Re: [DISCUSS] Move Apache DataSketches Proposal Draft to Wiki

[leerho]

I can read but I cannot make a few formatting changes.  Also, in the sorted
list of Project Proposals the entry for DataSketchesProposal is
misspelled.

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 7:37 PM Kenneth Knowles  wrote:

> Sounds good to me. I read it one more time. My comments should not be seen
> as blocking comments, but just commentary and curiosity.
>
> Do you have a Wiki account?
> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ProjectProposals
>
> Kenn
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 4:58 PM lee...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> > This draft proposal has been available as a Google Doc (
> > https://s.apache.org/datasketches-proposal-draft) since Monday, Feb 25th
> > and has been stable with no new comments since Wednesday, Feb 27th.
> >
> > I would like to propose we move the document to the Wiki and hold a vote
> > soon.
> >
> > If there are no objections, then I will need help moving it to the Wiki,
> > since I don't have permission to do that.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Lee.
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates))

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> I agree that it's not ideal but it is not a symptom of a big problem either. 
> We have inactive IPMC members who might become active again later if a 
> community wants to join the incubator but it's a hassle to leave and then 
> join again. 

Some context, over 300 projects have gone through the incubator, 50 are there 
currently, each requires a champion and 3 mentors at the start (all IPMC 
members), even with some mentors working on multiple podling it's not 
surprising the IPMC is 300 people or so. Nor should it be that a large number 
of them are inactive as most of the projects they were involved in have 
graduated (or retired). But despite this some still think it is an issue so we 
IMO we should address it, unless they change their minds, and say so here.

Thanks,
Justin

Re: [DISCUSS] Move Apache DataSketches Proposal Draft to Wiki

[Kenneth Knowles]

Sounds good to me. I read it one more time. My comments should not be seen
as blocking comments, but just commentary and curiosity.

Do you have a Wiki account?
https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ProjectProposals

Kenn

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 4:58 PM lee...@gmail.com  wrote:

> This draft proposal has been available as a Google Doc (
> https://s.apache.org/datasketches-proposal-draft) since Monday, Feb 25th
> and has been stable with no new comments since Wednesday, Feb 27th.
>
> I would like to propose we move the document to the Wiki and hold a vote
> soon.
>
> If there are no objections, then I will need help moving it to the Wiki,
> since I don't have permission to do that.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lee.
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

[DISCUSS] Move Apache DataSketches Proposal Draft to Wiki

[leerho]

This draft proposal has been available as a Google Doc 
(https://s.apache.org/datasketches-proposal-draft) since Monday, Feb 25th and 
has been stable with no new comments since Wednesday, Feb 27th. 

I would like to propose we move the document to the Wiki and hold a vote soon.

If there are no objections, then I will need help moving it to the Wiki, since 
I don't have permission to do that.

Thanks,

Lee.



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

Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates))

[Craig Russell]

Lots to distill here...

> On Mar 1, 2019, at 2:15 PM, Justin Mclean  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for taking to time to distill this.
> 
>> Many PMCs contain what could be called inactive PMC members. The concern is 
>> if that makes any difference or impedes the active IPMC members. I’m not 
>> sure how inactive IPMC members are impacting the functioning of the IPMC.
> 
> I also don’t think it is a concern, but as others have raised it as one, and 
> it’s something that can be easily changed (and undone if needed). Small 
> reversible steps and all that.

I agree that it's not ideal but it is not a symptom of a big problem either. We 
have inactive IPMC members who might become active again later if a community 
wants to join the incubator but it's a hassle to leave and then join again. 
> 
>> (1) The purpose of the Incubator is to introduce project communities of 
>> individuals to The Apache Way and help them come into alignment with those 
>> principles.
> 
> +1
> 
>> Currently, I think that the "Legal Shield” value has been elevated above the 
>> Community aspect.Communities are harmed because coming to the ASF can be a 
>> sharp, direct change in how they operate and this is a negative disruption. 
>> In some podlings the Community aspect of the Apache Way is harder than Legal 
>> and in others Legal is harder.
> 
> Do we need to ask the board to spend more on the legal shield? (I don't know 
> what we pay now or how it is worded.) Do these suggested changes required it 
> to be changed? Or do we make need to make podlings aware that they do not 
> have legal protections if's might assume they have?

From my perspective, the legal issues discussed here are overblown. By the time 
a podling graduates, they have to learn how to make a perfect release. During 
incubation, they have to make releases, not all of which have to be perfect. 
That's what we need to keep in mind. The podling releases have a disclaimer 
that the releases may not be perfect.

So my takeaway is that we should give podlings a bit more leeway on their first 
(few) releases. Nothing bad will happen by noting what needs to be changed but 
letting out the release. As long as the podling shows that they can fix bad 
releases in the next cycle, all's good.

