Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[junrushao1994]

+1

Both GitHub issues and dev@ are aimed for development-related topics. It will 
be great if we could have a all-in-one place for discussion, and I believe 
Sheng's proposal is the answer.

On 2018/07/16 03:32:06, Sheng Zha  wrote: 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to Github activities. See previous
> discussion thread here
> 
> .
> 
> The vote lasts for three days and ends on 7/18/2018 at 9pm pst.
> 
> -sz
> 

[RESULT][VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Sheng Zha]

Hi,

The vote concluded at 9PM today (2018/07/18), and here are the results:
+1
Timur Shenkao
Aaron Markham
Lin Yuan
Anirudh Acharya
Junru Shao
Yizhi Liu (committer)
Zhi Zhang (committer)
Tianqi Chen (committer)
Sheng Zha (committer)

-1
Qing Lan
Rahul Huilgol
K, S
Anirudh (committer)
Chris Olivier (committer)

The vote thread can be found here

(and
here
).
The original discussion thread can be found here

.

According to Apache Voting Process
, this procedural vote has
now passed.

However, some concerns has come up as part of the discussion on the voting
thread. Specifically, they are about increase in the amount of traffic (and
potentially noise) on dev list, and guidelines on how to manage them. In
light of that, I'd like to request that mentors help us connect with Apache
Infra team and help us explore our options on Github-Dev integration, and
hopefully we could find a solution that achieves the best balance.

For those who are interested, let's follow the best practice and continue
the discussion on managing the integration of Github with dev list in
parallel in the discussion thread
.
Thank you.

-sz

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Tianqi Chen]

While I do agree that the GitHub issue triaging should be improved,
possibly by moving more user discussions to the discuss forum/user list. I
already see there is a good effort on triaging the issues.

I do think forwarding GitHub activities are a good first step to make
people aware of what is going on. The filtering mechanism means that it is
possible to alleviate this problem for those who don't want to see
"noise"(although most of them are not noises, but bugfixes, discussions
etc.).

Tianqi

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Rahul Huilgol 
wrote:

> The point is not that valuable discussion does not happen on Github. The
> point is that mails about it will be dwarfed by the other activity on
> Github.
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Tianqi Chen 
> wrote:
>
> > Being Apache is about being inclusive to the new contributors. Apache
> > encourages the use of Github, and currently, the community is doing so.
> >
> > I don't think it is a good idea to use political terms to force
> proliferate
> > our contributors --- we are all Apache contributors. Instead, we should
> > make all contributors feel inclusive under the frameworks of Apache
> > (including those who contribute and discuss through github, which is
> > currently the majority).
> >
> > On the other hand, the filtering mechanism would work for those who do
> not
> > want to receive the content.
> >
> > Tianqi
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Chris Olivier 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > to know about github discussions, you’d need to scan all issues and prs
> > > constantly which isn’t a reasonable expectation. dev is where
> discussions
> > > are supposed to happen in a apache, PERIOD.
> > >
> > > Apache isn’t dmlc. I wish some people would stop trying to turn Apache
> > > conventions into dmlc conventions.  seems this is a constant push from
> > day
> > > one.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:39 AM Sheng Zha  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks, I hear the concerns and it's not my intention to push people
> > off
> > > > the list. On the other hand, I think github discussions are no more
> > > > "artificial" than discussions on dev list, and the good and important
> > > > discussions warrant the same amount of attention. With this vote, I
> > > intend
> > > > to make contributors' life easier by decoupling the recognized forum
> > from
> > > > the technology they use, and that github contributors can easily
> > > > communicate with the community on the list.
> > > >
> > > > -sz
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Barber, Christopher <
> > > > christopher.bar...@analog.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Can't you simply tell contributors to discuss changes on dev before
> > > > > submitting a PR? Since the contribution guidelines don't tell
> > > developers
> > > > to
> > > > > post to dev, why would you expect them to do that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there an easy way to just subscribe to PR notifications or will
> > > > someone
> > > > > have to write a filter to avoid spamming dev with all GitHub
> > > > notifications?
> > > > > I think that if dev gets too much traffic, then people with casual
> > > > interest
> > > > > may find it easier to unsubscribe than to set up filters. Once
> > someone
> > > > > unsubscribes, they probably won't be coming back soon, so you
> should
> > be
> > > > > very careful with this.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see why artificially increasing the traffic on dev will do
> > > > > anything to grow the community in any case.
> > > > >
> > > > > - C
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/18/18, 11:17 AM, "Indhu"  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Some mentors/contributors/committees feel that the amount of
> > > > > discussions in
> > > > > dev list is too less given the amount of commits that happen
> and
> > > more
> > > > > discussions need to happen in the dev list to grow the
> community.
> > > > >
> > > > > In response some committees feel discussions actually happen in
> > > > GitHub
> > > > > PRs.
> > > > > If the policy says "if it didn't happen in dev, it didn't
> > happen",
> > > > > let's
> > > > > forward all GitHub discussions to dev so those discussions
> would
> > > > count.
> > > > > That's the motivation for this vote.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think when people say there needs to be more discussions in
> the
> > > dev
> > > > > list,
> > > > > I assume they mean the kind of discussions that happen
> *before* a
> > > PR
> > > > is
> > > > > created or even before someone starts working on anything. I
> > don't
> > > > > think
> > > > > people are asking an email for every activity on GitHub. The
> > > correct
> > > > > way to
> > > > > address the problem would be for committees/contributors to
> stop
> > > > > communicating in private channels (like Amazon or DMLC
> > > communication
> > > > > channels) and do those discussions in the dev list instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Indu
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:51 AM 

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Rahul Huilgol]

The point is not that valuable discussion does not happen on Github. The
point is that mails about it will be dwarfed by the other activity on
Github.

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Tianqi Chen 
wrote:

> Being Apache is about being inclusive to the new contributors. Apache
> encourages the use of Github, and currently, the community is doing so.
>
> I don't think it is a good idea to use political terms to force proliferate
> our contributors --- we are all Apache contributors. Instead, we should
> make all contributors feel inclusive under the frameworks of Apache
> (including those who contribute and discuss through github, which is
> currently the majority).
>
> On the other hand, the filtering mechanism would work for those who do not
> want to receive the content.
>
> Tianqi
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Chris Olivier 
> wrote:
>
> > to know about github discussions, you’d need to scan all issues and prs
> > constantly which isn’t a reasonable expectation. dev is where discussions
> > are supposed to happen in a apache, PERIOD.
> >
> > Apache isn’t dmlc. I wish some people would stop trying to turn Apache
> > conventions into dmlc conventions.  seems this is a constant push from
> day
> > one.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:39 AM Sheng Zha  wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks, I hear the concerns and it's not my intention to push people
> off
> > > the list. On the other hand, I think github discussions are no more
> > > "artificial" than discussions on dev list, and the good and important
> > > discussions warrant the same amount of attention. With this vote, I
> > intend
> > > to make contributors' life easier by decoupling the recognized forum
> from
> > > the technology they use, and that github contributors can easily
> > > communicate with the community on the list.
> > >
> > > -sz
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Barber, Christopher <
> > > christopher.bar...@analog.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can't you simply tell contributors to discuss changes on dev before
> > > > submitting a PR? Since the contribution guidelines don't tell
> > developers
> > > to
> > > > post to dev, why would you expect them to do that?
> > > >
> > > > Is there an easy way to just subscribe to PR notifications or will
> > > someone
> > > > have to write a filter to avoid spamming dev with all GitHub
> > > notifications?
> > > > I think that if dev gets too much traffic, then people with casual
> > > interest
> > > > may find it easier to unsubscribe than to set up filters. Once
> someone
> > > > unsubscribes, they probably won't be coming back soon, so you should
> be
> > > > very careful with this.
> > > >
> > > > I don't see why artificially increasing the traffic on dev will do
> > > > anything to grow the community in any case.
> > > >
> > > > - C
> > > >
> > > > On 7/18/18, 11:17 AM, "Indhu"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Some mentors/contributors/committees feel that the amount of
> > > > discussions in
> > > > dev list is too less given the amount of commits that happen and
> > more
> > > > discussions need to happen in the dev list to grow the community.
> > > >
> > > > In response some committees feel discussions actually happen in
> > > GitHub
> > > > PRs.
> > > > If the policy says "if it didn't happen in dev, it didn't
> happen",
> > > > let's
> > > > forward all GitHub discussions to dev so those discussions would
> > > count.
> > > > That's the motivation for this vote.
> > > >
> > > > I think when people say there needs to be more discussions in the
> > dev
> > > > list,
> > > > I assume they mean the kind of discussions that happen *before* a
> > PR
> > > is
> > > > created or even before someone starts working on anything. I
> don't
> > > > think
> > > > people are asking an email for every activity on GitHub. The
> > correct
> > > > way to
> > > > address the problem would be for committees/contributors to stop
> > > > communicating in private channels (like Amazon or DMLC
> > communication
> > > > channels) and do those discussions in the dev list instead.
> > > >
> > > > Indu
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:51 AM Barber, Christopher <
> > > > christopher.bar...@analog.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Can't people already subscribe to github notifications? I think
> > it
> > > > is safe
> > > > > to assume that developers are already smart enough to figure
> out
> > > how
> > > > to do
> > > > > that if they want. What problem are you really trying to solve
> > > here?
> > > > >
> > > > > On 7/18/18, 4:49 AM, "Chris Olivier" 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > -1.  (changed from -0.9)
> > > > >
> > > > > seems more like a strategy (whether intentional or on
> > accident)
> > > > to
> > > > > *not*
> > > > > have design discussions on dev by flooding it with noise
> and
> > > > then later
> > > > > claim it was discussed, even though you would have 

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Barber, Christopher]

You should explicitly tell potential contributors what you expect of them. Here 
is what you document:

https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/docs/community/contribute.md

There is nothing there that tells contributors to discuss proposals on dev 
first. It sounds like that needs to be fixed.

On 7/18/18, 1:21 PM, "Chris Olivier"  wrote:

to know about github discussions, you’d need to scan all issues and prs
constantly which isn’t a reasonable expectation. dev is where discussions
are supposed to happen in a apache, PERIOD.

Apache isn’t dmlc. I wish some people would stop trying to turn Apache
conventions into dmlc conventions.  seems this is a constant push from day
one.


