Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

2019-02-13 Thread Sheng Zha
Thanks for making me aware of the issue. I started the fix here [1].

And thanks to Qing Lan and Zach Kimberg for pinging me and helping with 
isolating the problem.

-sz

[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14148

On 2019/02/13 19:45:41, Aaron Markham  wrote: 
> Sheng, thanks for being so proactive, but adding license headers to
> the markdown files in #14142 breaks the website as I warned. I caught
> it before it went live.
> I've disabled website publishing until this situation is resolved.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:59 AM Sheng Zha  wrote:
> >
> > Update: All license issues mentioned in the general vote from Luciano (pom
> > files, docker files, docs) have been fixed on master [1][2].
> >
> > Let me know if there's more to address.
> >
> > -sz
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14138
> > [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14142
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 7:54 AM Michael Wall  wrote:
> >
> > > So is the plan option 3?  I have seen tickets fixing licenses, so good 
> > > work
> > > there.  When a vote is started on dev@mxnet.a.o, include wording about not
> > > waiting the full 72 hours since this is just updating licensing.  Get as
> > > many +1 votes as you can on both the release and not waiting then move on
> > > to IPMC.  The vote on general@incubator.a.o should still stay open 72
> > > hours.  I will look at it as soon as it is posted, but maybe reach out to
> > > the other mentors directly asking for their help to review as soon as it 
> > > is
> > > out.  The goal is to have the 3 or more +1 votes and more positive then
> > > negative as soon as the 72 hours hits.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:44 AM Justin Mclean 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > forgot to CC dev
> > > >
> > > > > Begin forwarded message:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Justin Mclean 
> > > > > Subject: Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating)
> > > > version 1.4.0.rc2
> > > > > Date: 13 February 2019 at 6:43:48 pm AEDT
> > > > > To: Michael Wall 
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > >> Option 1:
> > > > >> Do nothing.  I don't know how a RESTARTED vote works.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don’t believe there is such a concept.
> > > > >
> > > > >> Option 2:
> > > > >> Start another vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the
> > > > original vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o and the canceled vote thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > It may end up with the same outcome.
> > > > >
> > > > >> Option 3:
> > > > >> 1 - Fix the header issues.
> > > > > 
> > > > >> 3 - Start a vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the new
> > > > vote thread from step 2.  Will likely need to be open 72 hours.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just be aware it can take longer, sometime much longer, to get the 3 
> > > > > +1
> > > > IPMC votes.
> > > > >
> > > > >> Tough position to be in with Horovod being released.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which show the risk of tying in your release cycle with a non Apache
> > > > product. IMO you need to be independent of 3rd party releases and not
> > > tied
> > > > to their milestones. If they wanted to include a particular unreleased
> > > > version of ASF software, you should started the release a long time 
> > > > ahead
> > > > of time just in case problems were encountered issues.This probably
> > > > wouldn't be an issue if you made more frequent releases, it’s easier to
> > > > check compliance with frequent releases so the 3rd party could just take
> > > > the last good release and go with that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Justin
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> 


Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

2019-02-13 Thread Aaron Markham
Sheng, thanks for being so proactive, but adding license headers to
the markdown files in #14142 breaks the website as I warned. I caught
it before it went live.
I've disabled website publishing until this situation is resolved.


