Re: Request for feedback: proposal for MXNet SDK Office hours

[Sheng Zha]

Thanks for the clarification, Naveen. I'd recommend against having wiki or
other mutable document for such discussion, because people's response (or
the lack of it in the case of lazy consensus) is only toward the version
they saw, which can be changed. Rather, it would likely be a better idea to
include all the key points in the discussion thread directly (like you just
did), so that everyone at any point in time can see the same thing.

-sz

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Naveen Swamy  wrote:

> 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
> 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  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 
> 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 
> > 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 

Re: Request for feedback: proposal for MXNet SDK Office hours

[Naveen Swamy]

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
   

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  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  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 
> 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 
> 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 

Re: Request for feedback: proposal for MXNet SDK Office hours

[Sheng Zha]

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  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  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  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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Should MXNet 1.3 contain a buggy version of nn.Embedding backward by default?

[Naveen Swamy]

If it is buggy, how does it matter if it is performant or not? I am not
seeing the rationale to make the correct version only opt-in.


On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:47 PM, Leonard Lausen 
wrote:

> Currently the default kernel of nn.Embedding backward is known to be
> buggy on P3 instances or using Cuda 9.2 (though the issue also occurs on
> other instances with earlier version of Cuda, but less often).
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/11314
>
> There is currently an opt-in for using a bug-free kernel, but it is not
> the default. However, the bug-free kernel is used by default for shape
> smaller 16384.
>
> Should MXNet ship a more efficient but buggy kernel in v1.3 or use a
> correct but less efficient kernel by default? As MXNet v1.3 is likely to
> be used a lot with Cuda 9.2 I believe the default behavior should be
> changed to use the bug-free but less efficient Kernel. Correctness and
> providing a good user experience should be No. 1 here (?). Then users
> that want a faster but buggy backward kernel can still select to do so.
> Note this only affects the backward pass.
>
> Hao did related work on improving the take operator
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11326
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11795 which also fixes
> the issue, but he found it to be only "slightly faster" compared to the
> bug-free kernel that is currently under opt-in while leading to CI
> failures on Windows.
>
> In my experience, there is no speed difference between the current buggy
> and
> opt-in bug-free kernel, but the GPU utilization of the latter is 100%
> compared
> to 60% of the former (benchmark script:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11795#
> issuecomment-405808567 )
>

Re: Request for feedback: proposal for MXNet SDK Office hours

[Davydenko, Denis]

Hi, Hen,

Thanks a lot for your feedback, it is very valuable!

I should have been probably more explicit about idea and intention of providing 
users with office hours channel of communication. The idea behind office hours 
is to provide an additional communication channel to Apache MXNet users. It 
doesn't have an intention to replace or even supplement communication on dev@ 
list or other, more broader forums. In fact the proposal here is for very 
specific need that some users might have. Namely, it is to help with specific 
issues that users are having while trying to use/play/adopt Apache MXNet for 
_their_ need. Which might or might not be relevant and/or interesting to 
broader community. One more benefit of having office hours as additional 
channel of communication is that users could have some more or less definitive 
timeline to get answers to their questions and help with their project planning.

As part of the office hours process we will ensure to follow up on each issue 
filed and describe what was the answer (if anything definitive) to user's 
question. That is why we are proposing to use Apache JIRA to keep track of this 
additional communication channel. This way we are going to ensure that none of 
the communication falls off searchable surface.

Also, regarding your concern about diverse community. We are proposing office 
hours as additional channel of communication. It might not be suitable for 
everyone, especially if timeslot that we will be providing doesn't work with 
user's local time zone. While we would like to support more timeslots - we 
would need to work with Apache MXNet contributors across the world to figure 
out strategy to do that, at this time we only have resources to support 
proposed timeslot.

We definitely not impose any requirements for users and require them to use 
office hours, it is very much optional and additional channel to be used on per 
need basis. Users are free to use it or not to. We are driving this in order to 
provide more ways to users to get help with adopting Apache MXNet.

Please let me know if these clarifications address your concerns about the 
proposal. I would be interested in knowing whether this makes sense and what 
are your thoughts on it.

--
Thanks,
Denis


On 7/23/18, 8:02 PM, "Hen"  wrote:

My concerns on Office Hours are:

1) Voice and F2F are not very welcoming for a diverse community. There I
am, sitting in New Zealand, and you want me to get on the phone and wake up
the rest of the family to have a conversation. Or get on a plane.
2) Having to book time is also not very welcoming. I would expect the
booking time notion to happen because too many requests for help are
happening and it's not possible to handle them all; or because no one ever
shows up (in which case congrats, free time for the committers to chat
about ideas - provided it doesn't stop people asking for help).

