OK, this has passed the PMC. I'll send it up to the Board.
-Grant
On Mar 22, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> This vote has passed:
> +1s: 11 (all but one are binding)
> +0: 1
>
> I'll submit to the PMC.
>
>
> On Mar 19, 2010, at 10:50 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
>> Per the earl
This vote has passed:
+1s: 11 (all but one are binding)
+0: 1
I'll submit to the PMC.
On Mar 19, 2010, at 10:50 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Per the earlier discussions, I'm calling a vote to submit the following
> resolution [1] to the Lucene PMC for consideration to then promote Mahout to
>
> [X] +1 I'm for Mahout being a TLP and the resolution below.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Definitely not at 1.0 ! (it still isn't there)
I first came to hadoop just after 0.15 came out which must have been shortly
after it became a TLP. The code worked, but was pretty wild and woolly if
you stepped into a dark corner.
I would say that hadoop had a much better defined mission than Ma
19 mar 2010 kl. 21.48 skrev Yonik Seeley:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Karl Wettin
wrote:
Perhaps wait for a 1.0?
Mahout seems to have a book in progress... not too shabby!
I hope I didn't seem to imply that Mahout is underdeveloped as I have
no such opinon. I do however say that
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Karl Wettin wrote:
>
> 19 mar 2010 kl. 15.50 skrev Grant Ingersoll:
>
>> Per the earlier discussions, I'm calling a vote to submit the following
>> resolution [1] to the Lucene PMC for consideration to then promote Mahout to
>> be a TLP.
>>
>> [] +1 I'm for Mahout
19 mar 2010 kl. 15.50 skrev Grant Ingersoll:
Per the earlier discussions, I'm calling a vote to submit the
following resolution [1] to the Lucene PMC for consideration to then
promote Mahout to be a TLP.
[] +1 I'm for Mahout being a TLP and the resolution below.
[X] 0 No opinion
[] -1 Bad
On Mar 19, 2010, at 2:07 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> We should probably keep this open long enough for Isabel to vote, but I
> think that we already have a clear majority (and nearly consensus).
Yep, it's a 72 hour vote, but all signs are positive.
>
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Ted Dunnin
We should probably keep this open long enough for Isabel to vote, but I
think that we already have a clear majority (and nearly consensus).
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
>
> +1 as well.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:23 AM, deneche abdelhakim
> wrote:
>
>> [x] +1 I'm f
+1 as well.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:23 AM, deneche abdelhakim wrote:
> [x] +1 I'm for Mahout being a TLP and the resolution below.
>
> On 3/19/10, Drew Farris wrote:
> > [x] +1 I'm for Mahout being a TLP and the resolution below.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Grant Ingersoll
>
[x] +1 I'm for Mahout being a TLP and the resolution below.
On 3/19/10, Drew Farris wrote:
> [x] +1 I'm for Mahout being a TLP and the resolution below.
>
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Grant Ingersoll
> wrote:
>
>>
>> [1]
>> X. Establish the Apache Mahout Project
>>
>> WHEREAS, the Boar
[x] +1 I'm for Mahout being a TLP and the resolution below.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
> [1]
> X. Establish the Apache Mahout Project
>
> WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best
> interests of the Foundation and consistent with the
> Foundat
OK, I think that my medication state justifies discharge from the
facility. Call me binding.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Note, this is really a committer vote to ask the Lucene PMC to discharge
> Mahout, so I'd consider all committer votes to be binding.
>
> -Grant
On Mar 19, 2010, at 10:50 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Per the earlier discussions, I'm calling a vote to submit the following
> resolution [1] to the Lucene PMC for consideration to then promote Mahout to
> be a TLP.
>
> [] +1 I'm for Mahout being a TLP and the resolution below.
Jeff Eastma
+1 Its about time :)
Note, this is really a committer vote to ask the Lucene PMC to discharge
Mahout, so I'd consider all committer votes to be binding.
-Grant
On Mar 19, 2010, at 11:05 AM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> My nonbinding vote is +1.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> Per
+1
-jake
+1 nonbinding
On 19 Mar 2010, at 15:05, Benson Margulies wrote:
> My nonbinding vote is +1.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> Per the earlier discussions, I'm calling a vote to submit the following
>> resolution [1] to the Lucene PMC for consideration to then p
My nonbinding vote is +1.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Per the earlier discussions, I'm calling a vote to submit the following
> resolution [1] to the Lucene PMC for consideration to then promote Mahout to
> be a TLP.
>
> [] +1 I'm for Mahout being a TLP and the
[X] +1 I'm for Mahout being a TLP and the resolution below.
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> [] +1 I'm for Mahout being a TLP and the resolution below.
Here's my vote.