But I don't think we gain anything by trying to bypass the three +1 rule for 
releases. The IPMC must approve releases according to the rules that every PMC 
has to adhere to. If the mentors are doing their job, podling releases should 
have had a good review before coming to the IPMC for approval. And if there are 
three mentors voting on the dev list, they can decide if a "bad" podling 
release should block external review/release. Once a podling has three mentor 
reviews and three mentor +1 votes, the IPMC should step back.

But if a podling can't get their mentors to review and vote, that is the 
problem we should focus on. But if the larger IPMC needs to review a podling 
release because mentors have not done, we should give them a bit more leeway 
and allow e.g. binaries in the release, old copyright notices in code, license 
files with too much information. As long as the podling understands (in 
writing) why these are issues.
> 
>> To graduate both must be accomplished.
> 
> +1
> 
>> (2) With this service orientation what are the duties of Mentors? Here is my 
>> non exhaustive list.
>> - Boot the Podling Community by making sure that podling community is setup 
>> in Apache Infra with Mailing Lists, CLAs, SGAs, LDAP, Code Repositories, 
>> Issue Trackers, etc. 
>> - Make sure that decisions are memorialized on the Mailing Lists and how 
>> that benefits the community.
>> - Make sure that the PPMC is recognizing contributors and growing the 
>> community.
>> - Make sure that the podling’s releases meet ASF Legal, Distribution and 
>> Release policies and why that is important.

I'd restate this: Review podling releases and document the deficiencies. Help 
move toward perfection.

>> - Make sure that the podling understands Branding issues in order to protect 
>> their community.
>> - Make sure that the podling understands the ASF committee structure in 
>> order to find services.
>> - Do all of the above in a gentle, respectful manner.
>> - Keep track of the above to protect the podling.
>> - Guide the podling in how to report to the IPMC (and later the Board)
>> - Defend the podling if the IPMC or Apache is too demanding.
> 
> Great list I’d also add:
> - Make sure the podling acts in a way that’s free from corporate influence
> - That the podling acts in a respectful manner to people on it list and the 
> wider ASF and is aware of our code of conduct
> - Makes sure they understand consensus and when to (and not to) vote
> - Make sure that releases are repeatable and the knowledge of how to do them 
> captured

i.e. Document the release process in a public place.

> - That they recognises and vote in new committers and PPMC members
> - No BDFY in the making
> - Comply with 

Re: [Cava] Suitable name search - choosing a name

[Antoine Toulme]

Perfect, thank you.

> On Mar 1, 2019, at 3:17 PM, Daniel Shahaf  wrote:
> 
> Antoine Toulme wrote on Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 15:09:39 -0800:
>> I am happy to mention that you mentioned this term on list.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>> What language should I use?
> 
> The public part of PNS tickets should be factual, so I'd say:
> .
>"In the _Star Wars_ universe there exists a character named Obi-Wan Kenobi"
> .
> with a link to Wikipedia for good measure.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Daniel
> 
>>> On Mar 1, 2019, at 3:06 PM, Daniel Shahaf  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Antoine Toulme wrote on Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 09:10:08 -0800:
 I’ll open a pooling name search ticket for Obiwarn and will test the 
 waters over there.
>>> 
>>> When you create a PNS ticket, please note on it the existence of
>>> .
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 


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

Re: [Cava] Suitable name search - choosing a name

[Daniel Shahaf]

Antoine Toulme wrote on Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 15:09:39 -0800:
> I am happy to mention that you mentioned this term on list.

Thanks.

> What language should I use?

The public part of PNS tickets should be factual, so I'd say:
.
"In the _Star Wars_ universe there exists a character named Obi-Wan Kenobi"
.
with a link to Wikipedia for good measure.

Cheers,

Daniel

> > On Mar 1, 2019, at 3:06 PM, Daniel Shahaf  wrote:
> > 
> > Antoine Toulme wrote on Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 09:10:08 -0800:
> >> I’ll open a pooling name search ticket for Obiwarn and will test the 
> >> waters over there.
> > 
> > When you create a PNS ticket, please note on it the existence of
> > .

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

Re: [Cava] Suitable name search - choosing a name

[Antoine Toulme]

Hello Daniel,

I am happy to mention that you mentioned this term on list. Are you inferring 
something? What language should I use?

> On Mar 1, 2019, at 3:06 PM, Daniel Shahaf  wrote:
> 
> Antoine Toulme wrote on Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 09:10:08 -0800:
>> I’ll open a pooling name search ticket for Obiwarn and will test the waters 
>> over there.
> 
> When you create a PNS ticket, please note on it the existence of
> .
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Daniel
> 
> P.S. Mentors, you may wish to create a private@ list now in order to enable 
> the
> PPMC to engage with trademarks@ directly.
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 


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

Re: [Cava] Suitable name search - choosing a name

[Daniel Shahaf]

Antoine Toulme wrote on Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 09:10:08 -0800:
> I’ll open a pooling name search ticket for Obiwarn and will test the waters 
> over there.