Have you tried the more classic Open Source approach of a specific time on
an IM channel to discuss? Apache often uses IRC (irc.freenode.net).

Hen



On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 7:36 PM, Naveen Swamy  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  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  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 

Re: Request for feedback: proposal for MXNet SDK Office hours

[Hen]

Noting that, as far as I can tell, there is no such thing as 'MXNet SDK',
'AWS MXNet SDK' or 'Amazon MXNet SDK'.

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Mu Li  wrote:

> A minor suggestion: rename MXNet SDK to AWS MXNet SDK or Amazon MXNet SDK.
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Davydenko, Denis <
> dzianis.davydze...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello, MXNet community,
> >
> > Following up on recent announcement of office hours introduction from
> > MXNet Berlin team,  we are trying to see if we can introduce some
> > modifications to that to make process a bit more streamlined and easier
> to
> > track. Also, we are trying to see how to scale that process to allow
> other
> > MXNet teams to provide this channel of support to their customers. With
> > that in mind, I would like to ask for your feedback on the proposal [1].
> >
> > [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/
> > PROPOSAL%3A+MXNet+SDK+Office+Hours
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: Request for feedback: proposal for MXNet SDK Office hours

[Hen]

My concerns on Office Hours are:

1) Voice and F2F are not very welcoming for a diverse community. There I
am, sitting in New Zealand, and you want me to get on the phone and wake up
the rest of the family to have a conversation. Or get on a plane.
2) Having to book time is also not very welcoming. I would expect the
booking time notion to happen because too many requests for help are
happening and it's not possible to handle them all; or because no one ever
shows up (in which case congrats, free time for the committers to chat
about ideas - provided it doesn't stop people asking for help).

Have you tried the more classic Open Source approach of a specific time on
an IM channel to discuss? Apache often uses IRC (irc.freenode.net).

Hen



On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 7:36 PM, Naveen Swamy  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  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  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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Apply to mxnet slack channel

[Naveen Swamy]

done

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Tao Sun  wrote:

> Admin,
>
> Will you please grant me access to this channel? Thanks!
>

Re: Request for feedback: proposal for MXNet SDK Office hours

[Naveen Swamy]

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  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  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  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  >
> > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Apply to mxnet slack channel

[Tao Sun]

Admin,

Will you please grant me access to this channel? Thanks!

Re: MXNet Berlin Office Hours

[Hen]

Noting that I find "MXNet Berlin team" a very confusing concept.

Does that mean "Apache MXNet committers who happen to live in Berlin?"

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 2:27 AM, Anton Chernov  wrote:

> Dear MXNet community,
>
> As part of our customer support the MXNet Berlin team is offering office
> hours on Tuesdays 6pm-7pm (CEST) | 9:00am-10am (PST).
>
> They happen onsite in the Amazon Berlin office:
> Krausenstraße 38, 10117 Berlin in BER12 01.501
>
> Conference Bridge Information
>
> Chime meeting ID: 5461650798
> Join via browser screen share: https://chime.aws/5461650798
> Join via phone (US): +1-929-432-4463,,5461650798#
> Join via phone (US toll-free): +1-855-552-4463,,5461650798#
> International dial-in: https://chime.aws/dialinnumbers/
> In-room video system: Ext: 62000, Meeting PIN: 5461650798#
>
> How can we help you?
>
> The following are a few examples of the types of consultations we provide:
>
> * CI and infrastructure questions
> * Build system
> * Benchmarking
> * Edge devices (for example Raspberry Pi, Jetson)
> * C++
> * General questions
>
> Before attending
>
> Try finding answers on:
>
> * Our discussion forum (https://discuss.mxnet.io)
> * StackOverflow mxnet tag (https://stackoverflow.com/
> questions/tagged/mxnet)
> * MXNet website (https://mxnet.incubator.apache.org/faq/)
> * Github issues (https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues)
>
> If this does not help:
>
> In advance fill out a github issue (
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/new) at least a few days
> before so that the team member who will help with the issue gets a chance
> to prepare.
>
> Main point of contact through email: mxnet-edge-oncall-primary[at]a
> mazon.com
>
> Best regards
> Anton Chernov
>
> [1]
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/
> MXNet+Berlin+Office+Hours
>

Should MXNet 1.3 contain a buggy version of nn.Embedding backward by default?

[Leonard Lausen]

Currently the default kernel of nn.Embedding backward is known to be
buggy on P3 instances or using Cuda 9.2 (though the issue also occurs on
other instances with earlier version of Cuda, but less often).

https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/11314

There is currently an opt-in for using a bug-free kernel, but it is not
the default. However, the bug-free kernel is used by default for shape
smaller 16384.