On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:39 AM Sheng Zha  wrote:

> Thanks, I hear the concerns and it's not my intention to push people off
> the list. On the other hand, I think github discussions are no more
> "artificial" than discussions on dev list, and the good and important
> discussions warrant the same amount of attention. With this vote, I intend
> to make contributors' life easier by decoupling the recognized forum from
> the technology they use, and that github contributors can easily
> communicate with the community on the list.
>
> -sz
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Barber, Christopher <
> christopher.bar...@analog.com> wrote:
>
> > Can't you simply tell contributors to discuss changes on dev before
> > submitting a PR? Since the contribution guidelines don't tell developers
> to
> > post to dev, why would you expect them to do that?
> >
> > Is there an easy way to just subscribe to PR notifications or will
> someone
> > have to write a filter to avoid spamming dev with all GitHub
> notifications?
> > I think that if dev gets too much traffic, then people with casual
> interest
> > may find it easier to unsubscribe than to set up filters. Once someone
> > unsubscribes, they probably won't be coming back soon, so you should be
> > very careful with this.
> >
> > I don't see why artificially increasing the traffic on dev will do
> > anything to grow the community in any case.
> >
> > - C
> >
> > On 7/18/18, 11:17 AM, "Indhu"  wrote:
> >
> > Some mentors/contributors/committees feel that the amount of
> > discussions in
> > dev list is too less given the amount of commits that happen and 
more
> > discussions need to happen in the dev list to grow the community.
> >
> > In response some committees feel discussions actually happen in
> GitHub
> > PRs.
> > If the policy says "if it didn't happen in dev, it didn't happen",
> > let's
> > forward all GitHub discussions to dev so those discussions would
> count.
> > That's the motivation for this vote.
> >
> > I think when people say there needs to be more discussions in the 
dev
> > list,
> > I assume they mean the kind of discussions that happen *before* a PR
> is
> > created or even before someone starts working on anything. I don't
> > think
> > people are asking an email for every activity on GitHub. The correct
> > way to
> > address the problem would be for committees/contributors to stop
> > communicating in private channels (like Amazon or DMLC communication
> > channels) and do those discussions in the dev list instead.
> >
> > Indu
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:51 AM Barber, Christopher <
> > christopher.bar...@analog.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Can't people already subscribe to github notifications? I think it
> > is safe
> > > to assume that developers are already smart enough to figure out
> how
> > to do
> > > that if they want. What problem are you really trying to solve
> here?
> > >
> > > On 7/18/18, 4:49 AM, "Chris Olivier" 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > -1.  (changed from -0.9)
> > >
> > > seems more like a strategy (whether intentional or on 
accident)
> > to
> > > *not*
> > > have design discussions on dev by flooding it with noise and
> > then later
> > > claim it was discussed, even though you would have to sift
> > through
> > > thousands of emails to find it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:42 AM Rahul Huilgol <
> > rahulhuil...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I pulled up some more stats so we can make an informed
> > decision.
> > > >
> > > > Here are some popular Apache projects and the number of
> emails
> > to
> > > their
> > > > dev@
> > > > list 

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Tianqi Chen]

Being Apache is about being inclusive to the new contributors. Apache
encourages the use of Github, and currently, the community is doing so.

I don't think it is a good idea to use political terms to force proliferate
our contributors --- we are all Apache contributors. Instead, we should
make all contributors feel inclusive under the frameworks of Apache
(including those who contribute and discuss through github, which is
currently the majority).

On the other hand, the filtering mechanism would work for those who do not
want to receive the content.

Tianqi

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:21 AM, Chris Olivier 
wrote:

> to know about github discussions, you’d need to scan all issues and prs
> constantly which isn’t a reasonable expectation. dev is where discussions
> are supposed to happen in a apache, PERIOD.
>
> Apache isn’t dmlc. I wish some people would stop trying to turn Apache
> conventions into dmlc conventions.  seems this is a constant push from day
> one.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:39 AM Sheng Zha  wrote:
>
> > Thanks, I hear the concerns and it's not my intention to push people off
> > the list. On the other hand, I think github discussions are no more
> > "artificial" than discussions on dev list, and the good and important
> > discussions warrant the same amount of attention. With this vote, I
> intend
> > to make contributors' life easier by decoupling the recognized forum from
> > the technology they use, and that github contributors can easily
> > communicate with the community on the list.
> >
> > -sz
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Barber, Christopher <
> > christopher.bar...@analog.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Can't you simply tell contributors to discuss changes on dev before
> > > submitting a PR? Since the contribution guidelines don't tell
> developers
> > to
> > > post to dev, why would you expect them to do that?
> > >
> > > Is there an easy way to just subscribe to PR notifications or will
> > someone
> > > have to write a filter to avoid spamming dev with all GitHub
> > notifications?
> > > I think that if dev gets too much traffic, then people with casual
> > interest
> > > may find it easier to unsubscribe than to set up filters. Once someone
> > > unsubscribes, they probably won't be coming back soon, so you should be
> > > very careful with this.
> > >
> > > I don't see why artificially increasing the traffic on dev will do
> > > anything to grow the community in any case.
> > >
> > > - C
> > >
> > > On 7/18/18, 11:17 AM, "Indhu"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Some mentors/contributors/committees feel that the amount of
> > > discussions in
> > > dev list is too less given the amount of commits that happen and
> more
> > > discussions need to happen in the dev list to grow the community.
> > >
> > > In response some committees feel discussions actually happen in
> > GitHub
> > > PRs.
> > > If the policy says "if it didn't happen in dev, it didn't happen",
> > > let's
> > > forward all GitHub discussions to dev so those discussions would
> > count.
> > > That's the motivation for this vote.
> > >
> > > I think when people say there needs to be more discussions in the
> dev
> > > list,
> > > I assume they mean the kind of discussions that happen *before* a
> PR
> > is
> > > created or even before someone starts working on anything. I don't
> > > think
> > > people are asking an email for every activity on GitHub. The
> correct
> > > way to
> > > address the problem would be for committees/contributors to stop
> > > communicating in private channels (like Amazon or DMLC
> communication
> > > channels) and do those discussions in the dev list instead.
> > >
> > > Indu
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:51 AM Barber, Christopher <
> > > christopher.bar...@analog.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can't people already subscribe to github notifications? I think
> it
> > > is safe
> > > > to assume that developers are already smart enough to figure out
> > how
> > > to do
> > > > that if they want. What problem are you really trying to solve
> > here?
> > > >
> > > > On 7/18/18, 4:49 AM, "Chris Olivier" 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > -1.  (changed from -0.9)
> > > >
> > > > seems more like a strategy (whether intentional or on
> accident)
> > > to
> > > > *not*
> > > > have design discussions on dev by flooding it with noise and
> > > then later
> > > > claim it was discussed, even though you would have to sift
> > > through
> > > > thousands of emails to find it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:42 AM Rahul Huilgol <
> > > rahulhuil...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I pulled up some more stats so we can make an informed
> > > decision.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here are some popular Apache projects and the number of
> > emails
> > > to
> > > > their

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Chris Olivier]

to know about github discussions, you’d need to scan all issues and prs
constantly which isn’t a reasonable expectation. dev is where discussions
are supposed to happen in a apache, PERIOD.

Apache isn’t dmlc. I wish some people would stop trying to turn Apache
conventions into dmlc conventions.  seems this is a constant push from day
one.


On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:39 AM Sheng Zha  wrote:

> Thanks, I hear the concerns and it's not my intention to push people off
> the list. On the other hand, I think github discussions are no more
> "artificial" than discussions on dev list, and the good and important
> discussions warrant the same amount of attention. With this vote, I intend
> to make contributors' life easier by decoupling the recognized forum from
> the technology they use, and that github contributors can easily
> communicate with the community on the list.
>
> -sz
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Barber, Christopher <
> christopher.bar...@analog.com> wrote:
>
> > Can't you simply tell contributors to discuss changes on dev before
> > submitting a PR? Since the contribution guidelines don't tell developers
> to
> > post to dev, why would you expect them to do that?
> >
> > Is there an easy way to just subscribe to PR notifications or will
> someone
> > have to write a filter to avoid spamming dev with all GitHub
> notifications?
> > I think that if dev gets too much traffic, then people with casual
> interest
> > may find it easier to unsubscribe than to set up filters. Once someone
> > unsubscribes, they probably won't be coming back soon, so you should be
> > very careful with this.
> >
> > I don't see why artificially increasing the traffic on dev will do
> > anything to grow the community in any case.
> >
> > - C
> >
> > On 7/18/18, 11:17 AM, "Indhu"  wrote:
> >
> > Some mentors/contributors/committees feel that the amount of
> > discussions in
> > dev list is too less given the amount of commits that happen and more
> > discussions need to happen in the dev list to grow the community.
> >
> > In response some committees feel discussions actually happen in
> GitHub
> > PRs.
> > If the policy says "if it didn't happen in dev, it didn't happen",
> > let's
> > forward all GitHub discussions to dev so those discussions would
> count.
> > That's the motivation for this vote.
> >
> > I think when people say there needs to be more discussions in the dev
> > list,
> > I assume they mean the kind of discussions that happen *before* a PR
> is
> > created or even before someone starts working on anything. I don't
> > think
> > people are asking an email for every activity on GitHub. The correct
> > way to
> > address the problem would be for committees/contributors to stop
> > communicating in private channels (like Amazon or DMLC communication
> > channels) and do those discussions in the dev list instead.
> >
> > Indu
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:51 AM Barber, Christopher <
> > christopher.bar...@analog.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Can't people already subscribe to github notifications? I think it
> > is safe
> > > to assume that developers are already smart enough to figure out
> how
> > to do
> > > that if they want. What problem are you really trying to solve
> here?
> > >
> > > On 7/18/18, 4:49 AM, "Chris Olivier" 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > -1.  (changed from -0.9)
> > >
> > > seems more like a strategy (whether intentional or on accident)
> > to
> > > *not*
> > > have design discussions on dev by flooding it with noise and
> > then later
> > > claim it was discussed, even though you would have to sift
> > through
> > > thousands of emails to find it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:42 AM Rahul Huilgol <
> > rahulhuil...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I pulled up some more stats so we can make an informed
> > decision.
> > > >
> > > > Here are some popular Apache projects and the number of
> emails
> > to
> > > their
> > > > dev@
> > > > list in the last 30 days
> > > > Apache Flink: 540 mails
> > > > ​Apache Spark: 249 mails
> > > > Apache Hive: 481 mails
> > > > Apache HBase: 300 mails
> > > >
> > > > Current dev list for MXNet: 348 mails
> > > > Current commits list for MXNet: 5329 mails
> > > > Making the proposed dev list for MXNet to be ~5677 mails.
> > > >
> > > > Sheng, even going by your comments that 1 of of those 4 mails
> > are
> > > relevant
> > > > for dev@, that's still a really high number of emails. (130
> > email
> > > lists
> > > > doesn't say anything if we ignore the actual number of emails
> > in
> > > those
> > > > lists, especially when the 131st sends these many mails :) ).
> > People
> > > are
> > > 

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Tianqi Chen]

Discussions happened on Github are highly valuable, as a matter of fact, we
have quite a lot of proliferating contributors who discuss things on
GitHub when they contribute.
We need to be inclusive to these contributors, to welcome and recognize
these discussions.