On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:59 AM Sheng Zha  wrote:
>
> Update: All license issues mentioned in the general vote from Luciano (pom
> files, docker files, docs) have been fixed on master [1][2].
>
> Let me know if there's more to address.
>
> -sz
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14138
> [2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14142
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 7:54 AM Michael Wall  wrote:
>
> > So is the plan option 3?  I have seen tickets fixing licenses, so good work
> > there.  When a vote is started on dev@mxnet.a.o, include wording about not
> > waiting the full 72 hours since this is just updating licensing.  Get as
> > many +1 votes as you can on both the release and not waiting then move on
> > to IPMC.  The vote on general@incubator.a.o should still stay open 72
> > hours.  I will look at it as soon as it is posted, but maybe reach out to
> > the other mentors directly asking for their help to review as soon as it is
> > out.  The goal is to have the 3 or more +1 votes and more positive then
> > negative as soon as the 72 hours hits.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:44 AM Justin Mclean 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > forgot to CC dev
> > >
> > > > Begin forwarded message:
> > > >
> > > > From: Justin Mclean 
> > > > Subject: Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating)
> > > version 1.4.0.rc2
> > > > Date: 13 February 2019 at 6:43:48 pm AEDT
> > > > To: Michael Wall 
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > >> Option 1:
> > > >> Do nothing.  I don't know how a RESTARTED vote works.
> > > >
> > > > I don’t believe there is such a concept.
> > > >
> > > >> Option 2:
> > > >> Start another vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the
> > > original vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o and the canceled vote thread.
> > > >
> > > > It may end up with the same outcome.
> > > >
> > > >> Option 3:
> > > >> 1 - Fix the header issues.
> > > > 
> > > >> 3 - Start a vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the new
> > > vote thread from step 2.  Will likely need to be open 72 hours.
> > > >
> > > > Just be aware it can take longer, sometime much longer, to get the 3 +1
> > > IPMC votes.
> > > >
> > > >> Tough position to be in with Horovod being released.
> > > >
> > > > Which show the risk of tying in your release cycle with a non Apache
> > > product. IMO you need to be independent of 3rd party releases and not
> > tied
> > > to their milestones. If they wanted to include a particular unreleased
> > > version of ASF software, you should started the release a long time ahead
> > > of time just in case problems were encountered issues.This probably
> > > wouldn't be an issue if you made more frequent releases, it’s easier to
> > > check compliance with frequent releases so the 3rd party could just take
> > > the last good release and go with that.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Justin
> > >
> > >
> >


Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

2019-02-13 Thread Sheng Zha
Update: All license issues mentioned in the general vote from Luciano (pom
files, docker files, docs) have been fixed on master [1][2].

Let me know if there's more to address.

-sz

[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14138
[2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14142

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 7:54 AM Michael Wall  wrote:

> So is the plan option 3?  I have seen tickets fixing licenses, so good work
> there.  When a vote is started on dev@mxnet.a.o, include wording about not
> waiting the full 72 hours since this is just updating licensing.  Get as
> many +1 votes as you can on both the release and not waiting then move on
> to IPMC.  The vote on general@incubator.a.o should still stay open 72
> hours.  I will look at it as soon as it is posted, but maybe reach out to
> the other mentors directly asking for their help to review as soon as it is
> out.  The goal is to have the 3 or more +1 votes and more positive then
> negative as soon as the 72 hours hits.
>
> Mike
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:44 AM Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
> > forgot to CC dev
> >
> > > Begin forwarded message:
> > >
> > > From: Justin Mclean 
> > > Subject: Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating)
> > version 1.4.0.rc2
> > > Date: 13 February 2019 at 6:43:48 pm AEDT
> > > To: Michael Wall 
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >> Option 1:
> > >> Do nothing.  I don't know how a RESTARTED vote works.
> > >
> > > I don’t believe there is such a concept.
> > >
> > >> Option 2:
> > >> Start another vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the
> > original vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o and the canceled vote thread.
> > >
> > > It may end up with the same outcome.
> > >
> > >> Option 3:
> > >> 1 - Fix the header issues.
> > > 
> > >> 3 - Start a vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the new
> > vote thread from step 2.  Will likely need to be open 72 hours.
> > >
> > > Just be aware it can take longer, sometime much longer, to get the 3 +1
> > IPMC votes.
> > >
> > >> Tough position to be in with Horovod being released.
> > >
> > > Which show the risk of tying in your release cycle with a non Apache
> > product. IMO you need to be independent of 3rd party releases and not
> tied
> > to their milestones. If they wanted to include a particular unreleased
> > version of ASF software, you should started the release a long time ahead
> > of time just in case problems were encountered issues.This probably
> > wouldn't be an issue if you made more frequent releases, it’s easier to
> > check compliance with frequent releases so the 3rd party could just take
> > the last good release and go with that.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Justin
> >
> >
>


Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

2019-02-13 Thread Michael Wall
So is the plan option 3?  I have seen tickets fixing licenses, so good work
there.  When a vote is started on dev@mxnet.a.o, include wording about not
waiting the full 72 hours since this is just updating licensing.  Get as
many +1 votes as you can on both the release and not waiting then move on
to IPMC.  The vote on general@incubator.a.o should still stay open 72
hours.  I will look at it as soon as it is posted, but maybe reach out to
the other mentors directly asking for their help to review as soon as it is
out.  The goal is to have the 3 or more +1 votes and more positive then
negative as soon as the 72 hours hits.