When you create a PNS ticket, please note on it the existence of
.

Cheers,

Daniel

P.S. Mentors, you may wish to create a private@ list now in order to enable the
PPMC to engage with trademarks@ directly.

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

Re: [DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates))

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

Thanks for taking to time to distill this.

> Many PMCs contain what could be called inactive PMC members. The concern is 
> if that makes any difference or impedes the active IPMC members. I’m not sure 
> how inactive IPMC members are impacting the functioning of the IPMC.

I also don’t think it is a concern, but as others have raised it as one, and 
it’s something that can be easily changed (and undone if needed). Small 
reversible steps and all that.

> (1) The purpose of the Incubator is to introduce project communities of 
> individuals to The Apache Way and help them come into alignment with those 
> principles.

+1

> Currently, I think that the "Legal Shield” value has been elevated above the 
> Community aspect.Communities are harmed because coming to the ASF can be a 
> sharp, direct change in how they operate and this is a negative disruption. 
> In some podlings the Community aspect of the Apache Way is harder than Legal 
> and in others Legal is harder.

Do we need to ask the board to spend more on the legal shield? (I don't know 
what we pay now or how it is worded.) Do these suggested changes required it to 
be changed? Or do we make need to make podlings aware that they do not have 
legal protections if's might assume they have?

> To graduate both must be accomplished.

+1

> (2) With this service orientation what are the duties of Mentors? Here is my 
> non exhaustive list.
> - Boot the Podling Community by making sure that podling community is setup 
> in Apache Infra with Mailing Lists, CLAs, SGAs, LDAP, Code Repositories, 
> Issue Trackers, etc. 
> - Make sure that decisions are memorialized on the Mailing Lists and how that 
> benefits the community.
> - Make sure that the PPMC is recognizing contributors and growing the 
> community.
> - Make sure that the podling’s releases meet ASF Legal, Distribution and 
> Release policies and why that is important.
> - Make sure that the podling understands Branding issues in order to protect 
> their community.
> - Make sure that the podling understands the ASF committee structure in order 
> to find services.
> - Do all of the above in a gentle, respectful manner.
> - Keep track of the above to protect the podling.
> - Guide the podling in how to report to the IPMC (and later the Board)
> - Defend the podling if the IPMC or Apache is too demanding.

Great list I’d also add:
- Make sure the podling acts in a way that’s free from corporate influence
- That the podling acts in a respectful manner to people on it list and the 
wider ASF and is aware of our code of conduct
- Makes sure they understand consensus and when to (and not to) vote
- Make sure that releases are repeatable and the knowledge of how to do them 
captured
- That they recognises and vote in new committers and PPMC members
- No BDFY in the making
- Comply with incubator policy on making press releases while in incubation 
(see corporate influence)
- They don’t get avoid the ASF release policy by making release elsewhere and 
call those ASF releases.

And there probably a few other things that have slipped my mind.

For the suggested changed it may be best to separate them out and have seperate 
discussion and votes on each.

> (A) On general@ replace [VOTE] on releases with [DISCUSS] or [REVIEW]. The 
> podling would do the release and the review would consist of both Release and 
> Distribution Policy compliance.
> - 3 or more PPMC votes are still required.
> - It is an open question about how many IPMC votes we should require. Is it 
> 0, 1, or 3?

I would say 3, lets not added yet another voting method, podling (and it seems 
old ASF members) get confused as it is.

> (B) Explicitly evaluate Podling Proposals for the following:
> - if the PPMC has several Apache Members the IPMC should recommend direct to 
> TLP.
> - explicitly make sure that
>   (i) there is at least one mentor who is experienced via successful 
> incubation.
>   (ii) that the mentors all have a clear understanding of the Apache Way.
>   (iii) that they currently have enough free time to do the necessary 
> work.
> - confirm what SGAs will be required and assure that these will be signed 
> quickly. (Podlings and Mentors have trouble if it takes the better part of a 
> year for the SGA to happen.)
> - the above may require updates to the proposal template.

+1

> (C) Formalize the Shepherd role as follows.
> - Permanently assign a Shepherd to every podling.
> - The shepherd tracks mentor engagement.
> - The shepherd tracks progress of podlings and updates the 
> content/podlings/${podling}.yml file.
> - The shepherd “sends” report reminders and is a backstop for the Mentors. 
> - Shepherds are IPMC members whose touch is generally very light like the 
> Board is with TLPs

Podling already have shepherd they don’t tend to do much (with some exceptions) 
and we have a shortage of them. How do we recruit more / ensure they do the 
task they are assigned? Do we require sign off from them on the 

[DISCUSS] Responsibilities and Improvements (was: Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: .... introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling ... release candidates))

[Dave Fisher]

Hi -

> On Mar 1, 2019, at 7:23 AM, Kevin A. McGrail  wrote:
> 
> On 3/1/2019 5:12 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>>> The Board isn't gonna worry about something like that.
>> I wasn’t expecting the board to say anything re that, but the IPMC could of.