The filtering solutions seem to be good enough for people who do not want
to receive these messages, so I see there is no down side from doing this

Tianqi


On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:39 AM, Sheng Zha  wrote:

> Thanks, I hear the concerns and it's not my intention to push people off
> the list. On the other hand, I think github discussions are no more
> "artificial" than discussions on dev list, and the good and important
> discussions warrant the same amount of attention. With this vote, I intend
> to make contributors' life easier by decoupling the recognized forum from
> the technology they use, and that github contributors can easily
> communicate with the community on the list.
>
> -sz
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Barber, Christopher <
> christopher.bar...@analog.com> wrote:
>
> > Can't you simply tell contributors to discuss changes on dev before
> > submitting a PR? Since the contribution guidelines don't tell developers
> to
> > post to dev, why would you expect them to do that?
> >
> > Is there an easy way to just subscribe to PR notifications or will
> someone
> > have to write a filter to avoid spamming dev with all GitHub
> notifications?
> > I think that if dev gets too much traffic, then people with casual
> interest
> > may find it easier to unsubscribe than to set up filters. Once someone
> > unsubscribes, they probably won't be coming back soon, so you should be
> > very careful with this.
> >
> > I don't see why artificially increasing the traffic on dev will do
> > anything to grow the community in any case.
> >
> > - C
> >
> > On 7/18/18, 11:17 AM, "Indhu"  wrote:
> >
> > Some mentors/contributors/committees feel that the amount of
> > discussions in
> > dev list is too less given the amount of commits that happen and more
> > discussions need to happen in the dev list to grow the community.
> >
> > In response some committees feel discussions actually happen in
> GitHub
> > PRs.
> > If the policy says "if it didn't happen in dev, it didn't happen",
> > let's
> > forward all GitHub discussions to dev so those discussions would
> count.
> > That's the motivation for this vote.
> >
> > I think when people say there needs to be more discussions in the dev
> > list,
> > I assume they mean the kind of discussions that happen *before* a PR
> is
> > created or even before someone starts working on anything. I don't
> > think
> > people are asking an email for every activity on GitHub. The correct
> > way to
> > address the problem would be for committees/contributors to stop
> > communicating in private channels (like Amazon or DMLC communication
> > channels) and do those discussions in the dev list instead.
> >
> > Indu
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:51 AM Barber, Christopher <
> > christopher.bar...@analog.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Can't people already subscribe to github notifications? I think it
> > is safe
> > > to assume that developers are already smart enough to figure out
> how
> > to do
> > > that if they want. What problem are you really trying to solve
> here?
> > >
> > > On 7/18/18, 4:49 AM, "Chris Olivier" 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > -1.  (changed from -0.9)
> > >
> > > seems more like a strategy (whether intentional or on accident)
> > to
> > > *not*
> > > have design discussions on dev by flooding it with noise and
> > then later
> > > claim it was discussed, even though you would have to sift
> > through
> > > thousands of emails to find it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:42 AM Rahul Huilgol <
> > rahulhuil...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I pulled up some more stats so we can make an informed
> > decision.
> > > >
> > > > Here are some popular Apache projects and the number of
> emails
> > to
> > > their
> > > > dev@
> > > > list in the last 30 days
> > > > Apache Flink: 540 mails
> > > > ​Apache Spark: 249 mails
> > > > Apache Hive: 481 mails
> > > > Apache HBase: 300 mails
> > > >
> > > > Current dev list for MXNet: 348 mails
> > > > Current commits list for MXNet: 5329 mails
> > > > Making the proposed dev list for MXNet to be ~5677 mails.
> > > >
> > > > Sheng, even going by your comments that 1 of of those 4 mails
> > are
> > > relevant
> > > > for dev@, that's still a really high number of emails. (130
> > email
> > > lists
> > > > doesn't say anything if we ignore the actual number of emails
> > in
> > > those
> > > > lists, especially 

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Sheng Zha]

Thanks, I hear the concerns and it's not my intention to push people off
the list. On the other hand, I think github discussions are no more
"artificial" than discussions on dev list, and the good and important
discussions warrant the same amount of attention. With this vote, I intend
to make contributors' life easier by decoupling the recognized forum from
the technology they use, and that github contributors can easily
communicate with the community on the list.

-sz

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Barber, Christopher <
christopher.bar...@analog.com> wrote:

> Can't you simply tell contributors to discuss changes on dev before
> submitting a PR? Since the contribution guidelines don't tell developers to
> post to dev, why would you expect them to do that?
>
> Is there an easy way to just subscribe to PR notifications or will someone
> have to write a filter to avoid spamming dev with all GitHub notifications?
> I think that if dev gets too much traffic, then people with casual interest
> may find it easier to unsubscribe than to set up filters. Once someone
> unsubscribes, they probably won't be coming back soon, so you should be
> very careful with this.
>
> I don't see why artificially increasing the traffic on dev will do
> anything to grow the community in any case.
>
> - C
>
> On 7/18/18, 11:17 AM, "Indhu"  wrote:
>
> Some mentors/contributors/committees feel that the amount of
> discussions in
> dev list is too less given the amount of commits that happen and more
> discussions need to happen in the dev list to grow the community.
>
> In response some committees feel discussions actually happen in GitHub
> PRs.
> If the policy says "if it didn't happen in dev, it didn't happen",
> let's
> forward all GitHub discussions to dev so those discussions would count.
> That's the motivation for this vote.
>
> I think when people say there needs to be more discussions in the dev
> list,
> I assume they mean the kind of discussions that happen *before* a PR is
> created or even before someone starts working on anything. I don't
> think
> people are asking an email for every activity on GitHub. The correct
> way to
> address the problem would be for committees/contributors to stop
> communicating in private channels (like Amazon or DMLC communication
> channels) and do those discussions in the dev list instead.
>
> Indu
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:51 AM Barber, Christopher <
> christopher.bar...@analog.com> wrote:
>
> > Can't people already subscribe to github notifications? I think it
> is safe
> > to assume that developers are already smart enough to figure out how
> to do
> > that if they want. What problem are you really trying to solve here?
> >
> > On 7/18/18, 4:49 AM, "Chris Olivier"  wrote:
> >
> > -1.  (changed from -0.9)
> >
> > seems more like a strategy (whether intentional or on accident)
> to
> > *not*
> > have design discussions on dev by flooding it with noise and
> then later
> > claim it was discussed, even though you would have to sift
> through
> > thousands of emails to find it.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:42 AM Rahul Huilgol <
> rahulhuil...@gmail.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I pulled up some more stats so we can make an informed
> decision.
> > >
> > > Here are some popular Apache projects and the number of emails
> to
> > their
> > > dev@
> > > list in the last 30 days
> > > Apache Flink: 540 mails
> > > ​Apache Spark: 249 mails
> > > Apache Hive: 481 mails
> > > Apache HBase: 300 mails
> > >
> > > Current dev list for MXNet: 348 mails
> > > Current commits list for MXNet: 5329 mails
> > > Making the proposed dev list for MXNet to be ~5677 mails.
> > >
> > > Sheng, even going by your comments that 1 of of those 4 mails
> are
> > relevant
> > > for dev@, that's still a really high number of emails. (130
> email
> > lists
> > > doesn't say anything if we ignore the actual number of emails
> in
> > those
> > > lists, especially when the 131st sends these many mails :) ).
> People
> > are
> > > already talking about setting up filters here. Doesn't that
> defeat
> > the
> > > purpose by making people filter out the discussion on Github?
> People
> > can
> > > subscribe to commits@ if they find it more convenient to
> follow
> > Github
> > > activity over email rather than Github.com.
> > >
> > > We should strive to maintain dev@ as a place for high quality
> > discussion.
> > > It's upto the contributors to bring up something to dev@ if
> they
> > believe
> > > it
> > > deserves a focused discussion in the community. That
> discussion may
>

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Sheng Zha]

A discussion is a discussion, and in the case of MXNet I’d say a lot more high 
quality discussion has happened on GitHub than on dev@. Github issues have 
plenty of discussions before code change. The reason is simply because MXNet 
has longer history on Github than the existence of dev list, and long-term 
contributors tend to bring high quality discussion on dev@.

I don’t intend to flood the dev list with this vote. There are high quality 
discussions on the github that people on dev list can benefit from, and that’s 
the only intention for such change. The community feedback will help decide how 
to best integrate these two communication tools. However, some good solutions 
such as the “opt-in w/ github mention” that Qing has brought up will require 
exploration with apache infra team, which requires a vote to show the will of 
the community first.