Mike

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:44 AM Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> forgot to CC dev
>
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Justin Mclean 
> > Subject: Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating)
> version 1.4.0.rc2
> > Date: 13 February 2019 at 6:43:48 pm AEDT
> > To: Michael Wall 
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >> Option 1:
> >> Do nothing.  I don't know how a RESTARTED vote works.
> >
> > I don’t believe there is such a concept.
> >
> >> Option 2:
> >> Start another vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the
> original vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o and the canceled vote thread.
> >
> > It may end up with the same outcome.
> >
> >> Option 3:
> >> 1 - Fix the header issues.
> > 
> >> 3 - Start a vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the new
> vote thread from step 2.  Will likely need to be open 72 hours.
> >
> > Just be aware it can take longer, sometime much longer, to get the 3 +1
> IPMC votes.
> >
> >> Tough position to be in with Horovod being released.
> >
> > Which show the risk of tying in your release cycle with a non Apache
> product. IMO you need to be independent of 3rd party releases and not tied
> to their milestones. If they wanted to include a particular unreleased
> version of ASF software, you should started the release a long time ahead
> of time just in case problems were encountered issues.This probably
> wouldn't be an issue if you made more frequent releases, it’s easier to
> check compliance with frequent releases so the 3rd party could just take
> the last good release and go with that.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Justin
>
>


Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

2019-02-12 Thread Sheng Zha
Thanks for the detailed explanation and the help on educating the community, 
Michael.

People on the general list are spending time to help us get the licensing 
right. If possible, I think we should be thankful by treating their feedbacks 
more seriously, making the efforts to quickly fix the problem, and getting our 
release out when ready. Fixes for the issues found during the release are 
already going in as we speak [1][2][3].

One thing that the community can benefit from is the clarity on what file types 
we should remove from the rat-excludes file that we have [4], so that we make 
the project compliant with the release policy once for all.

-sz

[1] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14138
[2] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14141
[3] https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/14043
[4] 
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/master/tests/nightly/apache_rat_license_check/rat-excludes

On 2019/02/13 01:14:07, Michael Wall  wrote: 
> Hi Qing,
> 
> I see 3 options
> 
> Option 1:
> Do nothing.  I don't know how a RESTARTED vote works.  Steffen counted the
> binding votes from the before it was restarted.  Unsure if that actually
> works.  There has been one +1 votes since the restart, but it is
> non-binding as best I can tell even though it labeled as binding.  To be a
> binding vote for the general@incubator.a.o VOTE you must be on the
> Incubator PMC or IPMC.  Users on the MXNet Podling PMC or PPMC have a
> binding vote only on the dev@mxnet VOTE thread.   See
> https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#releases.  In addition,
> those binding +1 votes may need to be changes based on
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval which reads
> 
> "Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download all
> signed source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that they meet
> all requirements of ASF policy on releases as described below, validate all
> cryptographic signatures, compile as provided, and test the result on their
> own platform."
> 
> Luciano's -1 was because the release does not meet the licensing policy at
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers
> 
> For this reason, I can not give a +1 on the general@incubator.a.o VOTE
> thread.  Sorry, that is why I have not voted.
> 
> Option 2:
> Start another vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the original
> vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o and the canceled vote thread.  Likely that
> need to be open for 72 hours unless the IPMC agrees otherwise.  I list this
> because I don't know if a RESTART recounting votes from a prior thread is
> valid.  But this option has the same risk of not being approved for the
> reasons listed above.
> 
> Option 3:
> 1 - Fix the header issues.  I dug a little more, and the excludes file at
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/v1.4.x/tests/nightly/apache_rat_license_check/rat-excludes
> is
> overly broad and excludes files from the check that should have license
> headers, again per
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers
> 2 - Start a vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o.  Doesn't have to be open 72 hours
> according to Justin's note if the PPMC agrees.  Expect this would need to
> be documented on the mailing list, but could be part of the vote I think.
> 3 - Start a vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the new vote
> thread from step 2.  Will likely need to be open 72 hours.
> 
> Clearly option 1 would be faster, but the risk is the vote not passing.
> Option 2 may not be needed if the restart in option 1 is valid.  Option 3
> is the most correct I think according to what I read in ASF policy.  But
> rushing a vote does have risks, such as less testing on the code being
> released.
> 
> To make this more confusing, the VOTE thread is showing up on both
> dev@mxnet.a.o and general@incubator.a.o.  There is an additional +1 vote on
> the dev@mxnet.a.o list that doesn't show up on the general@incubator, but
> this too is non binding best I can tell.
> 
> Tough position to be in with Horovod being released.  Nothing in ASF policy
> makes allowances for such an event that I could find.  Perhaps we should
> ask for more clarification on general@incubator.a.o to get more thoughts
> from the IPMC.
> 
> Mike
> 
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:53 PM Qing Lan  wrote:
> 
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > Could you please guide how to proceed with this? Given that we have a
> > possibility of announcing MXNet support in Horovod with their next release
> > and this would help MXNet increase our visibility.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Qing
> >
> > On 2/12/19, 2:16 PM, "Michael Wall"  wrote:
> >
> > Team,
> >
> > Here is my read on the situation.  The vote has been canceled.
> > Justin's
> > point was that a -1 doesn't mean you must cancel a vote for the
> > reasons he
> > outlined.  But here the vote needs to be restarted and the issue
> > Luciano
> > found needs 

Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

2019-02-12 Thread Aaron Markham
I think I misunderstood the 3rd party reference to imply Uber instead
of the 3rd party folder. I feel the same regardless, and defer to the
experts on what do do about the 3rd party folder.

As for the other license issues, we don't have to add license info to
readme or informational files. It is specifically called out as an
exception [1]:

"Other files may make sense to have no license header. Three examples are:
Short informational text files; for example README, INSTALL files. The
expectation is that these files make it obvious which product they
relate to.
Test data for which the addition of a source header would cause the
tests to fail.
'Snippet' files that are combined as form a larger file where the
larger file would have duplicate licensing headers."

I certainly wouldn't add headers to the markdown files as this would
create havoc in the website rendering until that is configured to
handle it. Besides, we're covered on these file as we have an Apache
copyright footer on the website. Also from the Apache page on headers
[1]:

"...Our web sites do not have an associated NOTICE file. Instead we
may soon be making the terms of such content explicit through a "Terms
of Use" or "Legal Information" link in the footer of web pages. At
this point, no action is required for Apache web sites."

I can think of a few examples where markdown files are not rendered on
the website, but as they're informational text files they're "obvious
which product they relate to" and therefore I think they can be
excluded.

I looked at the rat-exclude, and if pom.xml files (for example) are
supposed to have licenses, then we should probably add that and
tighten up the excludes for .*xml. But if we can do that in the next
release, that would be great. (I'm not sure how to gauge the
importance of these license headers vis-a-vis project usability.) Not
to muddy the waters, by why is the R package excluded entirely?