Many PMCs contain what could be called inactive PMC members. The concern is if 
that makes any difference or impedes the active IPMC members. I’m not sure how 
inactive IPMC members are impacting the functioning of the IPMC.

Members who join just to vote on a Proposal ought to be (a) a proposed Mentor 
or (b) an initial PPMC member.

> 
> I personally don't know the impact of that statement either.  Sometimes
> opinion in a report and a call to action is helpful.
> 
> What can I do to help fix this issue?

A number of issues were raised in these threads. I don’t think that extra 
people on the IPMC is the issue with the highest priority. Davor and others 
raised some points around Mentors and what it means to be one. Myrle had an 
excellent incremental idea to soften the role of IPMC votes on releases to be 
advisory reviews. In addition, Jim clearly asks the real question of what value 
does the Incubator provide podlings? And is it serving its purpose and 
following The Apache Way.

With those issues in mind:

(1) The purpose of the Incubator is to introduce project communities of 
individuals to The Apache Way and help them come into alignment with those 
principles. Currently, I think that the "Legal Shield” value has been elevated 
above the Community aspect. Communities are harmed because coming to the ASF 
can be a sharp, direct change in how they operate and this is a negative 
disruption. In some podlings the Community aspect of the Apache Way is harder 
than Legal and in others Legal is harder. To graduate both must be 
accomplished. Some podlings are very successful while still in the Incubator 
while others atrophy.

(2) With this service orientation what are the duties of Mentors? Here is my 
non exhaustive list.
- Boot the Podling Community by making sure that podling community is setup in 
Apache Infra with Mailing Lists, CLAs, SGAs, LDAP, Code Repositories, Issue 
Trackers, etc. 
- Make sure that decisions are memorialized on the Mailing Lists and how that 
benefits the community.
- Make sure that the PPMC is recognizing contributors and growing the community.
- Make sure that the podling’s releases meet ASF Legal, Distribution and 
Release policies and why that is important.
- Make sure that the podling understands Branding issues in order to protect 
their community.
- Make sure that the podling understands the ASF committee structure in order 
to find services.
- Do all of the above in a gentle, respectful manner.
- Keep track of the above to protect the podling.
- Guide the podling in how to report to the IPMC (and later the Board)
- Defend the podling if the IPMC or Apache is too demanding.

Yes that is a big list and for each podling can be a large responsibility for a 
mentor. It’s a high bar and I am sure I don’t always succeed. Between the three 
or four mentors for a podling experience will tell us that one or two mentors 
will never engage and the longer it takes to boot the podling community the 
more who will drop. Some podling’s already have community members who 
understand The Apache Way and these do very well.

(3) With the above duties what are the responsibilities of the IPMC? Here is my 
list.
- Evaluate podling proposals and determine if the project is suitable.
- Make sure that podling Mentors are actively helping.
- Recruit more Mentors as needed.
- Tracking the progress of podlings towards graduation. Trust but verify 
reports.
- Review podling releases to assure that they trend towards alignment with 
Apache Policies.
- Recommend podling graduation to the Board.
- Retire podlings that are not viable or who wish to move on.
- Report to the Board.

I would like to suggest (repeat) some improvements. Some of these are more a 
change in emphasis.

(A) On general@ replace [VOTE] on releases with [DISCUSS] or [REVIEW]. The 
podling would do the release and the review would consist of both Release and 
Distribution Policy compliance.
- 3 or more PPMC votes are still required.
- It is an open question about how many IPMC votes we should require. Is it 0, 
1, or 3?

(B) Explicitly evaluate Podling Proposals for the following:
- if the PPMC has several Apache Members the IPMC should recommend direct to 
TLP.
- explicitly make sure that
(i) there is at least one mentor who is experienced via successful 
incubation.
(ii) that the mentors all have a clear understanding of the Apache Way.
(iii) that they currently have enough free time to do the necessary 
work.
- confirm what SGAs will be required and assure that these will be signed 
quickly. (Podlings and Mentors have trouble if it takes the better part of a 
year for the SGA to happen.)
- the above may require updates to the proposal template.

(C) 

Re: [Cava] Suitable name search - choosing a name

[Antoine Toulme]

Thanks Jim.

Hat tip to Jonny who joined the list just to make this contribution.
Jonny is a committer on the project and will participate a new initial 
committer to the project at Apache.
It’s his first involvement with Apache, please welcome him to the fray!