-sz


> On Jul 18, 2018, at 8:16 AM, Indue  wrote:
> 
> Some mentors/contributors/committees feel that the amount of discussions in
> dev list is too less given the amount of commits that happen and more
> discussions need to happen in the dev list to grow the community.
> 
> In response some committees feel discussions actually happen in GitHub PRs.
> If the policy says "if it didn't happen in dev, it didn't happen", let's
> forward all GitHub discussions to dev so those discussions would count.
> That's the motivation for this vote.
> 
> I think when people say there needs to be more discussions in the dev list,
> I assume they mean the kind of discussions that happen *before* a PR is
> created or even before someone starts working on anything. I don't think
> people are asking an email for every activity on GitHub. The correct way to
> address the problem would be for committees/contributors to stop
> communicating in private channels (like Amazon or DMLC communication
> channels) and do those discussions in the dev list instead.
> 
> Indu
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:51 AM Barber, Christopher <
> christopher.bar...@analog.com> wrote:
> 
>> Can't people already subscribe to github notifications? I think it is safe
>> to assume that developers are already smart enough to figure out how to do
>> that if they want. What problem are you really trying to solve here?
>> 
>> On 7/18/18, 4:49 AM, "Chris Olivier"  wrote:
>> 
>>-1.  (changed from -0.9)
>> 
>>seems more like a strategy (whether intentional or on accident) to
>> *not*
>>have design discussions on dev by flooding it with noise and then later
>>claim it was discussed, even though you would have to sift through
>>thousands of emails to find it.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:42 AM Rahul Huilgol >> 
>>wrote:
>> 
>>> I pulled up some more stats so we can make an informed decision.
>>> 
>>> Here are some popular Apache projects and the number of emails to
>> their
>>> dev@
>>> list in the last 30 days
>>> Apache Flink: 540 mails
>>> ​Apache Spark: 249 mails
>>> Apache Hive: 481 mails
>>> Apache HBase: 300 mails
>>> 
>>> Current dev list for MXNet: 348 mails
>>> Current commits list for MXNet: 5329 mails
>>> Making the proposed dev list for MXNet to be ~5677 mails.
>>> 
>>> Sheng, even going by your comments that 1 of of those 4 mails are
>> relevant
>>> for dev@, that's still a really high number of emails. (130 email
>> lists
>>> doesn't say anything if we ignore the actual number of emails in
>> those
>>> lists, especially when the 131st sends these many mails :) ). People
>> are
>>> already talking about setting up filters here. Doesn't that defeat
>> the
>>> purpose by making people filter out the discussion on Github? People
>> can
>>> subscribe to commits@ if they find it more convenient to follow
>> Github
>>> activity over email rather than Github.com.
>>> 
>>> We should strive to maintain dev@ as a place for high quality
>> discussion.
>>> It's upto the contributors to bring up something to dev@ if they
>> believe
>>> it
>>> deserves a focused discussion in the community. That discussion may
>> be
>>> started by the person who proposes code changes, or a reviewer who
>> believes
>>> that a particular code change warrants further discussion.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Rahul
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Barber, Christopher]

Can't you simply tell contributors to discuss changes on dev before submitting 
a PR? Since the contribution guidelines don't tell developers to post to dev, 
why would you expect them to do that?

Is there an easy way to just subscribe to PR notifications or will someone have 
to write a filter to avoid spamming dev with all GitHub notifications? I think 
that if dev gets too much traffic, then people with casual interest may find it 
easier to unsubscribe than to set up filters. Once someone unsubscribes, they 
probably won't be coming back soon, so you should be very careful with this.

I don't see why artificially increasing the traffic on dev will do anything to 
grow the community in any case.

- C

On 7/18/18, 11:17 AM, "Indhu"  wrote:

Some mentors/contributors/committees feel that the amount of discussions in
dev list is too less given the amount of commits that happen and more
discussions need to happen in the dev list to grow the community.

In response some committees feel discussions actually happen in GitHub PRs.
If the policy says "if it didn't happen in dev, it didn't happen", let's
forward all GitHub discussions to dev so those discussions would count.
That's the motivation for this vote.

I think when people say there needs to be more discussions in the dev list,
I assume they mean the kind of discussions that happen *before* a PR is
created or even before someone starts working on anything. I don't think
people are asking an email for every activity on GitHub. The correct way to
address the problem would be for committees/contributors to stop
communicating in private channels (like Amazon or DMLC communication
channels) and do those discussions in the dev list instead.

Indu


On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:51 AM Barber, Christopher <
christopher.bar...@analog.com> wrote:

> Can't people already subscribe to github notifications? I think it is safe
> to assume that developers are already smart enough to figure out how to do
> that if they want. What problem are you really trying to solve here?
>
> On 7/18/18, 4:49 AM, "Chris Olivier"  wrote:
>
> -1.  (changed from -0.9)
>
> seems more like a strategy (whether intentional or on accident) to
> *not*
> have design discussions on dev by flooding it with noise and then 
later
> claim it was discussed, even though you would have to sift through
> thousands of emails to find it.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:42 AM Rahul Huilgol  >
> wrote:
>
> > I pulled up some more stats so we can make an informed decision.
> >
> > Here are some popular Apache projects and the number of emails to
> their
> > dev@
> > list in the last 30 days
> > Apache Flink: 540 mails
> > ​Apache Spark: 249 mails
> > Apache Hive: 481 mails
> > Apache HBase: 300 mails
> >
> > Current dev list for MXNet: 348 mails
> > Current commits list for MXNet: 5329 mails
> > Making the proposed dev list for MXNet to be ~5677 mails.
> >
> > Sheng, even going by your comments that 1 of of those 4 mails are
> relevant
> > for dev@, that's still a really high number of emails. (130 email
> lists
> > doesn't say anything if we ignore the actual number of emails in
> those
> > lists, especially when the 131st sends these many mails :) ). People
> are
> > already talking about setting up filters here. Doesn't that defeat
> the
> > purpose by making people filter out the discussion on Github? People
> can
> > subscribe to commits@ if they find it more convenient to follow
> Github
> > activity over email rather than Github.com.
> >
> > We should strive to maintain dev@ as a place for high quality
> discussion.
> > It's upto the contributors to bring up something to dev@ if they
> believe
> > it
> > deserves a focused discussion in the community. That discussion may
> be
> > started by the person who proposes code changes, or a reviewer who
> believes
> > that a particular code change warrants further discussion.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rahul
> >
>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Indhu]

Some mentors/contributors/committees feel that the amount of discussions in
dev list is too less given the amount of commits that happen and more
discussions need to happen in the dev list to grow the community.

In response some committees feel discussions actually happen in GitHub PRs.
If the policy says "if it didn't happen in dev, it didn't happen", let's
forward all GitHub discussions to dev so those discussions would count.
That's the motivation for this vote.

I think when people say there needs to be more discussions in the dev list,
I assume they mean the kind of discussions that happen *before* a PR is
created or even before someone starts working on anything. I don't think
people are asking an email for every activity on GitHub. The correct way to
address the problem would be for committees/contributors to stop
communicating in private channels (like Amazon or DMLC communication
channels) and do those discussions in the dev list instead.

Indu


On Wed, Jul 18, 2018, 5:51 AM Barber, Christopher <
christopher.bar...@analog.com> wrote:

> Can't people already subscribe to github notifications? I think it is safe
> to assume that developers are already smart enough to figure out how to do
> that if they want. What problem are you really trying to solve here?
>
> On 7/18/18, 4:49 AM, "Chris Olivier"  wrote:
>
> -1.  (changed from -0.9)
>
> seems more like a strategy (whether intentional or on accident) to
> *not*
> have design discussions on dev by flooding it with noise and then later
> claim it was discussed, even though you would have to sift through
> thousands of emails to find it.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:42 AM Rahul Huilgol  >
> wrote:
>
> > I pulled up some more stats so we can make an informed decision.
> >
> > Here are some popular Apache projects and the number of emails to
> their
> > dev@
> > list in the last 30 days
> > Apache Flink: 540 mails
> > ​Apache Spark: 249 mails
> > Apache Hive: 481 mails
> > Apache HBase: 300 mails
> >
> > Current dev list for MXNet: 348 mails
> > Current commits list for MXNet: 5329 mails
> > Making the proposed dev list for MXNet to be ~5677 mails.
> >
> > Sheng, even going by your comments that 1 of of those 4 mails are
> relevant
> > for dev@, that's still a really high number of emails. (130 email
> lists
> > doesn't say anything if we ignore the actual number of emails in
> those
> > lists, especially when the 131st sends these many mails :) ). People
> are
> > already talking about setting up filters here. Doesn't that defeat
> the
> > purpose by making people filter out the discussion on Github? People
> can
> > subscribe to commits@ if they find it more convenient to follow
> Github
> > activity over email rather than Github.com.
> >
> > We should strive to maintain dev@ as a place for high quality
> discussion.
> > It's upto the contributors to bring up something to dev@ if they
> believe
> > it
> > deserves a focused discussion in the community. That discussion may
> be
> > started by the person who proposes code changes, or a reviewer who
> believes
> > that a particular code change warrants further discussion.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rahul
> >
>
>
>

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Barber, Christopher]

Can't people already subscribe to github notifications? I think it is safe to 
assume that developers are already smart enough to figure out how to do that if 
they want. What problem are you really trying to solve here?

On 7/18/18, 4:49 AM, "Chris Olivier"  wrote:

-1.  (changed from -0.9)

seems more like a strategy (whether intentional or on accident) to *not*
have design discussions on dev by flooding it with noise and then later
claim it was discussed, even though you would have to sift through
thousands of emails to find it.



On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:42 AM Rahul Huilgol 
wrote:

> I pulled up some more stats so we can make an informed decision.
>
> Here are some popular Apache projects and the number of emails to their
> dev@
> list in the last 30 days
> Apache Flink: 540 mails
> ​Apache Spark: 249 mails
> Apache Hive: 481 mails
> Apache HBase: 300 mails
>
> Current dev list for MXNet: 348 mails
> Current commits list for MXNet: 5329 mails
> Making the proposed dev list for MXNet to be ~5677 mails.
>
> Sheng, even going by your comments that 1 of of those 4 mails are relevant
> for dev@, that's still a really high number of emails. (130 email lists
> doesn't say anything if we ignore the actual number of emails in those
> lists, especially when the 131st sends these many mails :) ). People are
> already talking about setting up filters here. Doesn't that defeat the
> purpose by making people filter out the discussion on Github? People can
> subscribe to commits@ if they find it more convenient to follow Github
> activity over email rather than Github.com.
>
> We should strive to maintain dev@ as a place for high quality discussion.
> It's upto the contributors to bring up something to dev@ if they believe
> it
> deserves a focused discussion in the community. That discussion may be
> started by the person who proposes code changes, or a reviewer who 
believes
> that a particular code change warrants further discussion.
>
> Regards,
> Rahul
>

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Chris Olivier]

-1.  (changed from -0.9)

seems more like a strategy (whether intentional or on accident) to *not*
have design discussions on dev by flooding it with noise and then later
claim it was discussed, even though you would have to sift through
thousands of emails to find it.



