skywalking.git
> >  * https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-skywalking-ui.git
> >
> >
> The ASF does offer "gitbox" or writable github repositories.  If this is
> something useful to you, I would recommend it, especially if you're
> already using github.


Thanks for this info!
This is desired. The proposal has been updated.


> > == Initial Incubator PMC ==
> >  * 吴晟, Sheng Wu  @wu-sheng
> >  * 彭勇升, Yongsheng Peng  @peng-yongsheng
> >  * 张鑫, Xin Zhang  @ascrutae
> >
> > == Initial Committer ==
> >  * 吴晟, Sheng Wu  @wu-sheng
> >  * 彭勇升, Yongsheng Peng  @peng-yongsheng
> >  * 张鑫, Xin Zhang  @ascrutae
> >  * 高洪涛, Hongtao Gao  @hanahmily
> >  * 柏杨, Yang Bai  @bai-yang
> >  * 王凯, Kai Wang  @oracle219
> >  * 李运涛, Yuntao Li  @lytscu
> >  * 汪盛, Sheng Wang  @titsquid
> >  * 司冬雪, Dongxue Si  @IluckySi
> >  * 张科伟, Kewei Zhang  @zhangkewei
> >
> 
> 
> These two sections concern me.  Note that podlings have PPMCs.  I cannot
> accept three new IPMC members on a podling proposal without much
> explanation about how they are familiar with the Apache Way.
> 
> Typically, podlings come into the Incubator with the PPMC == the initial
> committers.  Is that what you are trying to convey here?


Correct. These were intended as PPMC, not IPMC.
The two separate lists here have been replaced with just the one
"committor" list. 


> I'm not sure why there are names

Re: [PROPOSAL] SkyWalking - proposal for Apache Incubation

2017-11-30 Thread mck


> > The proposal includes a user@ mailing list.
> > This is generally not recommended for podlings as their focus needs to
> > be on building the developer community.
> >
> 
> Podlings are more than welcomed to include user@ lists.  There's nothing
> stopping them from building developers and users at the same time.


The request for a user@ list has been removed.
It makes sense to lazy request it once traffic volume demands it.


regards,
Mick

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Podling user@ lists (was: [PROPOSAL] SkyWalking - proposal for Apache Incubation)

2017-11-30 Thread sebb

On 29 November 2017 at 13:44, John D. Ament  wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 5:59 AM sebb  wrote:
>
>> Top posting
>>
>> The proposal includes a user@ mailing list.
>> This is generally not recommended for podlings as their focus needs to
>> be on building the developer community.
>>
>
> Podlings are more than welcomed to include user@ lists.

That is not my recollection.

See for example:

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201009.mbox/%3CAANLkTim7NzJ%2BBLY8AtkR5ZmDUXHR%2BNZxr44VSqGJ_O3D%40mail.gmail.com%3E

> There's nothing stopping them from building developers and users at the same 
> time.

That's extra work.

If there is already an external users list, let that continue until
the project is ready to graduate, then migrate users across.

But it seems wrong to create a new user list initially.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC1

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC1

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC1

[VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC1

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

Re: [VOTE] Apache MXNet (incubating) 1.0.0 release RC0

[ANNOUNCE] Apache Griffin-0.1.6-incubating released

Re: [PROPOSAL] SkyWalking - proposal for Apache Incubation

Re: [PROPOSAL] SkyWalking - proposal for Apache Incubation

Re: Podling user@ lists (was: [PROPOSAL] SkyWalking - proposal for Apache Incubation)

Re: [PROPOSAL] SkyWalking - proposal for Apache Incubation

Re: [PROPOSAL] SkyWalking - proposal for Apache Incubation

Re: [PROPOSAL] SkyWalking - proposal for Apache Incubation

Podling user@ lists (was: [PROPOSAL] SkyWalking - proposal for Apache Incubation)

15 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information