How about this:
I’ll open a pooling name search ticket for Obiwarn and will test the waters 
over there.
Meanwhile, if you have a strong objection, please let it be known here.

Cheers,

Antoine


> On Mar 1, 2019, at 4:47 AM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> either works for me.
> 
>> On Feb 28, 2019, at 6:07 PM, Antoine Toulme  wrote:
>> 
>> I’ll change my vote.
>> 
>> +1 to Obiwarn.
>> 
>>> On Feb 28, 2019, at 3:04 PM, jonathan.r...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> -1 to Bava
>>> How about Obiwarn. it is an anagram for rainbow and it sounds cool. 
>>> 
>>> On 2019/02/28 22:20:00, Kenneth Knowles  wrote: 
 +1 to Bava
 
 On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:11 PM Antoine Toulme  wrote:
 
> +1 for Bava. Checking usage now.
> 
> https://github.com/search?o=desc=bava
> No repo using the name or active. Most repos hobbyists.
> 
> Google code:
> https://opensource.google.com/projects/search?q=bava
> No hits
> 
> Sourceforge:
> https://sourceforge.net/directory/os:mac/?q=bava
> No hits
> 
> Openhub:
> https://www.openhub.net/p?ref=homepage=bava
> 2 hits. But https://www.openhub.net/p/bava is empty with no code.
> 
> Trademarks:
> https://www.trademarkia.com/trademarks-search.aspx?tn=bava
> No hits in computer science domain
> 
> https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=bava
> No hits in computer science. Mostly sparkling wine.
> 
> USPTO:
> 
> http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc=4805%3Avniyw0.1.1_search=searchss_L=50=_plural=yes_s_PARA1=_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD=PARA1+AND+PARA2_s_PARA2=bava_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24COMB_op_ALL=AND_default=search_search=Submit+Query_search=Submit+Query
> 9 records found, 5 live. None about computer science.
> 
> Web presence:
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=bava=bava
> 12,100,000 results
> 
> Mostly about Mario Bava. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Bava Created
> the horror “slasher” film.
> 
> Bava also means god in Sri Lanka: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bava
> 
> Finally, Bava is a conjugation of the verb to drool in French.
> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bava
> 
> StackOverflow:
> https://stackoverflow.com/search?q=bava
> 14 results because a user’s last name is Bava.
> 
> LinkedIn: I found one company named Bava International Ltd. They
> specialize in apparel and fashion.
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/bava-international-ltd/about/
> 
> No matches in Oxford dictionary:
> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/search?filter=dictionary=bava
> 
> No matches on Spotify.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Antoine
> 
> 
>> On Feb 28, 2019, at 1:37 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>> 
>> What about Bava? Blockchain Java and no offensive meanings that I can
> find.
> 
> 
 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 


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

Re: Apache OpenWhisk Composer 0.10.0 (incubating) Released

[Matt Rutkowski]

Dave,

Thanks for all your work to achieve this and congratulations!

Kind regards,
Matt 



From:   "David P Grove" 
To: "OpenWhisk Dev" 
Cc: general 
Date:   02/28/2019 08:38 AM
Subject:Apache OpenWhisk Composer 0.10.0 (incubating) Released




The Apache OpenWhisk project is happy to announce the release of Apache
OpenWhisk Composer 0.10.0 (incubating).

Apache OpenWhisk Composer is a new programming model for composing cloud
functions built on Apache OpenWhisk.
Key features of the 0.10.0 release of Composer include:
 + New parallel and map combinators to run compositions in 
parallel
using a Redis instance to store intermediate results.
 + New dynamic combinator to invoke an action with a name 
chosen at
run time.

For download links, please see the Apache OpenWhisk Project Downloads page
at 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__openwhisk.incubator.apache.org_downloads.html=DwIFAg=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=6zQLM7Gc0Sv1iwayKOKa4_SFxRIxS478q2gZlAJj4Zw=B5b4Xx952TqAW7o_L9epKkzWHOnmsKCb3s-1zAlgiIA=nuNfbydy3-UiwYhp155NPyC5RGMKBmsUS2QID1qWEQY=

Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: [DISCUSS] introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling non-ASF release candidates)

[Lars Francke]

Greg,

thank you for taking the time to elaborate. I'm afraid I still don't
understand.

I understand that this is how it's currently set up. But these are our
rules, we can change them. There's no law involved here, right?

The way I see it: One problem we're trying to solve is too many people in
the Incubator IPMC, and if there are lots of ASF members in the IPMC just
so they can vote on new podlings let's make a new rule that members are
allowed to vote on it without joining the IPMC. Joining is just an
administrative process the way it is set up now. There's no merit involved
(other than the merit that needs to be proven to become a member in the
first place).

But there's a good chance I still misunderstand.