Should MXNet ship a more efficient but buggy kernel in v1.3 or use a
correct but less efficient kernel by default? As MXNet v1.3 is likely to
be used a lot with Cuda 9.2 I believe the default behavior should be
changed to use the bug-free but less efficient Kernel. Correctness and
providing a good user experience should be No. 1 here (?). Then users
that want a faster but buggy backward kernel can still select to do so.
Note this only affects the backward pass.

Hao did related work on improving the take operator
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11326
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11795 which also fixes
the issue, but he found it to be only "slightly faster" compared to the
bug-free kernel that is currently under opt-in while leading to CI
failures on Windows.

In my experience, there is no speed difference between the current buggy and
opt-in bug-free kernel, but the GPU utilization of the latter is 100% compared
to 60% of the former (benchmark script:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11795#issuecomment-405808567 )

Re: Release plan - MXNET 1.3

[kellen sunderland]

Thanks again for organizing Roshani.  I believe the TensorRT work is ready
for a merge.  Thanks to Marek and all the NVIDIA people for iterating on
it.  If possible could a committer review, make sure it meets their
expectations and then merge?  PR is here:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11325

To Marco's point.  I'd recommend we review some of those disabled tests and
see how likely they are to affect users before we cut a release.  Many of
them are obviously not too important from a user's point of view (e.g.
downloading a sometimes-offline image in a test).  One idea would be to try
and address as many of the customer impacting issues as possible between
code freeze and the RC0 vote.

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:23 PM Marco de Abreu
 wrote:

> Hello Roshani,
>
> frequent releases are good and I'm supportive for this in general in order
> to provide our users with the latest features and improvements. But at the
> moment, I'm slightly concerned about the test coverage due to [1]. I want
> us to be conscious about cutting a release even though not all tests are
> enabled (29 disabled tests [2] as of today). However, I acknowledge that we
> have improved by a lot lately thanks to everybody participating and leading
> the efforts around improving flaky tests. From a retrospective point of
> view, we could say that these efforts have actually revealed some quite
> interesting bugs and thus the time was well spent and yielded good results.
>
> What does the community think about making another sprint of improvements
> around tests followed up by a period of 1-2 weeks during which we observe
> the failures closely to ensure that no critical paths are impacted? If we
> are in a good shape by then, we could continue the release process and at
> the same time have the advantage of giving contributors more lead time to
> finish their work to ensure it gets into the release in the desired
> quality.
>
> Again, thanks to everybody for their efforts during the last weeks to
> improve the usability and stability of MXNet. This is great community
> effort and a good example of a community working together towards a unified
> goal!
>
> Best regards,
> Marco
>
> [1]:
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d6d81401de796a96677a112d6cd0b074b01f46564194ea89b86c6a3e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
> [2]:
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22Disabled+test%22
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 8:34 PM Roshani Nagmote  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As mentioned before, code freeze date is today July 23rd. Please try to
> get
> > your ongoing PRs merged by today.
> > Please let me know if there are any concerns or need more time.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roshani
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 1:16 PM Anirudh Acharya 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > @sandeep krishnamurthy  the bug fixes in
> > the
> > > R-package is something we have just begun, there will not be anything
> > > significant to announce before the v1.3 code freeze.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:08 PM Steffen Rochel <
> steffenroc...@gmail.com
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > To make it easier to find the discussions related to project
> proposals
> > I
> > > > added a column with a link to the thread on dev@ for most projects.
> > > > Appreciate for the project owners to fill in the blanks and to check
> > > that I
> > > > got the right threads.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Steffen
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 7:11 PM Roshani Nagmote <
> > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Kellen,
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure. I will update the notes with the information.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Roshani
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:01 PM kellen sunderland <
> > > > > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey Roshani,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would you be able to add 'TensorRT Runtime Integration' to the
> list
> > > of
> > > > > > upcoming features?  We'll target getting the release in and
> > polished
> > > by
> > > > > the
> > > > > > 23rd.  Design proposal is here:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Runtime+Integration+with+TensorRT
> > > > > > and the lead contributor is Marek Kolodziej.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Kellen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:32 PM Roshani Nagmote <
> > > > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am starting the process to prepare for Apache MXNet
> > (incubating)
> > > > 1.3
> > > > > > > Release. Please find project proposal draft for this release
> > here:
> > > > > > > <*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Project+Proposals+for+next+MXNet+Release
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 

Duplication of Operators for sampling from random distributions

[Anirudh Acharya]

Hi All,

I had earlier filed an issue with functionality-duplication/code-refactor
here - https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/11811

As per the suggestion in the github issue I would like to bring it to the
attention of the wider community -

The operators defined in sample_op.cc and multisample_op.cc are seemingly
performing the same tasks. Both these files define the following operators
respectively

sample_op.cc
---
random_uniform
random_normal
random_gamma
random_exponential
random_poisson
random_negative_binomial
random_generalized_negative_binomial

multisample_op.cc
--
sample_uniform
sample_normal
sample_gamma
sample_exponential
sample_poisson
sample_negative_binomial
sample_generalized_negative_binomial

The only difference that I can glean from the documentation is that
operators in multisample_op.ccperforms concurrent sampling from multiple
distributions, but the behavior of the operators is not different.