[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#headers

Cheers,
Aaron

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:23 PM Michael Wall  wrote:
>
> Hi Qing,
>
> I see 3 options
>
> Option 1:
> Do nothing.  I don't know how a RESTARTED vote works.  Steffen counted the
> binding votes from the before it was restarted.  Unsure if that actually
> works.  There has been one +1 votes since the restart, but it is
> non-binding as best I can tell even though it labeled as binding.  To be a
> binding vote for the general@incubator.a.o VOTE you must be on the
> Incubator PMC or IPMC.  Users on the MXNet Podling PMC or PPMC have a
> binding vote only on the dev@mxnet VOTE thread.   See
> https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#releases.  In addition,
> those binding +1 votes may need to be changes based on
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval which reads
>
> "Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download all
> signed source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that they meet
> all requirements of ASF policy on releases as described below, validate all
> cryptographic signatures, compile as provided, and test the result on their
> own platform."
>
> Luciano's -1 was because the release does not meet the licensing policy at
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers
>
> For this reason, I can not give a +1 on the general@incubator.a.o VOTE
> thread.  Sorry, that is why I have not voted.
>
> Option 2:
> Start another vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the original
> vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o and the canceled vote thread.  Likely that
> need to be open for 72 hours unless the IPMC agrees otherwise.  I list this
> because I don't know if a RESTART recounting votes from a prior thread is
> valid.  But this option has the same risk of not being approved for the
> reasons listed above.
>
> Option 3:
> 1 - Fix the header issues.  I dug a little more, and the excludes file at
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/v1.4.x/tests/nightly/apache_rat_license_check/rat-excludes
> is
> overly broad and excludes files from the check that should have license
> headers, again per
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers
> 2 - Start a vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o.  Doesn't have to be open 72 hours
> according to Justin's note if the PPMC agrees.  Expect this would need to
> be documented on the mailing list, but could be part of the vote I think.
> 3 - Start a vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the new vote
> thread from step 2.  Will likely need to be open 72 hours.
>
> Clearly option 1 would be faster, but the risk is the vote not passing.
> Option 2 may not be needed if the restart in option 1 is valid.  Option 3
> is the most correct I think according to what I read in ASF policy.  But
> rushing a vote does have risks, such as less testing on the code being
> released.
>
> To make this more confusing, the VOTE thread is showing up on both
> dev@mxnet.a.o and general@incubator.a.o.  There is an 

Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

2019-02-12 Thread Michael Wall
Hi Qing,

I see 3 options

Option 1:
Do nothing.  I don't know how a RESTARTED vote works.  Steffen counted the
binding votes from the before it was restarted.  Unsure if that actually
works.  There has been one +1 votes since the restart, but it is
non-binding as best I can tell even though it labeled as binding.  To be a
binding vote for the general@incubator.a.o VOTE you must be on the
Incubator PMC or IPMC.  Users on the MXNet Podling PMC or PPMC have a
binding vote only on the dev@mxnet VOTE thread.   See
https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#releases.  In addition,
those binding +1 votes may need to be changes based on
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval which reads

"Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download all
signed source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that they meet
all requirements of ASF policy on releases as described below, validate all
cryptographic signatures, compile as provided, and test the result on their
own platform."

Luciano's -1 was because the release does not meet the licensing policy at
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers

For this reason, I can not give a +1 on the general@incubator.a.o VOTE
thread.  Sorry, that is why I have not voted.

Option 2:
Start another vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the original
vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o and the canceled vote thread.  Likely that
need to be open for 72 hours unless the IPMC agrees otherwise.  I list this
because I don't know if a RESTART recounting votes from a prior thread is
valid.  But this option has the same risk of not being approved for the
reasons listed above.

Option 3:
1 - Fix the header issues.  I dug a little more, and the excludes file at
https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/v1.4.x/tests/nightly/apache_rat_license_check/rat-excludes
is
overly broad and excludes files from the check that should have license
headers, again per
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers
2 - Start a vote thread on dev@mxnet.a.o.  Doesn't have to be open 72 hours
according to Justin's note if the PPMC agrees.  Expect this would need to
be documented on the mailing list, but could be part of the vote I think.
3 - Start a vote thread on general@incubator.a.o pointing to the new vote
thread from step 2.  Will likely need to be open 72 hours.

Clearly option 1 would be faster, but the risk is the vote not passing.
Option 2 may not be needed if the restart in option 1 is valid.  Option 3
is the most correct I think according to what I read in ASF policy.  But
rushing a vote does have risks, such as less testing on the code being
released.

To make this more confusing, the VOTE thread is showing up on both
dev@mxnet.a.o and general@incubator.a.o.  There is an additional +1 vote on
the dev@mxnet.a.o list that doesn't show up on the general@incubator, but
this too is non binding best I can tell.

Tough position to be in with Horovod being released.  Nothing in ASF policy
makes allowances for such an event that I could find.  Perhaps we should
ask for more clarification on general@incubator.a.o to get more thoughts
from the IPMC.