Cheers,
Lars

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 4:20 PM Greg Stein  wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 9:04 AM Lars Francke 
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:05 PM Greg Stein  wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 7:00 AM Lars Francke 
> > > wrote:
> > > >...
> > >
> > > > As far as I know every member can become IPMC member. So if we change
> > the
> > > > rules that every member vote is binding (whether or not they are in
> the
> > > > IPMC) people wouldn't need to join the club.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The legal structure passes through the IPMC. Members are irrelevant in
> > this
> > > scenario.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand. But either way I don't believe members are
> > irrelevant. Looking at the Incubator site[1] it says "Foundation members
> > may willingly join the IPMC at any time, [...]" and if they do only to
> vote
> > but not to participate in any other way then that would be one way to
> > reduce membership (by allowing them to vote without being IPMC members)
> >
> > Maybe you can rephrase your comment for me? I may misunderstand.
> >
>
> The legal structure of the Foundation is built upon oversight from the
> Board, to the PMCs, to the communities. The individuals who reside within
> the IPMC are ... individuals.
>
> If Members happen to be individuals that are participating within the IPMC,
> that is wholly orthogonal to everything constructed. Yes, the IPMC gives
> them preferential treatment to *join* the IPMC, but they are peers, just
> like every other person in the community.
>
> The legal structure is built upon a PMC providing (3) +1 votes on a
> release. To be clear: PMC Members. Those with responsibility around the
> community producing the release.
>
> Foundation Members have zero say in any of the technical communities. None.
> They must earn their merit, and join a PMC to get a binding vote. Their
> Membership in the Foundation does not give them any privilege. So, no... a
> Foundation Member should not get a privileged vote within the Incubator
> PMC.
>
> Expand it more broadly: the Board is the representative group of the
> Members. They completely and actively shun any attempt to direct/vote in
> the technical communities. There are two very distinct groups: those in the
> technical communities, and those assisting with the Foundation's
> administrative side. Members are in the latter, and they should not get a
> vote in Incubator/podling releases. They must *join* the technical
> community, via merit, to be afforded that right.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>

Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: [DISCUSS] introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling non-ASF release candidates)

[Kevin A. McGrail]

On 3/1/2019 5:12 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
>> The Board isn't gonna worry about something like that.
> I wasn’t expecting the board to say anything re that, but the IPMC could of.

I personally don't know the impact of that statement either.  Sometimes
opinion in a report and a call to action is helpful.

What can I do to help fix this issue?

-- 
Kevin A. McGrail
Member, Apache Software Foundation
Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171

Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: [DISCUSS] introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling non-ASF release candidates)

[Greg Stein]

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 9:04 AM Lars Francke  wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:05 PM Greg Stein  wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 7:00 AM Lars Francke 
> > wrote:
> > >...
> >
> > > As far as I know every member can become IPMC member. So if we change
> the
> > > rules that every member vote is binding (whether or not they are in the
> > > IPMC) people wouldn't need to join the club.
> > >
> >
> > The legal structure passes through the IPMC. Members are irrelevant in
> this
> > scenario.
> >
>
> I'm not sure I understand. But either way I don't believe members are
> irrelevant. Looking at the Incubator site[1] it says "Foundation members
> may willingly join the IPMC at any time, [...]" and if they do only to vote
> but not to participate in any other way then that would be one way to
> reduce membership (by allowing them to vote without being IPMC members)
>
> Maybe you can rephrase your comment for me? I may misunderstand.
>

The legal structure of the Foundation is built upon oversight from the
Board, to the PMCs, to the communities. The individuals who reside within
the IPMC are ... individuals.

If Members happen to be individuals that are participating within the IPMC,
that is wholly orthogonal to everything constructed. Yes, the IPMC gives
them preferential treatment to *join* the IPMC, but they are peers, just
like every other person in the community.

The legal structure is built upon a PMC providing (3) +1 votes on a
release. To be clear: PMC Members. Those with responsibility around the
community producing the release.

Foundation Members have zero say in any of the technical communities. None.
They must earn their merit, and join a PMC to get a binding vote. Their
Membership in the Foundation does not give them any privilege. So, no... a
Foundation Member should not get a privileged vote within the Incubator PMC.

Expand it more broadly: the Board is the representative group of the
Members. They completely and actively shun any attempt to direct/vote in
the technical communities. There are two very distinct groups: those in the
technical communities, and those assisting with the Foundation's
administrative side. Members are in the latter, and they should not get a
vote in Incubator/podling releases. They must *join* the technical
community, via merit, to be afforded that right.