On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 12:42 AM Rahul Huilgol 
wrote:

> I pulled up some more stats so we can make an informed decision.
>
> Here are some popular Apache projects and the number of emails to their
> dev@
> list in the last 30 days
> Apache Flink: 540 mails
> ​Apache Spark: 249 mails
> Apache Hive: 481 mails
> Apache HBase: 300 mails
>
> Current dev list for MXNet: 348 mails
> Current commits list for MXNet: 5329 mails
> Making the proposed dev list for MXNet to be ~5677 mails.
>
> Sheng, even going by your comments that 1 of of those 4 mails are relevant
> for dev@, that's still a really high number of emails. (130 email lists
> doesn't say anything if we ignore the actual number of emails in those
> lists, especially when the 131st sends these many mails :) ). People are
> already talking about setting up filters here. Doesn't that defeat the
> purpose by making people filter out the discussion on Github? People can
> subscribe to commits@ if they find it more convenient to follow Github
> activity over email rather than Github.com.
>
> We should strive to maintain dev@ as a place for high quality discussion.
> It's upto the contributors to bring up something to dev@ if they believe
> it
> deserves a focused discussion in the community. That discussion may be
> started by the person who proposes code changes, or a reviewer who believes
> that a particular code change warrants further discussion.
>
> Regards,
> Rahul
>

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Rahul Huilgol]

I pulled up some more stats so we can make an informed decision.

Here are some popular Apache projects and the number of emails to their dev@
list in the last 30 days
Apache Flink: 540 mails
​Apache Spark: 249 mails
Apache Hive: 481 mails
Apache HBase: 300 mails

Current dev list for MXNet: 348 mails
Current commits list for MXNet: 5329 mails
Making the proposed dev list for MXNet to be ~5677 mails.

Sheng, even going by your comments that 1 of of those 4 mails are relevant
for dev@, that's still a really high number of emails. (130 email lists
doesn't say anything if we ignore the actual number of emails in those
lists, especially when the 131st sends these many mails :) ). People are
already talking about setting up filters here. Doesn't that defeat the
purpose by making people filter out the discussion on Github? People can
subscribe to commits@ if they find it more convenient to follow Github
activity over email rather than Github.com.

We should strive to maintain dev@ as a place for high quality discussion.
It's upto the contributors to bring up something to dev@ if they believe it
deserves a focused discussion in the community. That discussion may be
started by the person who proposes code changes, or a reviewer who believes
that a particular code change warrants further discussion.

Regards,
Rahul

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Sheng Zha]

tors to know how to filter emails than to know
>> how
>>>> to "opt-in".
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> More discussion is welcome in the linked discussion thread.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -sz
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:37 PM, pracheer gupta <
>>>> pracheer_gu...@hotmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> FWIW: The filter needs to be more complicated than just "
>>>>> from:notificati...@github.com". After all, if someone mentions me
>>>>> directly in PR thread and/or I subscribe to only a particular PR,
>> those
>>>>> emails will also come from "notificati...@github.com". There are
>> ways
>>>>> around that though.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> It might be good to mention this filter in some wiki/webpage
>> somewhere;
>>>>> may save some effort for people trying to find the right set of
>>> filters.
>>>> It
>>>>> could even be in the welcome email when one subscribes to this
>>>> email-list.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Another alternate option: How about choosing an opt-in model rather
>>> than
>>>>> an opt-out model? Having another email list and anyone can subscribe
>> to
>>>> it
>>>>> if they wish.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Not sure if there is a perfect answer out there for this but in
>>> principle
>>>>> I agree that it will be good to have "push notifications" for all
>>>> PRs/issue.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Pracheer
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: Junru Shao 
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:58:33 AM
>>>>> To: d...@mxnet.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities
>>>>> 
>>>>> +1
>>>>> 
>>>>> Both GitHub activities and dev list are places for development. It
>> will
>>>> be
>>>>> great if we could have a all-in-one place for such discussions. I
>>> believe
>>>>> Sheng's proposal is a perfect solution.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2018/07/16 03:32:06, Sheng Zha  wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to Github activities. See
>>>>> previous
>>>>>> discussion thread here
>>>>>> <
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/3d883f6a3cbc8e81e810962e0c0fe7
>>>>> bfd01f0b78d3cb44034f566442@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The vote lasts for three days and ends on 7/18/2018 at 9pm pst.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -sz
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Rahul Huilgol
>>> 
>> 

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Chris Olivier]

> > > It might be good to mention this filter in some wiki/webpage
> somewhere;
> > > > may save some effort for people trying to find the right set of
> > filters.
> > > It
> > > > could even be in the welcome email when one subscribes to this
> > > email-list.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Another alternate option: How about choosing an opt-in model rather
> > than
> > > > an opt-out model? Having another email list and anyone can subscribe
> to
> > > it
> > > > if they wish.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if there is a perfect answer out there for this but in
> > principle
> > > > I agree that it will be good to have "push notifications" for all
> > > PRs/issue.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -Pracheer
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > From: Junru Shao 
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:58:33 AM
> > > > To: d...@mxnet.apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Both GitHub activities and dev list are places for development. It
> will
> > > be
> > > > great if we could have a all-in-one place for such discussions. I
> > believe
> > > > Sheng's proposal is a perfect solution.
> > > >
> > > > On 2018/07/16 03:32:06, Sheng Zha  wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to Github activities. See
> > > > previous
> > > > > discussion thread here
> > > > > <
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/3d883f6a3cbc8e81e810962e0c0fe7
> > > > bfd01f0b78d3cb44034f566442@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > > The vote lasts for three days and ends on 7/18/2018 at 9pm pst.
> > > > >
> > > > > -sz
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Rahul Huilgol
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Sheng Zha]

Thanks, Rahul. Out of the 4 conversations you listed that you think are not
necessary, I actually think the PR on coreml tool may be worth discussing.
For example, should it (and other tools) have a separate repo, and should
its version management be tied to mxnet.

And on:

> If people are forced to setup filters to parse these mails, then we are 
> *ensuring*
people don't get their eyes on valuable discussions on dev@.

I think this argument is based more on emotion than on reason. I subscribe
to over 130 email lists for work, lots of which has PR/commit updates that
are not my immediate concern, and it hasn't prevented me from reading
valuable discussions.

-sz

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Rahul Huilgol 
wrote:

> -1
>
> We had such a thing before and people asked for the mails to be redirected
> to a different list commits@ because of the flood of mails.
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/8b834e39110381fadb8a0ab59185a8
> f52b8406247a1f281f7d691392@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>
> I don't know if people have a sense of the volume of mails this can add
> here. Here's the stats from the commits@ email list we have. I'd be
> curious
> to see how many subscribers we have to that. Hopefully the people voting +1
> here subscribed to that :)
>
> 2018 June: 4617
> 2018 July: (half a month) 3106
> (Source of the numbers are here
> https://lists.apache.org/list.html?comm...@mxnet.apache.org:2018-7)
>
> @Joshua: yes we need to bring 'valuable' (emphasis mine) discussion to a
> centralized place @dev. Does everything needs to be sent to dev@. For
> example, consider these recent PRs, why is it necessary for them to be
> forwarded to dev@?
>
> fix flaky test test_operator_gpu.test_countsketch:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11780
> Update PyPI version number:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11773
> Fix file name creation for Windows:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11765
> [MXNET-8230] test_operator_gpu.test_rms fails:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11749
>
> If people are forced to setup filters to parse these mails, then we are
> *ensuring* people don't get their eyes on valuable discussions on dev@.
>
> Regards,
> Rahul
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Sheng Zha  wrote:
>
> > FWIW: "from:notificati...@github.com AND to:dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.
> org
> > AND NOT to:me" but I'm sure you get the gist :)
> >
> >
> > Opt-in model applies to individuals rather than the dev list, because the
> > dev list is intended as an asynchronous way for new comers to easily
> follow
> > past technical discussions, and is the only place recognized by apache
> for
> > these discussions. Currently, lots of high quality technical discussions
> > that are happening on github are lost and not archived here. The
> procedural
> > change in this vote is intended for bridging such gap. Besides, it's more
> > likely for new contributors to know how to filter emails than to know how
> > to "opt-in".
> >
> >
> > More discussion is welcome in the linked discussion thread.
> >
> >
> > -sz
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:37 PM, pracheer gupta <
> > pracheer_gu...@hotmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > FWIW: The filter needs to be more complicated than just "
> > > from:notificati...@github.com". After all, if someone mentions me
> > > directly in PR thread and/or I subscribe to only a particular PR, those
> > > emails will also come from "notificati...@github.com". There are ways
> > > around that though.
> > >
> > >
> > > It might be good to mention this filter in some wiki/webpage somewhere;
> > > may save some effort for people trying to find the right set of
> filters.
> > It
> > > could even be in the welcome email when one subscribes to this
> > email-list.
> > >
> > >
> > > Another alternate option: How about choosing an opt-in model rather
> than
> > > an opt-out model? Having another email list and anyone can subscribe to
> > it
> > > if they wish.
> > >
> > >
> > > Not sure if there is a perfect answer out there for this but in
> principle
> > > I agree that it will be good to have "push notifications" for all
> > PRs/issue.
> > >
> > >
> > > -Pracheer
> > >
> > > 
> > > From: Junru Shao 
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:58:33 AM
> > > To: d...@mxnet.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ t

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Sheng Zha]

Hi S,

Keeping a separate list defeats the purpose, because then such conversation
is again not happening on dev, which is deemed to be in the "did not
happen" category. Also, conversations that are not relevant to you are
already happening on the list, and you're under no obligation to read them
all.