Mike

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:53 PM Qing Lan  wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> Could you please guide how to proceed with this? Given that we have a
> possibility of announcing MXNet support in Horovod with their next release
> and this would help MXNet increase our visibility.
>
> Thanks,
> Qing
>
> On 2/12/19, 2:16 PM, "Michael Wall"  wrote:
>
> Team,
>
> Here is my read on the situation.  The vote has been canceled.
> Justin's
> point was that a -1 doesn't mean you must cancel a vote for the
> reasons he
> outlined.  But here the vote needs to be restarted and the issue
> Luciano
> found needs to be addressed.
>
> That issue is that there are files in MXNet source tree that do not
> have
> the required licenses headers,
> http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers.  For
> example, the top level README.md is missing the header
>
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/master/README.md.
> Excluding 3rd party files from the RAT check is fine, but not files
> originating from the MXNet repo.
>
> It would be good to know exactly how Luciano ran the RAT check, cc'd.
> Here
> is a link to the thread
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/51e9ab05edae2089c74a253000a92d5aa5c6406f54e5bd0a0b3c3879@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
> .
>
> Justin's other point, aIso cc'd, was that the vote with the podling
> doesn't
> have to take 72 hours before going to the incubator list.
>
> I realize this is not what everyone is pushing for, so interested in
> other's thoughts.  Especially other mentors.
>
> Mike
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:47 PM Aaron Markham <
> aaron.s.mark...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> > I disagree about 3rd party 

Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

2019-02-12 Thread Qing Lan
Hi Michael, 

Could you please guide how to proceed with this? Given that we have a 
possibility of announcing MXNet support in Horovod with their next release and 
this would help MXNet increase our visibility.

Thanks,
Qing

On 2/12/19, 2:16 PM, "Michael Wall"  wrote:

Team,

Here is my read on the situation.  The vote has been canceled.  Justin's
point was that a -1 doesn't mean you must cancel a vote for the reasons he
outlined.  But here the vote needs to be restarted and the issue Luciano
found needs to be addressed.

That issue is that there are files in MXNet source tree that do not have
the required licenses headers,
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers.  For
example, the top level README.md is missing the header
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/master/README.md.
Excluding 3rd party files from the RAT check is fine, but not files
originating from the MXNet repo.

It would be good to know exactly how Luciano ran the RAT check, cc'd.  Here
is a link to the thread

https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/51e9ab05edae2089c74a253000a92d5aa5c6406f54e5bd0a0b3c3879@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
.

Justin's other point, aIso cc'd, was that the vote with the podling doesn't
have to take 72 hours before going to the incubator list.

I realize this is not what everyone is pushing for, so interested in
other's thoughts.  Especially other mentors.

Mike

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:47 PM Aaron Markham 
wrote:

> +1
> I disagree about 3rd party considerations. This is an ecosystem after all.
> The distributed training story is quite nice with Horovod. Given my
> interaction with tensorflow with  Horovod and dynamic training with MXNet
> and the kvstore, this new route is, IMO, easier to setup and manage.
> I see the benefit for getting it out there sooner than later, and market
> timings are important to the project and adoption. If Uber's announcement
> drives traffic to MXNet, but then people can't set it up with a stable
> release package, there's a lost opportunity for growing the community. Why
> miss the opportunity for a RAT license?
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 13:14 Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> > Hi -
> >
> > Third party vendor considerations do not matter. Are you voting +1 with
> > your Apache hat on or your Amazon hat?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> >
> > > On Feb 11, 2019, at 10:16 PM, Lin Yuan  wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 binding
> > > Horovod is going to release it's 0.16.0 in the coming week with MXNet
> > > integration. We need to release 1.4.0 which includes all the
> dependencies
> > > for Horovod integration.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Lin
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:30 PM Steffen Rochel <
> steffenroc...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dear community -
> > >> based on Justin's and community feedback I'm suggesting to restart 
the
> > >> vote.
> > >> Current status:
> > >> binding votes:
> > >> +1: 2 votes (Henri, Jason)
> > >> -1:  1 vote (Luciano)
> > >>
> > >> non-binding:
> > >> +1: 1 vote (Kellen)
> > >>
> > >> The community is investigating feedback from Luciano that the
> exclusion
> > >> file is to broad and potentially missing files which can and must 
have
> > >> apache license headers not to be checked.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Steffen
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:08 AM Hagay Lupesko 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Based on Justin's feedback, can we resume the vote instead of
> > cancelling
> > >>> it?
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:02 AM Justin Mclean <
> > jus...@classsoftware.com
> > >>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  Hi,
> > 
> >  In future don’t be so hasty to cancel a release vote, people mind
> can
> > >> be
> >  changed and a -1 is not a veto on a release.
> > 
> >  Thanks,
> >  Justin
> > 
> > 
> > 
> -
> >  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >  For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > 
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>




Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

2019-02-12 Thread Michael Wall
Team,

Here is my read on the situation.  The vote has been canceled.  Justin's
point was that a -1 doesn't mean you must cancel a vote for the reasons he
outlined.  But here the vote needs to be restarted and the issue Luciano
found needs to be addressed.

That issue is that there are files in MXNet source tree that do not have
the required licenses headers,
http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers.  For
example, the top level README.md is missing the header
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/master/README.md.
Excluding 3rd party files from the RAT check is fine, but not files
originating from the MXNet repo.

It would be good to know exactly how Luciano ran the RAT check, cc'd.  Here
is a link to the thread
https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/51e9ab05edae2089c74a253000a92d5aa5c6406f54e5bd0a0b3c3879@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
.

Justin's other point, aIso cc'd, was that the vote with the podling doesn't
have to take 72 hours before going to the incubator list.

I realize this is not what everyone is pushing for, so interested in
other's thoughts.  Especially other mentors.

Mike

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:47 PM Aaron Markham 
wrote:

> +1
> I disagree about 3rd party considerations. This is an ecosystem after all.
> The distributed training story is quite nice with Horovod. Given my
> interaction with tensorflow with  Horovod and dynamic training with MXNet
> and the kvstore, this new route is, IMO, easier to setup and manage.
> I see the benefit for getting it out there sooner than later, and market
> timings are important to the project and adoption. If Uber's announcement
> drives traffic to MXNet, but then people can't set it up with a stable
> release package, there's a lost opportunity for growing the community. Why
> miss the opportunity for a RAT license?
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 13:14 Dave Fisher  wrote:
>
> > Hi -
> >
> > Third party vendor considerations do not matter. Are you voting +1 with
> > your Apache hat on or your Amazon hat?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> >
> > > On Feb 11, 2019, at 10:16 PM, Lin Yuan  wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 binding
> > > Horovod is going to release it's 0.16.0 in the coming week with MXNet
> > > integration. We need to release 1.4.0 which includes all the
> dependencies
> > > for Horovod integration.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > >
> > > Lin
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:30 PM Steffen Rochel <
> steffenroc...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Dear community -
> > >> based on Justin's and community feedback I'm suggesting to restart the
> > >> vote.
> > >> Current status:
> > >> binding votes:
> > >> +1: 2 votes (Henri, Jason)
> > >> -1:  1 vote (Luciano)
> > >>
> > >> non-binding:
> > >> +1: 1 vote (Kellen)
> > >>
> > >> The community is investigating feedback from Luciano that the
> exclusion
> > >> file is to broad and potentially missing files which can and must have
> > >> apache license headers not to be checked.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Steffen
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:08 AM Hagay Lupesko 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Based on Justin's feedback, can we resume the vote instead of
> > cancelling
> > >>> it?
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:02 AM Justin Mclean <
> > jus...@classsoftware.com
> > >>>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> >  Hi,
> > 
> >  In future don’t be so hasty to cancel a release vote, people mind
> can
> > >> be
> >  changed and a -1 is not a veto on a release.
> > 
> >  Thanks,
> >  Justin
> > 
> > 
> > 
> -
> >  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >  For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > 
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>


Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

2019-02-12 Thread Aaron Markham
+1
I disagree about 3rd party considerations. This is an ecosystem after all.
The distributed training story is quite nice with Horovod. Given my
interaction with tensorflow with  Horovod and dynamic training with MXNet
and the kvstore, this new route is, IMO, easier to setup and manage.
I see the benefit for getting it out there sooner than later, and market
timings are important to the project and adoption. If Uber's announcement
drives traffic to MXNet, but then people can't set it up with a stable
release package, there's a lost opportunity for growing the community. Why
miss the opportunity for a RAT license?

