Hi,
The incubator report had the following feedback:
Incubator needs to address the software distribution issues
regarding MXNet (not reporting this month). The PPMC is
effectively bypassing our software release policies by creating
distribution packages that are combined with
Hi,
> - MXNet publishes only nightly pre-release builds to dist.mxnet.io for the
> verification purpose for projects in the ecosystem and for developers who
> work on the bleeding edge.
IMO Something more needs to be done here, at the very least I would expect to
se a very large disclaimer that
Hi,
I don't see what has been done about this [1] which I mentioned above. What is
the planned action here?
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://mxnet.apache.org/get_started?
Hi,
> this page currently contains some links to third-party binary distributions of
> MXNet (for example at [1]). The question of what the PPMC should recommend
> those
> third-parties to avoid trademarking issues is currently being discussed on
> private@ and trademark@.
It’s quite clear they
Hi,
I also add that converting from one language to another is not considered a
major modification.
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
> On the question of building compliant CPU convenience binaries that can be
> distributed under the name MXNet, ASF now agrees that the previous stance of
> "libgfortran.so" is GPL and can't be distributed is incorrect based on the GCC
> Runtime Library Exception [4].
I would wait until tha
Hi,
Only a couple of days to go before to call for papers closes for ApacheCon
@Home 2020 on Monday.
The Incubator will be running a track at this online conference, so if you're
thinking of submitting something, please don't delay. We'll accept talks on the
Apache incubator itself, and talks
Hi,
Has the IP clearance process been followed? I don't see it listed on this page
[1]
Does the current release being voted on contain this code?
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://incubator.apache.org/ip-clearance/
HI,
> Yes and yes. I filed the software grant and received confirmation from
> secretary@.
As well as the software grant the incline code base needs to go through IP
clearance. See [1] option 2.
IP clearance involves making sure all all contributors have signed ICLAs and
there are no license
Hi,
See also:
https://incubator.apache.org/guides/ip_clearance.html
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
> Thank you, Justin. Though I’m still uncertain about what the definition of IP
> clearance process is.
The bit you quoted there is for an initial code base, it the second part of
that document you need to look at.
In short as well as the SGA you need to get signed ICLA from all of the
co
Hi,
> Thanks for clarifying. All contributors who made more than 10 commits to
> msahdow before are committers of MXNet, so their ICLAs should already be on
> file: tqchen, bingxu, eric.xie, sxjscience, mli, yajiedesign [1]. If you
> think this is OK, one of the mentors or I can start the notif
Hi,
> Several peoples in below list are from Intel and I have added them into CC.
Has Intel signed a CCLA? And if so does it list people who are allowed to
contribute to this project? Are there any others on that list who employer’s
may need to also sign CCLAs if we don’t have them?
Thanks,
Ju
Hi,
I asked on the incubator vote but didn't get a reply.
Can the PPMC please explain why release candidates are being released in this
way, in particular by companies who employee MXnet PPMC members.
What steps will the PPMC will take to stop this from happening in the future?
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
In the case of Intel and other companies, it may be that their employee
contracts do not allow employees to contribute to OS projects. It more likely
that the contributor doesn’t own copyright of the code but their employer does.
A CCLA give a clear indication that the contributors are inta
Hi,
> Here's the second update. At the moment we are only missing ICLAs from 20
> (out of 70) contributors, accounting for 31 (out of 913) commits left.
IMO That's still a significant number of commits and people.
> Regarding whether the contributors are employed by a company that requires
> C
Hi,
Sorry if I'm mistaken (possible as I've not followed your project closely) but
to me this sounds like more part of the initial IP Clearance process. Podlings
can't make a release until that has been completed. [1]
Thanks,
Justin
P.S please CC on any replies as I'm not subscribed to this li
Hi,
I noticed you have edited the report after the due date and have broken the
formatting a little after I formatted it. Each line must have a maximum of 76
characters, would you mind fixing your section of the report?
Thanks,
Justin
Hi,
The incubator PMC would appreciated if you could complete the podling report on
time it's due on 2nd January in a few days. It takes time to prepare the
incubator report, have your mentors sign off the report and for the board to
review it, so it's best if you can get it in early.
Thanks,
Hi,
The report is due today. [1] If you cannot report this month, it will eb noted
in teh board report and you'll be asked to report next month.
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/January2019
Hi,
> I know there are some conditions under which Apache can distribute releases
> downstream.
Short version it's fine to distribute packages that consist of voted on ASF
releases, but you are not allowed to create and distribute packages that
contain un-released code.
See also [1]
Thanks,
J
Hi,
> 1) Reuse the old repo: https://github.com/dmlc/MXNet.jl
> It's under DMLC. I have the committer bit of this repo.
I'm not 100% sure that would be allowed from a branding/trademark perspective,
any distribution owned by a 3rd party can't be called "Apache MXNet".
> 2) A n
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 n
23 matches
Mail list logo