Cheers,
-g

Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: [DISCUSS] introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling non-ASF release candidates)

[Lars Francke]

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:05 PM Greg Stein  wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 7:00 AM Lars Francke 
> wrote:
> >...
>
> > As far as I know every member can become IPMC member. So if we change the
> > rules that every member vote is binding (whether or not they are in the
> > IPMC) people wouldn't need to join the club.
> >
>
> The legal structure passes through the IPMC. Members are irrelevant in this
> scenario.
>

I'm not sure I understand. But either way I don't believe members are
irrelevant. Looking at the Incubator site[1] it says "Foundation members
may willingly join the IPMC at any time, [...]" and if they do only to vote
but not to participate in any other way then that would be one way to
reduce membership (by allowing them to vote without being IPMC members)

Maybe you can rephrase your comment for me? I may misunderstand.


>
> Cheers,
> -g
>

Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: [DISCUSS] introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling non-ASF release candidates)

[Greg Stein]

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 7:00 AM Lars Francke  wrote:
>...

> As far as I know every member can become IPMC member. So if we change the
> rules that every member vote is binding (whether or not they are in the
> IPMC) people wouldn't need to join the club.
>

The legal structure passes through the IPMC. Members are irrelevant in this
scenario.

Cheers,
-g

Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: [DISCUSS] introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling non-ASF release candidates)

[Lars Francke]

If only some people are like me they joined to support a specific podling
by giving their +1 on a vote. I did the same, then went silent for a year
or so and am only now starting to get interested in the Incubator workings
again.

Maybe if we could change the requirements on binding votes for podling
proposals we wouldn't need as many people in the IPMC?
As far as I know every member can become IPMC member. So if we change the
rules that every member vote is binding (whether or not they are in the
IPMC) people wouldn't need to join the club.

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 1:50 PM Myrle Krantz  wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:33 AM Justin Mclean 
> wrote:
>
> >
> > And most probably do not participate. Would asking for those 100 odd
> > people to be removed come across as friendly?
> >
>
> I'd be +1 on removing them.  a.) While kindness towards our fellow PMC
> members is important, the role of the Incubator is to be friendly to
> incoming projects. b.) It's not unkind to our fellow PMC members.  They are
> welcome to come back when they're ready.
>
> But I also don't think it's going to solve anything.  Those people aren't
> contributing to solutions *or* problems.
>
> Best,
> Myrle
>

Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: [DISCUSS] introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling non-ASF release candidates)

[Myrle Krantz]

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:33 AM Justin Mclean 
wrote:

>
> And most probably do not participate. Would asking for those 100 odd
> people to be removed come across as friendly?
>

I'd be +1 on removing them.  a.) While kindness towards our fellow PMC
members is important, the role of the Incubator is to be friendly to
incoming projects. b.) It's not unkind to our fellow PMC members.  They are
welcome to come back when they're ready.

But I also don't think it's going to solve anything.  Those people aren't
contributing to solutions *or* problems.

Best,
Myrle

Re: [Cava] Suitable name search - choosing a name

[Jim Jagielski]

either works for me.

> On Feb 28, 2019, at 6:07 PM, Antoine Toulme  wrote:
> 
> I’ll change my vote.
> 
> +1 to Obiwarn.
> 
>> On Feb 28, 2019, at 3:04 PM, jonathan.r...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>> -1 to Bava
>> How about Obiwarn. it is an anagram for rainbow and it sounds cool. 
>> 
>> On 2019/02/28 22:20:00, Kenneth Knowles  wrote: 
>>> +1 to Bava
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:11 PM Antoine Toulme  wrote:
>>> 
 +1 for Bava. Checking usage now.
 
 https://github.com/search?o=desc=bava
 No repo using the name or active. Most repos hobbyists.
 
 Google code:
 https://opensource.google.com/projects/search?q=bava
 No hits
 
 Sourceforge:
 https://sourceforge.net/directory/os:mac/?q=bava
 No hits
 
 Openhub:
 https://www.openhub.net/p?ref=homepage=bava
 2 hits. But https://www.openhub.net/p/bava is empty with no code.
 
 Trademarks:
 https://www.trademarkia.com/trademarks-search.aspx?tn=bava
 No hits in computer science domain
 
 https://trademarks.justia.com/search?q=bava
 No hits in computer science. Mostly sparkling wine.
 
 USPTO:
 
 http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc=4805%3Avniyw0.1.1_search=searchss_L=50=_plural=yes_s_PARA1=_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD=PARA1+AND+PARA2_s_PARA2=bava_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24COMB_op_ALL=AND_default=search_search=Submit+Query_search=Submit+Query
 9 records found, 5 live. None about computer science.
 
 Web presence:
 
 https://www.google.com/search?q=bava=bava
 12,100,000 results
 
 Mostly about Mario Bava. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Bava Created
 the horror “slasher” film.
 
 Bava also means god in Sri Lanka: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bava
 
 Finally, Bava is a conjugation of the verb to drool in French.
 https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bava
 
 StackOverflow:
 https://stackoverflow.com/search?q=bava
 14 results because a user’s last name is Bava.
 