Is sample_op.cc being retained for legacy reasons or backward
compatibility? Can it be deprecated or EOLed? Correct me if I am wrong here.


Thanks

Anirudh

Re: Release plan - MXNET 1.3

[Marco de Abreu]

Hello Roshani,

frequent releases are good and I'm supportive for this in general in order
to provide our users with the latest features and improvements. But at the
moment, I'm slightly concerned about the test coverage due to [1]. I want
us to be conscious about cutting a release even though not all tests are
enabled (29 disabled tests [2] as of today). However, I acknowledge that we
have improved by a lot lately thanks to everybody participating and leading
the efforts around improving flaky tests. From a retrospective point of
view, we could say that these efforts have actually revealed some quite
interesting bugs and thus the time was well spent and yielded good results.

What does the community think about making another sprint of improvements
around tests followed up by a period of 1-2 weeks during which we observe
the failures closely to ensure that no critical paths are impacted? If we
are in a good shape by then, we could continue the release process and at
the same time have the advantage of giving contributors more lead time to
finish their work to ensure it gets into the release in the desired quality.

Again, thanks to everybody for their efforts during the last weeks to
improve the usability and stability of MXNet. This is great community
effort and a good example of a community working together towards a unified
goal!

Best regards,
Marco

[1]:
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/d6d81401de796a96677a112d6cd0b074b01f46564194ea89b86c6a3e@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
[2]:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22Disabled+test%22

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 8:34 PM Roshani Nagmote 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> As mentioned before, code freeze date is today July 23rd. Please try to get
> your ongoing PRs merged by today.
> Please let me know if there are any concerns or need more time.
>
> Thanks,
> Roshani
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 1:16 PM Anirudh Acharya 
> wrote:
>
> > @sandeep krishnamurthy  the bug fixes in
> the
> > R-package is something we have just begun, there will not be anything
> > significant to announce before the v1.3 code freeze.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:08 PM Steffen Rochel  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > To make it easier to find the discussions related to project proposals
> I
> > > added a column with a link to the thread on dev@ for most projects.
> > > Appreciate for the project owners to fill in the blanks and to check
> > that I
> > > got the right threads.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Steffen
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 7:11 PM Roshani Nagmote <
> > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Kellen,
> > > >
> > > > Sure. I will update the notes with the information.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Roshani
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:01 PM kellen sunderland <
> > > > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey Roshani,
> > > > >
> > > > > Would you be able to add 'TensorRT Runtime Integration' to the list
> > of
> > > > > upcoming features?  We'll target getting the release in and
> polished
> > by
> > > > the
> > > > > 23rd.  Design proposal is here:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Runtime+Integration+with+TensorRT
> > > > > and the lead contributor is Marek Kolodziej.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Kellen
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:32 PM Roshani Nagmote <
> > > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am starting the process to prepare for Apache MXNet
> (incubating)
> > > 1.3
> > > > > > Release. Please find project proposal draft for this release
> here:
> > > > > > <*
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Project+Proposals+for+next+MXNet+Release
> > > > > > <
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Project+Proposals+for+next+MXNet+Release
> > > > > > >*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Target feature freeze date is July 23rd. A release candidate will
> > be
> > > > cut
> > > > > > around Monday, August 6th and voting will commence from then
> until
> > > > > > Thursday, August 9th. If you have any additional features in
> > progress
> > > > and
> > > > > > would like to include it in this release, please make sure to
> > comment
> > > > so
> > > > > I
> > > > > > can update the release notes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Feel free to add any other comments/suggestions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Roshani
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: MXNet Meetup in San Francisco - Aug 1 2018

[sandeep krishnamurthy]

I will share the slides and Jupyter Notebook that will be used for the talk.