-sz

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 1:20 PM, K, S  wrote:

> -1
>
> Keeping a separate email list for subscribing to github activities seems
> like a better idea. One can always reference the issue/discussion/PR in the
> dev list to initiate conversation. Biggest concern is that important
> discussion can get buried in a flood of emails that are not completely
> relevant to me.
>
> SK
>
> On 7/17/18, 1:07 PM, "Rahul Huilgol"  wrote:
>
> -1
>
> We had such a thing before and people asked for the mails to be
> redirected
> to a different list commits@ because of the flood of mails.
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/8b834e39110381fadb8a0ab59185a8
> f52b8406247a1f281f7d691392@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>
> I don't know if people have a sense of the volume of mails this can add
> here. Here's the stats from the commits@ email list we have. I'd be
> curious
> to see how many subscribers we have to that. Hopefully the people
> voting +1
> here subscribed to that :)
>
> 2018 June: 4617
> 2018 July: (half a month) 3106
> (Source of the numbers are here
> https://lists.apache.org/list.html?comm...@mxnet.apache.org:2018-7)
>
> @Joshua: yes we need to bring 'valuable' (emphasis mine) discussion to
> a
> centralized place @dev. Does everything needs to be sent to dev@. For
> example, consider these recent PRs, why is it necessary for them to be
> forwarded to dev@?
>
> fix flaky test test_operator_gpu.test_countsketch:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11780
> Update PyPI version number:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11773
> Fix file name creation for Windows:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11765
> [MXNET-8230] test_operator_gpu.test_rms fails:
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11749
>
> If people are forced to setup filters to parse these mails, then we are
> *ensuring* people don't get their eyes on valuable discussions on dev@
> .
>
> Regards,
> Rahul
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Sheng Zha 
> wrote:
>
> > FWIW: "from:notificati...@github.com AND
> to:dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> > AND NOT to:me" but I'm sure you get the gist :)
> >
> >
> > Opt-in model applies to individuals rather than the dev list,
> because the
> > dev list is intended as an asynchronous way for new comers to easily
> follow
> > past technical discussions, and is the only place recognized by
> apache for
> > these discussions. Currently, lots of high quality technical
> discussions
> > that are happening on github are lost and not archived here. The
> procedural
> > change in this vote is intended for bridging such gap. Besides, it's
> more
> > likely for new contributors to know how to filter emails than to
> know how
> > to "opt-in".
> >
> >
> > More discussion is welcome in the linked discussion thread.
> >
> >
> > -sz
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:37 PM, pracheer gupta <
> > pracheer_gu...@hotmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > FWIW: The filter needs to be more complicated than just "
> > > from:notificati...@github.com". After all, if someone mentions me
> > > directly in PR thread and/or I subscribe to only a particular PR,
> those
> > > emails will also come from "notificati...@github.com". There are
> ways
> > > around that though.
> > >
> > >
> > > It might be good to mention this filter in some wiki/webpage
> somewhere;
> > > may save some effort for people trying to find the right set of
> filters.
> > It
> > > could even be in the welcome email when one subscribes to this
> > email-list.
> > >
> > >
> > > Another alternate option: How about choosing an opt-in model
> rather than
>     > > an opt-out model? Having another email list and anyone can
> subscribe to
> > it
> > > if they wish.
> > >
> > >
> > > Not sure if there is a perfect answer out there for this but in
> princip

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[K, S]

-1

Keeping a separate email list for subscribing to github activities seems like a 
better idea. One can always reference the issue/discussion/PR in the dev list 
to initiate conversation. Biggest concern is that important discussion can get 
buried in a flood of emails that are not completely relevant to me.

SK

On 7/17/18, 1:07 PM, "Rahul Huilgol"  wrote:

-1

We had such a thing before and people asked for the mails to be redirected
to a different list commits@ because of the flood of mails.


https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/8b834e39110381fadb8a0ab59185a8f52b8406247a1f281f7d691392@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E

I don't know if people have a sense of the volume of mails this can add
here. Here's the stats from the commits@ email list we have. I'd be curious
to see how many subscribers we have to that. Hopefully the people voting +1
here subscribed to that :)

2018 June: 4617
2018 July: (half a month) 3106
(Source of the numbers are here
https://lists.apache.org/list.html?comm...@mxnet.apache.org:2018-7)

@Joshua: yes we need to bring 'valuable' (emphasis mine) discussion to a
centralized place @dev. Does everything needs to be sent to dev@. For
example, consider these recent PRs, why is it necessary for them to be
forwarded to dev@?

fix flaky test test_operator_gpu.test_countsketch:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11780
Update PyPI version number:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11773
Fix file name creation for Windows:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11765
[MXNET-8230] test_operator_gpu.test_rms fails:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11749

If people are forced to setup filters to parse these mails, then we are
*ensuring* people don't get their eyes on valuable discussions on dev@.

Regards,
Rahul

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Sheng Zha  wrote:

> FWIW: "from:notificati...@github.com AND to:dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> AND NOT to:me" but I'm sure you get the gist :)
>
>
> Opt-in model applies to individuals rather than the dev list, because the
> dev list is intended as an asynchronous way for new comers to easily 
follow
> past technical discussions, and is the only place recognized by apache for
> these discussions. Currently, lots of high quality technical discussions
> that are happening on github are lost and not archived here. The 
procedural
> change in this vote is intended for bridging such gap. Besides, it's more
> likely for new contributors to know how to filter emails than to know how
> to "opt-in".
>
>
> More discussion is welcome in the linked discussion thread.
>
>
> -sz
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:37 PM, pracheer gupta <
> pracheer_gu...@hotmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > FWIW: The filter needs to be more complicated than just "
> > from:notificati...@github.com". After all, if someone mentions me
> > directly in PR thread and/or I subscribe to only a particular PR, those
> > emails will also come from "notificati...@github.com". There are ways
> > around that though.
> >
> >
> > It might be good to mention this filter in some wiki/webpage somewhere;
> > may save some effort for people trying to find the right set of filters.
> It
> > could even be in the welcome email when one subscribes to this
> email-list.
> >
> >
> > Another alternate option: How about choosing an opt-in model rather than
> > an opt-out model? Having another email list and anyone can subscribe to
> it
> > if they wish.
> >
> >
> > Not sure if there is a perfect answer out there for this but in 
principle
> > I agree that it will be good to have "push notifications" for all
    > PRs/issue.
> >
> >
> > -Pracheer
> >
> > 
> > From: Junru Shao 
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:58:33 AM
> > To: d...@mxnet.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Both GitHub activities and dev list are places for development. It will
> be
> > great if we could have a all-in-one place for such discussions. I 
believe
> > Sheng's proposal is a perfect solution.
> >
> > On 2018/07/16 03:32:06, Sheng Zha  wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to Github activities. See
> > previous
> > > discussion thread here
> > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/3d883f6a3cbc8e81e810962e0c0fe7
> > bfd01f0b78d3cb44034f566442@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> > > .
> > >
> > > The vote lasts for three days and ends on 7/18/2018 at 9pm pst.
> > >
> > > -sz
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Rahul Huilgol

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Rahul Huilgol]

-1

We had such a thing before and people asked for the mails to be redirected
to a different list commits@ because of the flood of mails.

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/8b834e39110381fadb8a0ab59185a8f52b8406247a1f281f7d691392@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E

I don't know if people have a sense of the volume of mails this can add
here. Here's the stats from the commits@ email list we have. I'd be curious
to see how many subscribers we have to that. Hopefully the people voting +1
here subscribed to that :)

2018 June: 4617
2018 July: (half a month) 3106
(Source of the numbers are here
https://lists.apache.org/list.html?comm...@mxnet.apache.org:2018-7)

@Joshua: yes we need to bring 'valuable' (emphasis mine) discussion to a
centralized place @dev. Does everything needs to be sent to dev@. For
example, consider these recent PRs, why is it necessary for them to be
forwarded to dev@?

fix flaky test test_operator_gpu.test_countsketch:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11780
Update PyPI version number:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11773
Fix file name creation for Windows:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11765
[MXNET-8230] test_operator_gpu.test_rms fails:
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11749

If people are forced to setup filters to parse these mails, then we are
*ensuring* people don't get their eyes on valuable discussions on dev@.

Regards,
Rahul

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Sheng Zha  wrote:

> FWIW: "from:notificati...@github.com AND to:dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
> AND NOT to:me" but I'm sure you get the gist :)
>
>
> Opt-in model applies to individuals rather than the dev list, because the
> dev list is intended as an asynchronous way for new comers to easily follow
> past technical discussions, and is the only place recognized by apache for
> these discussions. Currently, lots of high quality technical discussions
> that are happening on github are lost and not archived here. The procedural
> change in this vote is intended for bridging such gap. Besides, it's more
> likely for new contributors to know how to filter emails than to know how
> to "opt-in".
>
>
> More discussion is welcome in the linked discussion thread.
>
>
> -sz
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:37 PM, pracheer gupta <
> pracheer_gu...@hotmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > FWIW: The filter needs to be more complicated than just "
> > from:notificati...@github.com". After all, if someone mentions me
> > directly in PR thread and/or I subscribe to only a particular PR, those
> > emails will also come from "notificati...@github.com". There are ways
> > around that though.
> >
> >
> > It might be good to mention this filter in some wiki/webpage somewhere;
> > may save some effort for people trying to find the right set of filters.
> It
> > could even be in the welcome email when one subscribes to this
> email-list.
> >
> >
> > Another alternate option: How about choosing an opt-in model rather than
> > an opt-out model? Having another email list and anyone can subscribe to
> it
> > if they wish.
> >
> >
> > Not sure if there is a perfect answer out there for this but in principle
> > I agree that it will be good to have "push notifications" for all
> PRs/issue.
> >
> >
> > -Pracheer
> >
> > 
> > From: Junru Shao 
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:58:33 AM
> > To: d...@mxnet.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Both GitHub activities and dev list are places for development. It will
> be
> > great if we could have a all-in-one place for such discussions. I believe
> > Sheng's proposal is a perfect solution.
> >
> > On 2018/07/16 03:32:06, Sheng Zha  wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to Github activities. See
> > previous
> > > discussion thread here
> > > <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/3d883f6a3cbc8e81e810962e0c0fe7
> > bfd01f0b78d3cb44034f566442@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> > > .
> > >
> > > The vote lasts for three days and ends on 7/18/2018 at 9pm pst.
> > >
> > > -sz
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Rahul Huilgol

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[YiZhi Liu]

+1
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:55 PM Joshua Z. Zhang  wrote:
>
> +1
>
> We NEED to bring valuable discussions to a centralized place (@dev for 
> example) rather than scattered single threads.
> Per filter options, there are a lot we can do to improve the SNR.
>
> Zhi
>
> On 2018/07/17 16:26:01, Sheng Zha  wrote:
> > Hi Anirudh,
> >
> > 1. You need exactly one filter to filter out all the github notifications
> > on PRs and issues: "from:notificati...@github.com", and you'd get your S/N
> > ratio back.
> > 2. Having the option to do design discussion on an issue or PR is actually
> > a good thing as many discussions are quite small and better accompanied by
> > code. If for some reason a merged design needs revisiting, there's still
> > the option of sending an email to dev@ and discuss about it.
> > 3. About votes, commit vote (and veto) can already happen on PR per past
> > agreement. The discussion for procedural vote IMO should be allowed to
> > happen on Github if it's development related. Procedural votes themselves
> > should and can still happen on dev@.
> >
> > About "you don't really have to do anything explicitly on the dev@ list",
> > besides the above arguments, we don't send emails to dev@ just for the
> > purpose of sending it. On the other hand, since "whatever didn't happen on
> > dev list didn't happen", we'd need better arguments on why we'd choose to
> > forego the transparency.
> >
> > -sz
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Anirudh  wrote:
> >
> > > -1
> > >
> > > The low signal to noise ratio would mean that we may miss important 
> > > emails.
> > > Even with the different filters that we may setup for dev@, the emails
> > > would be too many to not miss the important ones. We would see more and
> > > more people starting a design discussion on an issue or PR. Because of the
> > > low signal to noise ratio on the dev@ list, many may miss these
> > > discussions.
> > >
> > > Slowly, this would erode the purpose of the dev@ list as this means that
> > > you don't really have to do anything explicitly on the dev@ list.
> > > You can start a design discussion on a github issue. You can start a
> > > vote/discussion on a github issue.
> > >
> > > Anirudh
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:35 AM, Timur Shenkao  wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 if my vote can be taken into account
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:32 AM, Sheng Zha  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to Github activities. See
> > > > previous
> > > > > discussion thread here
> > > > >  > > > > bfd01f0b78d3cb44034f566442@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > > The vote lasts for three days and ends on 7/18/2018 at 9pm pst.
> > > > >
> > > > > -sz
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >



-- 
Yizhi Liu
DMLC member
Amazon Web Services
Vancouver, Canada

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Joshua Z. Zhang]

+1

We NEED to bring valuable discussions to a centralized place (@dev for example) 
rather than scattered single threads.
Per filter options, there are a lot we can do to improve the SNR.