 LinkedIn: I found one company named Bava International Ltd. They
 specialize in apparel and fashion.
 https://www.linkedin.com/company/bava-international-ltd/about/
 
 No matches in Oxford dictionary:
 https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/search?filter=dictionary=bava
 
 No matches on Spotify.
 
 Cheers,
 
 Antoine
 
 
> On Feb 28, 2019, at 1:37 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
> 
> What about Bava? Blockchain Java and no offensive meanings that I can
 find.
 
 
>>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>> 
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 


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

Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: [DISCUSS] introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling non-ASF release candidates)

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> The Board isn't gonna worry about something like that.

I wasn’t expecting the board to say anything re that, but the IPMC could of.

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

Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: [DISCUSS] introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling non-ASF release candidates)

[Greg Stein]

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 3:30 AM Justin Mclean 
wrote:
>...

> When it was mentioned in the board report it got no comments. [1]
>
> "A large number (100+) of IPMC members are not signed up to the private
> mail
> list, each was sent emails asking them to sign up. A couple asked to be
> removed from IPMC but the majority of those contacted have not signed up.
> There's probably not much more that can be done about this."
>

The Board isn't gonna worry about something like that. If you say "this is
causing problems", *then* they'll ask how the community plans to solve it.
 PMCs are expected to be self-policing until something really goes off
the rails. The above report doesn't suggest such, and you "meh" closer
reinforces that.

Cheers,
-g

Re: [VOTE] Accept Apache TVM into the incubator

[Huxing Zhang]

Hi,

+1 (non-binding) Welcome!

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:44 PM Markus Weimer  wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> we've discussed the proposal for the TVM project in [1]. The proposal itself 
> can
> be found on the wiki [2].
>
> According to the Incubator rules[3] I'd like to call a vote to accept the new
> TVM project as a podling in the Apache Incubator.
>
> A vote for accepting a new Apache Incubator podling is a majority vote. 
> Everyone
> is welcome to vote, only Incubator PMC member votes are binding. It would be
> helpful (but not required) if you could add a comment stating whether your 
> vote
> is binding or non-binding.
>
> This vote will run for at least 72 hours (but I expect to keep it open for
> longer). Please VOTE as follows:
>
> [ ] +1 Accept TVM into the Apache Incubator
> [ ] +0 Abstain
> [ ] -1 Do not accept TVM into the Apache Incubator because ...
>
> Thank you for everyone who decided to join in in the past discussions!
>
> Markus
>
> [1]: 
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/e2b1fe9ca76422ec80b146a6b120091f2419e2f1c27d57080f39cf6f@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
>
> [2]: https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/TVMProposal
>
> [3]: https://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#the_vote
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>


-- 
Best Regards！
Huxing

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

Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: [DISCUSS] introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling non-ASF release candidates)

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

> And haven't we *just* been talking about have too many cooks in the
> kitchen? Too much drive-by and bikeshedding?

I would guess that none participate in either lists but I guess we’ll find out.

> ... I see zero problem trimming a hundred people out of the IPMC. The very 
> concept of 200+ PMC
> Members is kind of self-explanatory broken.

OK I’m put to the IPMC and if people agree they should be removed I go ahead 
and do that. As merit doesn’t expire they can ask to be added back if they want 
to be involved. 

When it was mentioned in the board report it got no comments. [1]

"A large number (100+) of IPMC members are not signed up to the private mail
list, each was sent emails asking them to sign up. A couple asked to be
removed from IPMC but the majority of those contacted have not signed up.
There's probably not much more that can be done about this."

Thanks,
Justin

1. 
http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2018/board_minutes_2018_12_19.txt
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Whimsy general@ subs check (was: [DISCUSS] introduce "[DISCUSS]" threads for podling non-ASF release candidates)

[Greg Stein]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 5:33 PM Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Ask the Board to remove them. To participate on the IPMC, you should be
> subscribed to private@
>
> At first glance you would be asking to remove yourself btw :-)
>

hahaha... look, rather than glance :-) ... I've been subscribed to
private@incubator since it was created in 2002. Damned youngster!  (just
grep for gstein)


> However I assume some IPMC members use lists.apache.org or perhaps are
> listed under a different email (which is your case I think).
>

Then make them state that explicitly. And also recognize that reading
archives is passive. You're not handling Committee email reactively.

And most probably do not participate. Would asking for those 100 odd people
> to be removed come across as friendly?


So? "I want to be on the IPMC" "Are you going to participate?" "No." "Then
g'bye."

And haven't we *just* been talking about have too many cooks in the
kitchen? Too much drive-by and bikeshedding? ... I see zero problem
trimming a hundred people out of the IPMC. The very concept of 200+ PMC
Members is kind of self-explanatory broken.

Cheers,
-g