Hi all, @vongosling <fengji...@gmail.com> "I'm more concerned about the activities of our community than that. Our mailing list doesn't seem to see the voice of discussion."
My concerns about the community discussions, and partly why I don't use this to communicate with Josh (besides what Josh has stated above), are the expectations that I don't know. Please, if there is a document that covers this, point me to it. - What is expected that we discuss here? What level of granularity? What details? There can be a lot of noise generated with constant emails that will completely obscure important discussions. - Are we expected to wait for others to give their input for all of our discussions? How long are we expected to wait for a response before going ahead? There can be decisions that need to be communicated promptly. Waiting for a comment could be pointless and not waiting might give the appearance of not caring about others input. I do understand that most may be volunteers and I mean no disrespect. However, I do feel that it is necessary to point out that our team members aren't volunteers - this is actually our job. So, while it might not be important to others to give, or have, a prompt response, for us it can be vital. I hope this conveys my questions and concerns. Thank you for your input in advance, John On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 7:33 PM Josh Innis <joshin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Felix, > > John and I were friends before working together, so we are used to > discussing things privately; also we have a Google Hangouts forum we use > when we wanna talk to each other. When our project was donated to Apache we > decided to move all necessary communication to the Slack channel you are > included in. In retrospect, all we post there are patches that John and I > have already deemed necessary to the project. John and I have discussed > this and will endeavour to move our discussion to the Apache AGE mailing > lists. Thank you for understanding and sorry for the trouble. > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 5:13 PM Eya Badal <e...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Please disregard the previous message. I just replaced it with "the > Apache > > Incubator PMC." > > > > On 2021/01/21 23:29:50, Eya Badal <e...@apache.org> wrote: > > > Hello @ Felix Cheung <felixcheun...@hotmail.com> and all, > > > > > > Regarding the WIP-Disclaimer, could you please advise what to include > > when it mentioned "the name of Apache TLP sponsor". I am not sure about > > this part. > > > > > > Thank you very much. > > > > > > "Apache AGE is an effort undergoing incubation at The Apache Software > > Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the name of Apache TLP sponsor. " > > > > > > > > > On 2021/01/19 05:58:03, Felix Cheung <felixcheun...@hotmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Thanks for the updates. > > > > > > > > For disclaimer: it is your first release, so it is likely something > is > > off (for example, you have a dependency that is not compatible with > Apache > > license and normally will not be possible to release with) it is just > > easier to get through the process. The community can decide if you want > to > > go this route or not. > > > > > > > > For OpenCypher - if it is a public spec from OpenCypher, it will be > > best not to include a file but link to it. Even if license compatible it > is > > best not to include files, source code etc from another project because > > then proper attribution should be there (typically in the LICENSE or > NOTICE > > file) > > > > > > > > See bundled dependencies here > > https://infra.apache.org/licensing-howto.html > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Eya Badal <e...@apache.org> > > > > Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 7:32 AM > > > > To: dev@age.apache.org > > > > Subject: Re: Request for First AGE Apache Release Review - VOTE > > > > > > > > Hi Felix, > > > > > > > > I just want to mention some points. > > > > > > > > 1-I did update the svn with new files. The unzipping to different > > names is fixed now. > > > > 2-I also removed the md5 file and KEYS file from the svn and source > > distribution. > > > > 3-As I mentioned before the OpenCypher is based on Apache License and > > it is included. > > > > 4-Regarding the DISCLAIMER-WIP: > > > > We do not have any tasks to do or tasks pending and not sure if we > > have to go by DISCLAIMER-WIP. What is your advice? > > > > > > > > All the licenses are there and I do not have anything for pending > > tasks so I am not sure if we should use Standard or Work in Progress > > disclaimer. Please advise. > > > > > > > > We will wait for your advice and then call for a VOTE. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > On 2021/01/18 02:59:15, Felix Cheung <felixcheun...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Yes. See the link I included in my reply for subject, format and > > content. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > From: Eya Badal <e...@apache.org> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2021 6:30:04 PM > > > > > To: dev@age.apache.org <dev@age.apache.org> > > > > > Subject: Re: Request for First AGE Apache Release Review - VOTE > > > > > > > > > > Thank you very much, Flex. I appreciate the feedback. > > > > > >Where should I post the thread vote? Should I post it in AGE Dev > > list and ask everyone to vote? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2021/01/15 02:20:01, Felix Cheung <felixcheun...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Did you have a vote thread? Anyone and everyone can vote, it > > shouldn’t be just the mentor. > > > > > > > > > > > > A good vote thread might be like: > > > > > > > > > http://apache-spark-developers-list.1001551.n3.nabble.com/VOTE-Release-Spark-3-1-0-RC1-td30524.html > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. md5 - should not include > > > > > >I will remove this file. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. apache-age-0.3.0-incubating-src.tar.gz unpack into a > > apache-age-0.3.0-incubating-src.zip > > > > > > and that unpack into __MACOSX/apache-age-0.3.0-incubating-src/ > > > > > > This is very strange. please check the tar.gz file. > > > > > > > > > > > >I am not sure why this happened but I will take care of it and > make > > sure it is consistent. > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. > > > > > > I'd suggest use DISCLAIMER-WIP > > > > > > > > > https://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#choice_of_disclaimers > > > > > >Any specific reason why not using Standard Disclaimer? > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. > > > > > > openCypher/openCypher9.pdf > > > > > > maybe don't include this in the source? where is the file from? > is > > there a possible licensing issue? > > > > > > > > > > > >It won't be any licensing issue since OpenCypher is based on > Apache > > License as well which is included in the licensing file. > > > > > > 5, > > > > > > KEYS.txt > > > > > > don't include inside the source distribution - this should not be > > in git repo > > > > > > I will remove this as well. > > > > > > > > > > > >Thank you again and please advise if you have any other > suggestions > > or thoughts. > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Eya Badal <e...@apache.org> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 12:00:26 PM > > > > > > To: dev@age.apache.org <dev@age.apache.org> > > > > > > Subject: Request for First AGE Apache Release Review - VOTE > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mentors, > > > > > > > > > > > > We prepared the first Apache release and it is available now on > > the following link: > > > > > > > > > > > > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/age/ > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please review and approve. > > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Eya > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