Thanks
Sandeep

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 1:37 AM Ivan Serdyuk 
wrote:

> Ar least - your speakers could share slides
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Hagay Lupesko  wrote:
>
> > No, unfortunately we're not planning to stream or record the meetup
> > (equipment/budget)
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 9:36 AM Ivan Serdyuk <
> local.tourist.k...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Are you providing streaming or recording?
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:27 PM, Hagay Lupesko 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey folks,
> > > >
> > > > Sandeep and me are hosting a meetup in San Francisco Wednesday Aug 1
> > 2018
> > > > on "Emotion recognition in images: from idea to production".
> > > > The details are here:
> > > > https://www.meetup.com/deep-learning-with-mxnet/events/252916863/ -
> > note
> > > > that there is limited capacity, so if you are interested please RSVP.
> > > >
> > > > The community is welcomed to join us, will be a great opportunity to
> > > mingle
> > > > and get to know one another in person.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Hagay
> > > >
> > >
> >
>


-- 
Sandeep Krishnamurthy

Re: Release plan - MXNET 1.3

[Roshani Nagmote]

Hi all,

As mentioned before, code freeze date is today July 23rd. Please try to get
your ongoing PRs merged by today.
Please let me know if there are any concerns or need more time.

Thanks,
Roshani

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 1:16 PM Anirudh Acharya 
wrote:

> @sandeep krishnamurthy  the bug fixes in the
> R-package is something we have just begun, there will not be anything
> significant to announce before the v1.3 code freeze.
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:08 PM Steffen Rochel 
> wrote:
>
> > To make it easier to find the discussions related to project proposals I
> > added a column with a link to the thread on dev@ for most projects.
> > Appreciate for the project owners to fill in the blanks and to check
> that I
> > got the right threads.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steffen
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 7:11 PM Roshani Nagmote <
> roshaninagmo...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Kellen,
> > >
> > > Sure. I will update the notes with the information.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Roshani
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:01 PM kellen sunderland <
> > > kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey Roshani,
> > > >
> > > > Would you be able to add 'TensorRT Runtime Integration' to the list
> of
> > > > upcoming features?  We'll target getting the release in and polished
> by
> > > the
> > > > 23rd.  Design proposal is here:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Runtime+Integration+with+TensorRT
> > > > and the lead contributor is Marek Kolodziej.
> > > >
> > > > -Kellen
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 8:32 PM Roshani Nagmote <
> > > roshaninagmo...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi All,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am starting the process to prepare for Apache MXNet (incubating)
> > 1.3
> > > > > Release. Please find project proposal draft for this release here:
> > > > > <*
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Project+Proposals+for+next+MXNet+Release
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MXNET/Project+Proposals+for+next+MXNet+Release
> > > > > >*
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Target feature freeze date is July 23rd. A release candidate will
> be
> > > cut
> > > > > around Monday, August 6th and voting will commence from then until
> > > > > Thursday, August 9th. If you have any additional features in
> progress
> > > and
> > > > > would like to include it in this release, please make sure to
> comment
> > > so
> > > > I
> > > > > can update the release notes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Feel free to add any other comments/suggestions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Roshani
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: MXNet Meetup in San Francisco - Aug 1 2018

[Ivan Serdyuk]

Ar least - your speakers could share slides

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Hagay Lupesko  wrote:

> No, unfortunately we're not planning to stream or record the meetup
> (equipment/budget)
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 9:36 AM Ivan Serdyuk  >
> wrote:
>
> > Are you providing streaming or recording?
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:27 PM, Hagay Lupesko 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey folks,
> > >
> > > Sandeep and me are hosting a meetup in San Francisco Wednesday Aug 1
> 2018
> > > on "Emotion recognition in images: from idea to production".
> > > The details are here:
> > > https://www.meetup.com/deep-learning-with-mxnet/events/252916863/ -
> note
> > > that there is limited capacity, so if you are interested please RSVP.
> > >
> > > The community is welcomed to join us, will be a great opportunity to
> > mingle
> > > and get to know one another in person.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Hagay
> > >
> >
>

Re: MXNet Meetup in San Francisco - Aug 1 2018

[Hagay Lupesko]

No, unfortunately we're not planning to stream or record the meetup
(equipment/budget)

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 9:36 AM Ivan Serdyuk 
wrote:

> Are you providing streaming or recording?
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:27 PM, Hagay Lupesko  wrote:
>
> > Hey folks,
> >
> > Sandeep and me are hosting a meetup in San Francisco Wednesday Aug 1 2018
> > on "Emotion recognition in images: from idea to production".
> > The details are here:
> > https://www.meetup.com/deep-learning-with-mxnet/events/252916863/ - note
> > that there is limited capacity, so if you are interested please RSVP.
> >
> > The community is welcomed to join us, will be a great opportunity to
> mingle
> > and get to know one another in person.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Hagay
> >
>