On Mar 19, 2010, at 10:50 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Per the earlier discussions, I'm calling a vote to submit the following
> resolution [1] to the Lucene PMC for consideration to then promote Mahout to
> be a TLP.
>
> [x] +1 I'm for Mahout being a TLP and the resolution be
Per the earlier discussions, I'm calling a vote to submit the following
resolution [1] to the Lucene PMC for consideration to then promote Mahout to be
a TLP.
[] +1 I'm for Mahout being a TLP and the resolution below.
[] 0 No opinion
[] -1 Bad idea. Please give justification.
Majority wins (i
+1 on Isabel's comments.
Isabel Drost wrote:
On Sat Grant Ingersoll wrote:
I don't see any harm in getting 0.3 out first if that makes folks
more comfortable.
Yeah, this feels better to me the more I think about it.
+1 from me as well: I really like the idea of Mahout becomi
+1
On Sat Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> > I don't see any harm in getting 0.3 out first if that makes folks
> > more comfortable.
>
> Yeah, this feels better to me the more I think about it.
+1 from me as well: I really like the idea of Mahout becoming a TLP -
even before a 1.0 release is available.
Ho
On Feb 13, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> The ongoing admin is really no big deal. The PMC has to report to the
> board once a month.
Once a quarter normally.
> As Grant noted, the initial work is mostly a gift
> from infra.
>
> I don't see any harm in getting 0.3 out first if tha
The ongoing admin is really no big deal. The PMC has to report to the
board once a month. As Grant noted, the initial work is mostly a gift
from infra.
I don't see any harm in getting 0.3 out first if that makes folks more
comfortable.
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Drew Farris wrote:
> I ca
I can't say that I really understand the issues (if there are any) of
the Mahout project running under Lucene's PMC vs. a Mahout PMC, but it
sounds like that would be a big factor in deciding whether the project
should be migrated to its own TLP, eg: if Mahout discussions took up a
significant port
+1 to waiting.
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 4:45 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> In the end, I still am +1, but think it makes sense to wait until after
> 0.3. Besides, since the next board meeting is Wednesday, this will give us
> more time to think about it.
>
--
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve
All valid points by the many who have responded. Thanks!
When I woke up this morning, I thought maybe we should postpone until 0.3 is
out, so it is good to see this expressed here as well.
As for concerns about overhead, infra@ will take care of most of the heavy
lifting (new mailing lists,
As a lurker around in this community and an active user myself,
expressing mine for whatever it is worth.
I am happy with the decoupling of ML from Search, with the former
warranting a separate attention to itself. So, +1 on this happening
eventually to be more independent, but my reservation
So I'm strongly in favor of getting to decide our own destiny, so in
that sense I'm very much a +1 for this. Ditto for the option to
create sub-projects. Then there's the simple fact that we are not
in any real way a project that *belongs* as part of "Lucene" in the
long run.
What makes me ambiv
Presumably one of the benefits of this will be fewer +0 votes on Mahout
issues due to fewer Lucene centric folks to don't follow our machinations.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Benson Margulies wrote:
> 1) Mahout has it's own PMC. That group will vote on committers,
> releases, and other legal
TLP-itude means the following:
1) Mahout has it's own PMC. That group will vote on committers,
releases, and other legal issues.
Funny, it's a short list, isn't it? There are many things we might
want to do that will be easier to organize if it's just 'us chickens'
that have to decide, not that t
My ambivalence has to do with uncertainties, mostly. I don't have a clear
idea of what will change. It seems like very little, but there is some
overhead.
It still seems like a good move regardless of what I don't know.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Jake Mannix wrote:
> What are your ambiv
What are your ambivalencies, Ted? I'm a little split myself, but all of my
"cons"
are very fuzzy and hard to articulate (mainly around timing).
Could you spell out why your +1 is any weaker than it could be?
-jake
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Ted Dunning wrote:
> I am a bit ambivalent,
I am a bit ambivalent, but net +1 on this. The deciding factor for me is
that it makes it easier to express the sub-projects.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Dawid Weiss wrote:
> > 1. We'd like to organize several subprojects we wish to introduce (Core,
> NLP, Recommenders/Taste, Ports - C++,
> 1. We'd like to organize several subprojects we wish to introduce (Core,
> NLP, Recommenders/Taste, Ports - C++, etc.) that wouldn't really fit as
> Lucene subprojects.
And the collections package, vectors, verification and evaluation
code, potential test data sets... yes, makes sense to make
As many of you know, Mahout has been growing pretty quickly and has also
reached a critical mass. I, along with some others in the Mahout community,
feel it would make sense for Mahout to become a TLP With this in mind, I've
submitted a proposal to the Lucene PMC to ask the board to make Mahou
39 matches
Mail list logo