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 13:14 Dave Fisher  wrote:

> Hi -
>
> Third party vendor considerations do not matter. Are you voting +1 with
> your Apache hat on or your Amazon hat?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> > On Feb 11, 2019, at 10:16 PM, Lin Yuan  wrote:
> >
> > +1 binding
> > Horovod is going to release it's 0.16.0 in the coming week with MXNet
> > integration. We need to release 1.4.0 which includes all the dependencies
> > for Horovod integration.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Lin
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:30 PM Steffen Rochel 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dear community -
> >> based on Justin's and community feedback I'm suggesting to restart the
> >> vote.
> >> Current status:
> >> binding votes:
> >> +1: 2 votes (Henri, Jason)
> >> -1:  1 vote (Luciano)
> >>
> >> non-binding:
> >> +1: 1 vote (Kellen)
> >>
> >> The community is investigating feedback from Luciano that the exclusion
> >> file is to broad and potentially missing files which can and must have
> >> apache license headers not to be checked.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Steffen
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:08 AM Hagay Lupesko 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Based on Justin's feedback, can we resume the vote instead of
> cancelling
> >>> it?
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:02 AM Justin Mclean <
> jus...@classsoftware.com
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
>  Hi,
> 
>  In future don’t be so hasty to cancel a release vote, people mind can
> >> be
>  changed and a -1 is not a veto on a release.
> 
>  Thanks,
>  Justin
> 
> 
>  -
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>  For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 
> 
> >>>
> >>
>
>


Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

2019-02-12 Thread Dave Fisher
Hi -

Third party vendor considerations do not matter. Are you voting +1 with your 
Apache hat on or your Amazon hat?

Regards,
Dave

> On Feb 11, 2019, at 10:16 PM, Lin Yuan  wrote:
> 
> +1 binding
> Horovod is going to release it's 0.16.0 in the coming week with MXNet
> integration. We need to release 1.4.0 which includes all the dependencies
> for Horovod integration.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Lin
> 
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:30 PM Steffen Rochel 
> wrote:
> 
>> Dear community -
>> based on Justin's and community feedback I'm suggesting to restart the
>> vote.
>> Current status:
>> binding votes:
>> +1: 2 votes (Henri, Jason)
>> -1:  1 vote (Luciano)
>> 
>> non-binding:
>> +1: 1 vote (Kellen)
>> 
>> The community is investigating feedback from Luciano that the exclusion
>> file is to broad and potentially missing files which can and must have
>> apache license headers not to be checked.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Steffen
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:08 AM Hagay Lupesko  wrote:
>> 
>>> Based on Justin's feedback, can we resume the vote instead of cancelling
>>> it?
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:02 AM Justin Mclean >> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Hi,
 
 In future don’t be so hasty to cancel a release vote, people mind can
>> be
 changed and a -1 is not a veto on a release.
 
 Thanks,
 Justin
 
 
 -
 To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
 For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
 
 
>>> 
>> 



Re: [RESTARTING][VOTE] Release Apache MXNet (incubating) version 1.4.0.rc2

2019-02-11 Thread Lin Yuan
+1 binding
Horovod is going to release it's 0.16.0 in the coming week with MXNet
integration. We need to release 1.4.0 which includes all the dependencies
for Horovod integration.

Best,

Lin

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:30 PM Steffen Rochel 
wrote:

> Dear community -
> based on Justin's and community feedback I'm suggesting to restart the
> vote.
> Current status:
> binding votes:
> +1: 2 votes (Henri, Jason)
> -1:  1 vote (Luciano)
>
> non-binding:
> +1: 1 vote (Kellen)
>
> The community is investigating feedback from Luciano that the exclusion
> file is to broad and potentially missing files which can and must have
> apache license headers not to be checked.
>
> Regards,
> Steffen
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:08 AM Hagay Lupesko  wrote:
>
> > Based on Justin's feedback, can we resume the vote instead of cancelling
> > it?
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:02 AM Justin Mclean  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > In future don’t be so hasty to cancel a release vote, people mind can
> be
> > > changed and a -1 is not a veto on a release.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Justin
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>