Zhi

On 2018/07/17 16:26:01, Sheng Zha  wrote: 
> Hi Anirudh,
> 
> 1. You need exactly one filter to filter out all the github notifications
> on PRs and issues: "from:notificati...@github.com", and you'd get your S/N
> ratio back.
> 2. Having the option to do design discussion on an issue or PR is actually
> a good thing as many discussions are quite small and better accompanied by
> code. If for some reason a merged design needs revisiting, there's still
> the option of sending an email to dev@ and discuss about it.
> 3. About votes, commit vote (and veto) can already happen on PR per past
> agreement. The discussion for procedural vote IMO should be allowed to
> happen on Github if it's development related. Procedural votes themselves
> should and can still happen on dev@.
> 
> About "you don't really have to do anything explicitly on the dev@ list",
> besides the above arguments, we don't send emails to dev@ just for the
> purpose of sending it. On the other hand, since "whatever didn't happen on
> dev list didn't happen", we'd need better arguments on why we'd choose to
> forego the transparency.
> 
> -sz
> 
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Anirudh  wrote:
> 
> > -1
> >
> > The low signal to noise ratio would mean that we may miss important emails.
> > Even with the different filters that we may setup for dev@, the emails
> > would be too many to not miss the important ones. We would see more and
> > more people starting a design discussion on an issue or PR. Because of the
> > low signal to noise ratio on the dev@ list, many may miss these
> > discussions.
> >
> > Slowly, this would erode the purpose of the dev@ list as this means that
> > you don't really have to do anything explicitly on the dev@ list.
> > You can start a design discussion on a github issue. You can start a
> > vote/discussion on a github issue.
> >
> > Anirudh
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:35 AM, Timur Shenkao  wrote:
> >
> > > +1 if my vote can be taken into account
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:32 AM, Sheng Zha  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to Github activities. See
> > > previous
> > > > discussion thread here
> > > >  > > > bfd01f0b78d3cb44034f566442@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > > The vote lasts for three days and ends on 7/18/2018 at 9pm pst.
> > > >
> > > > -sz
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Sheng Zha]

FWIW: "from:notificati...@github.com AND to:dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org
AND NOT to:me" but I'm sure you get the gist :)


Opt-in model applies to individuals rather than the dev list, because the
dev list is intended as an asynchronous way for new comers to easily follow
past technical discussions, and is the only place recognized by apache for
these discussions. Currently, lots of high quality technical discussions
that are happening on github are lost and not archived here. The procedural
change in this vote is intended for bridging such gap. Besides, it's more
likely for new contributors to know how to filter emails than to know how
to "opt-in".


More discussion is welcome in the linked discussion thread.


-sz

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:37 PM, pracheer gupta  wrote:

> FWIW: The filter needs to be more complicated than just "
> from:notificati...@github.com". After all, if someone mentions me
> directly in PR thread and/or I subscribe to only a particular PR, those
> emails will also come from "notificati...@github.com". There are ways
> around that though.
>
>
> It might be good to mention this filter in some wiki/webpage somewhere;
> may save some effort for people trying to find the right set of filters. It
> could even be in the welcome email when one subscribes to this email-list.
>
>
> Another alternate option: How about choosing an opt-in model rather than
> an opt-out model? Having another email list and anyone can subscribe to it
> if they wish.
>
>
> Not sure if there is a perfect answer out there for this but in principle
> I agree that it will be good to have "push notifications" for all PRs/issue.
>
>
> -Pracheer
>
> ____
> From: Junru Shao 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:58:33 AM
> To: d...@mxnet.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities
>
> +1
>
> Both GitHub activities and dev list are places for development. It will be
> great if we could have a all-in-one place for such discussions. I believe
> Sheng's proposal is a perfect solution.
>
> On 2018/07/16 03:32:06, Sheng Zha  wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to Github activities. See
> previous
> > discussion thread here
> > <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/3d883f6a3cbc8e81e810962e0c0fe7
> bfd01f0b78d3cb44034f566442@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> > .
> >
> > The vote lasts for three days and ends on 7/18/2018 at 9pm pst.
> >
> > -sz
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[pracheer gupta]

FWIW: The filter needs to be more complicated than just 
"from:notificati...@github.com". After all, if someone mentions me directly in 
PR thread and/or I subscribe to only a particular PR, those emails will also 
come from "notificati...@github.com". There are ways around that though.


It might be good to mention this filter in some wiki/webpage somewhere; may 
save some effort for people trying to find the right set of filters. It could 
even be in the welcome email when one subscribes to this email-list.


Another alternate option: How about choosing an opt-in model rather than an 
opt-out model? Having another email list and anyone can subscribe to it if they 
wish.


Not sure if there is a perfect answer out there for this but in principle I 
agree that it will be good to have "push notifications" for all PRs/issue.


-Pracheer


From: Junru Shao 
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 10:58:33 AM
To: d...@mxnet.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

+1

Both GitHub activities and dev list are places for development. It will be 
great if we could have a all-in-one place for such discussions. I believe 
Sheng's proposal is a perfect solution.

On 2018/07/16 03:32:06, Sheng Zha  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to Github activities. See previous
> discussion thread here
> <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/3d883f6a3cbc8e81e810962e0c0fe7bfd01f0b78d3cb44034f566442@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> .
>
> The vote lasts for three days and ends on 7/18/2018 at 9pm pst.
>
> -sz
>

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Junru Shao]

+1

Both GitHub activities and dev list are places for development. It will be 
great if we could have a all-in-one place for such discussions. I believe 
Sheng's proposal is a perfect solution.

On 2018/07/16 03:32:06, Sheng Zha  wrote: 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to Github activities. See previous
> discussion thread here
> 
> .
> 
> The vote lasts for three days and ends on 7/18/2018 at 9pm pst.
> 
> -sz
> 

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Junru Shao]

+1

Both GitHub activities and dev list are places for development. It will be
great if we could have a all-in-one place for such discussions. I believe
Sheng's proposal is a perfect solution.

On 2018/07/16 03:32:06, Sheng Zha  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to Github activities. See previous
> discussion thread here
> <
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/3d883f6a3cbc8e81e810962e0c0fe7bfd01f0b78d3cb44034f566442@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E
>
> .
>
> The vote lasts for three days and ends on 7/18/2018 at 9pm pst.
>
> -sz
>

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Anirudh Acharya]

+1

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:58 AM Anirudh  wrote:

> Its not foregoing transparency since people can easily subscribe to the
> github activities individually. dev@ has been used till now for design
> discussions, other project discussions,
> votes etc. After we subscribe dev@ to all activities, I am afraid dev@
> will
> be reduced to a forwarded mail box and it is redundant for most purposes.
>
> Anirudh
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Sheng Zha  wrote:
>
> > Hi Anirudh,
> >
> > 1. You need exactly one filter to filter out all the github notifications
> > on PRs and issues: "from:notificati...@github.com", and you'd get your
> S/N
> > ratio back.
> > 2. Having the option to do design discussion on an issue or PR is
> actually
> > a good thing as many discussions are quite small and better accompanied
> by
> > code. If for some reason a merged design needs revisiting, there's still
> > the option of sending an email to dev@ and discuss about it.
> > 3. About votes, commit vote (and veto) can already happen on PR per past
> > agreement. The discussion for procedural vote IMO should be allowed to
> > happen on Github if it's development related. Procedural votes themselves
> > should and can still happen on dev@.
> >
> > About "you don't really have to do anything explicitly on the dev@
> list",
> > besides the above arguments, we don't send emails to dev@ just for the
> > purpose of sending it. On the other hand, since "whatever didn't happen
> on
> > dev list didn't happen", we'd need better arguments on why we'd choose to
> > forego the transparency.
> >
> > -sz
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Anirudh  wrote:
> >
> > > -1
> > >
> > > The low signal to noise ratio would mean that we may miss important
> > emails.
> > > Even with the different filters that we may setup for dev@, the emails
> > > would be too many to not miss the important ones. We would see more and
> > > more people starting a design discussion on an issue or PR. Because of
> > the
> > > low signal to noise ratio on the dev@ list, many may miss these
> > > discussions.
> > >
> > > Slowly, this would erode the purpose of the dev@ list as this means
> that
> > > you don't really have to do anything explicitly on the dev@ list.
> > > You can start a design discussion on a github issue. You can start a
> > > vote/discussion on a github issue.
> > >
> > > Anirudh
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:35 AM, Timur Shenkao 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 if my vote can be taken into account
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:32 AM, Sheng Zha 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to Github activities. See
> > > > previous
> > > > > discussion thread here
> > > > > <
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/3d883f6a3cbc8e81e810962e0c0fe7
> > > > > bfd01f0b78d3cb44034f566442@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > > The vote lasts for three days and ends on 7/18/2018 at 9pm pst.
> > > > >
> > > > > -sz
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Anirudh]

Its not foregoing transparency since people can easily subscribe to the
github activities individually. dev@ has been used till now for design
discussions, other project discussions,
votes etc. After we subscribe dev@ to all activities, I am afraid dev@ will
be reduced to a forwarded mail box and it is redundant for most purposes.

Anirudh

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Sheng Zha  wrote:

> Hi Anirudh,
>
> 1. You need exactly one filter to filter out all the github notifications
> on PRs and issues: "from:notificati...@github.com", and you'd get your S/N
> ratio back.
> 2. Having the option to do design discussion on an issue or PR is actually
> a good thing as many discussions are quite small and better accompanied by
> code. If for some reason a merged design needs revisiting, there's still
> the option of sending an email to dev@ and discuss about it.
> 3. About votes, commit vote (and veto) can already happen on PR per past
> agreement. The discussion for procedural vote IMO should be allowed to
> happen on Github if it's development related. Procedural votes themselves
> should and can still happen on dev@.
>
> About "you don't really have to do anything explicitly on the dev@ list",
> besides the above arguments, we don't send emails to dev@ just for the
> purpose of sending it. On the other hand, since "whatever didn't happen on
> dev list didn't happen", we'd need better arguments on why we'd choose to
> forego the transparency.
>
> -sz
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Anirudh  wrote:
>
> > -1
> >
> > The low signal to noise ratio would mean that we may miss important
> emails.
> > Even with the different filters that we may setup for dev@, the emails
> > would be too many to not miss the important ones. We would see more and
> > more people starting a design discussion on an issue or PR. Because of
> the
> > low signal to noise ratio on the dev@ list, many may miss these
> > discussions.
> >
> > Slowly, this would erode the purpose of the dev@ list as this means that
> > you don't really have to do anything explicitly on the dev@ list.
> > You can start a design discussion on a github issue. You can start a
> > vote/discussion on a github issue.
> >
> > Anirudh
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:35 AM, Timur Shenkao 
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 if my vote can be taken into account
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:32 AM, Sheng Zha  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to Github activities. See
> > > previous
> > > > discussion thread here
> > > >  > > > bfd01f0b78d3cb44034f566442@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > > The vote lasts for three days and ends on 7/18/2018 at 9pm pst.
> > > >
> > > > -sz
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Qing Lan]

-1, 
unless we can keep this under control. It's not all of the PRs or Issues 
worthwhile to be involved into discussion. 
I hope we can put this under control such as @subscribe_dev as a bot to spread 
the information to dev@.

Thanks,
Qing

On 7/17/18, 9:26 AM, "Lin Yuan"  wrote:

+1, I think they are very relevant to dev and as Aaron said we can always
set up personalized filter.

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:21 AM Aaron Markham 
wrote:

> +1, I don't read your emails anyways. Just kidding. I think it would be
> good to see the action, even if I eventually have to setup filters if it
> gets overwhelming.
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Tianqi Chen 
> wrote:
>
> > +1, most of issue and PR activities are about development, and they
> belong
> > to dev. It also helps us to recognizes contributors who are actively
> > contributing but less vocal via emails -- there are many of them.
> >
> > Tianqi
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Anirudh  wrote:
> >
> > > -1
> > >
> > > The low signal to noise ratio would mean that we may miss important
> > emails.
> > > Even with the different filters that we may setup for dev@, the emails
> > > would be too many to not miss the important ones. We would see more 
and
> > > more people starting a design discussion on an issue or PR. Because of
> > the
> > > low signal to noise ratio on the dev@ list, many may miss these
> > > discussions.
> > >
> > > Slowly, this would erode the purpose of the dev@ list as this means
> that
> > > you don't really have to do anything explicitly on the dev@ list.
> > > You can start a design discussion on a github issue. You can start a
> > > vote/discussion on a github issue.
> > >
> > > Anirudh
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:35 AM, Timur Shenkao 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 if my vote can be taken into account
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:32 AM, Sheng Zha 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to Github activities. See
> > > > previous
> > > > > discussion thread here
> > > > > <
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/3d883f6a3cbc8e81e810962e0c0fe7
> > > > > bfd01f0b78d3cb44034f566442@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > > The vote lasts for three days and ends on 7/18/2018 at 9pm pst.
> > > > >
> > > > > -sz
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Lin Yuan]

+1, I think they are very relevant to dev and as Aaron said we can always
set up personalized filter.

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:21 AM Aaron Markham 
wrote:

> +1, I don't read your emails anyways. Just kidding. I think it would be
> good to see the action, even if I eventually have to setup filters if it
> gets overwhelming.
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Tianqi Chen 
> wrote:
>
> > +1, most of issue and PR activities are about development, and they
> belong
> > to dev. It also helps us to recognizes contributors who are actively
> > contributing but less vocal via emails -- there are many of them.
> >
> > Tianqi
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Anirudh  wrote:
> >
> > > -1
> > >
> > > The low signal to noise ratio would mean that we may miss important
> > emails.
> > > Even with the different filters that we may setup for dev@, the emails
> > > would be too many to not miss the important ones. We would see more and
> > > more people starting a design discussion on an issue or PR. Because of
> > the
> > > low signal to noise ratio on the dev@ list, many may miss these
> > > discussions.
> > >
> > > Slowly, this would erode the purpose of the dev@ list as this means
> that
> > > you don't really have to do anything explicitly on the dev@ list.
> > > You can start a design discussion on a github issue. You can start a
> > > vote/discussion on a github issue.
> > >
> > > Anirudh
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:35 AM, Timur Shenkao 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 if my vote can be taken into account
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:32 AM, Sheng Zha 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to Github activities. See
> > > > previous
> > > > > discussion thread here
> > > > > <
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/3d883f6a3cbc8e81e810962e0c0fe7
> > > > > bfd01f0b78d3cb44034f566442@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > > The vote lasts for three days and ends on 7/18/2018 at 9pm pst.
> > > > >
> > > > > -sz
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Sheng Zha]

Hi Anirudh,

1. You need exactly one filter to filter out all the github notifications
on PRs and issues: "from:notificati...@github.com", and you'd get your S/N
ratio back.
2. Having the option to do design discussion on an issue or PR is actually
a good thing as many discussions are quite small and better accompanied by
code. If for some reason a merged design needs revisiting, there's still
the option of sending an email to dev@ and discuss about it.
3. About votes, commit vote (and veto) can already happen on PR per past
agreement. The discussion for procedural vote IMO should be allowed to
happen on Github if it's development related. Procedural votes themselves
should and can still happen on dev@.

About "you don't really have to do anything explicitly on the dev@ list",
besides the above arguments, we don't send emails to dev@ just for the
purpose of sending it. On the other hand, since "whatever didn't happen on
dev list didn't happen", we'd need better arguments on why we'd choose to
forego the transparency.

-sz

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Anirudh  wrote:

> -1
>
> The low signal to noise ratio would mean that we may miss important emails.
> Even with the different filters that we may setup for dev@, the emails
> would be too many to not miss the important ones. We would see more and
> more people starting a design discussion on an issue or PR. Because of the
> low signal to noise ratio on the dev@ list, many may miss these
> discussions.
>
> Slowly, this would erode the purpose of the dev@ list as this means that
> you don't really have to do anything explicitly on the dev@ list.
> You can start a design discussion on a github issue. You can start a
> vote/discussion on a github issue.
>
> Anirudh
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:35 AM, Timur Shenkao  wrote:
>
> > +1 if my vote can be taken into account
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:32 AM, Sheng Zha  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to Github activities. See
> > previous
> > > discussion thread here
> > >  > > bfd01f0b78d3cb44034f566442@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> > > .
> > >
> > > The vote lasts for three days and ends on 7/18/2018 at 9pm pst.
> > >
> > > -sz
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Aaron Markham]

+1, I don't read your emails anyways. Just kidding. I think it would be
good to see the action, even if I eventually have to setup filters if it
gets overwhelming.

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Tianqi Chen 
wrote:

> +1, most of issue and PR activities are about development, and they belong
> to dev. It also helps us to recognizes contributors who are actively
> contributing but less vocal via emails -- there are many of them.
>
> Tianqi
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Anirudh  wrote:
>
> > -1
> >
> > The low signal to noise ratio would mean that we may miss important
> emails.
> > Even with the different filters that we may setup for dev@, the emails
> > would be too many to not miss the important ones. We would see more and
> > more people starting a design discussion on an issue or PR. Because of
> the
> > low signal to noise ratio on the dev@ list, many may miss these
> > discussions.
> >
> > Slowly, this would erode the purpose of the dev@ list as this means that
> > you don't really have to do anything explicitly on the dev@ list.
> > You can start a design discussion on a github issue. You can start a
> > vote/discussion on a github issue.
> >
> > Anirudh
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:35 AM, Timur Shenkao 
> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 if my vote can be taken into account
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:32 AM, Sheng Zha  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to Github activities. See
> > > previous
> > > > discussion thread here
> > > >  > > > bfd01f0b78d3cb44034f566442@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > > The vote lasts for three days and ends on 7/18/2018 at 9pm pst.
> > > >
> > > > -sz
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Tianqi Chen]

+1, most of issue and PR activities are about development, and they belong
to dev. It also helps us to recognizes contributors who are actively
contributing but less vocal via emails -- there are many of them.

Tianqi

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:47 AM, Anirudh  wrote:

> -1
>
> The low signal to noise ratio would mean that we may miss important emails.
> Even with the different filters that we may setup for dev@, the emails
> would be too many to not miss the important ones. We would see more and
> more people starting a design discussion on an issue or PR. Because of the
> low signal to noise ratio on the dev@ list, many may miss these
> discussions.
>
> Slowly, this would erode the purpose of the dev@ list as this means that
> you don't really have to do anything explicitly on the dev@ list.
> You can start a design discussion on a github issue. You can start a
> vote/discussion on a github issue.
>
> Anirudh
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:35 AM, Timur Shenkao  wrote:
>
> > +1 if my vote can be taken into account
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:32 AM, Sheng Zha  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to Github activities. See
> > previous
> > > discussion thread here
> > >  > > bfd01f0b78d3cb44034f566442@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> > > .
> > >
> > > The vote lasts for three days and ends on 7/18/2018 at 9pm pst.
> > >
> > > -sz
> > >
> >
>

Re: [VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Timur Shenkao]

+1 if my vote can be taken into account

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:32 AM, Sheng Zha  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to Github activities. See previous
> discussion thread here
>  bfd01f0b78d3cb44034f566442@%3Cdev.mxnet.apache.org%3E>
> .
>
> The vote lasts for three days and ends on 7/18/2018 at 9pm pst.
>
> -sz
>

[VOTE] Subscribe dev@ to Github Activities

[Sheng Zha]

Hi,

I'm starting a vote on subscribing dev@ to Github activities. See previous
discussion thread here

.

The vote lasts for three days and ends on 7/18/2018 at 9pm pst.

-sz