Here is my proposed report. For the most part, I think the only right thing to do vis-a-vis the Board is to report that we are in the midst of a healthy (yes, I believe it is, for the most part healthy and normal) discussion on where to go next.
PMC Members: this is checked into SVN at https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/mahout/pmc/board-reports/2014/board-report-apr.txt. It is due on Wednesday. If you object to this approach of reporting, please let me know ASAP and suggest alternatives. === Apache Mahout Status Report: April 2014 === ----- Apache Mahout has implementations of a wide range of machine learning and data mining algorithms: clustering, classification, collaborative filtering and frequent pattern mining Project Status -------------- The project continues to have a large and active user base. While the developer base has continued to grow, there is a very active and healthy debate going on about where Mahout goes next. Please see the Issues section below for more details. Community --------- * Andrew Musselman was voted in as new committer. * No changes to the PMC in the reporting period. * The main issue concerning the community right now is the addition of new contributions from 0xData and the integration of Mahout with Spark. Community Objectives -------------------- Our goal is to build scalable machine learning libraries. See the Issues section below for the debate in the community about our objectives. Releases -------- In addition to an ongoing debate on Mahout's future, the community is actively working on integrating Mahout with Scala/Spark, updating documentation, and bringing in new code and committers to update the core project. Issues ------ The Mahout community is at a crossroads in terms of where to go next. While the project has a broad number of users and interested parties, most committers are trying to maintain the code base on a purely part time basis, when the amount of work to sustain these users clearly points to it needing to be full time. Furthermore, much of our original code base is written for Hadoop MapReduce 1.0, which many in the community have come to realize is not well-suited for solving the kinds of problems that Mahout has set out to solve. There have been several lengthy discussions and prototypes going on to work out next directions along the lines of the Spark and 0xData contributions (there are numerous threads on the [email protected] mailing list.) The PMC does not think this requires Board intervention at this time as the debate is, as far as we can tell, healthy. We do, however, expect that this debate will take some time to resolve and may mean we won't be shipping a 1.0 release any time soon. We will keep the Board apprised of our next steps as we work through the process. On Apr 7, 2014, at 4:53 AM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]> wrote: > To Sean's point, if Mahout were "my company", I would do the following, > albeit pragmatic and not so pleasant thing, assuming, of course, I had the > $$$ to do so: > > 1. Clean up existing code with a laser focus on a few key areas (Sebastian's > list makes sense) using a part of the team and call it 1.0 and ship it, as it > has a number of users and they deserve to not have the rug pulled out from > under them. > > 2. Spin out a subset of the team to explore and prototype 2.0 based on two > very positive and re-energizing looking ideas: > a. Scala DSL (and maybe Spark) > b. 0xData > > All of the work for #2 would be done in a clean repo and would only > bring in legacy code where it was truly beneficial (back compat. can come > later, if at all). > It would then benchmark those two approaches as well as look at where > they overlap and are mutually beneficial and then go forward with the winner. > > 3. Once #2 is viable, put most effort into it and maintain 1.0 with as > minimal support as possible, encouraging, neh -- actively helping -- 1.0 > customers upgrade as quickly as possible. > > The tricky part then becomes how do you make sure to still make your sales > #'s while also convincing them that your roadmap is what they are really > buying. > > If I didn't have the $$$ to do both of these (i.e. we need a massive turn > around and we have one last shot), I would be all in on #2. > > ----------------------------------- > > That being said, Mahout is not "my company". Heck, Mahout is not even a > "company", so we don't need to be bound by company conventions and thought > processes, even if that fits with all of our individual day jobs. And, > thankfully, we don't have any sales numbers to make. > > We are chartered with one and only one mission: produce open source, scalable > machine learning libraries under the Apache license and community driven > principles. We are not required by the Board or anyone else to support > version X for Y years or to use Hadoop or Scala or Java. We are also not > required to implement any specific algorithms or deliver them on specific > time frames. We are also not required to provide users upgrade paths or the > like. Naturally, we _want_ to do these things for the sake of the community, > but let's be clear: it is not a requirement from the ASF. We are, however, > required, to have a sustaining community. > > ------------------------------------ > > I personally think we should start clean on #2, throwing off the shackles of > the past and emerge 6-9 months later with Mahout 2.0 (and yes, call it that, > not 0.1 as Sebastian suggests, for marketing reasons) built on a completely > new and fresh repository, likely bringing in only the Math/collections > underpinnings and maybe the build system. This new repository would have > only a handful of core algorithms that we know are well implemented, > sustainable and best in class. > > I think we should look at the lead up to 0.9 as an experiment that proved out > a lot of interesting ideas, including the fact that Mahout proved there is > vast interest in open source large scale machine learning and that it is the > benchmark for comparison. Not many other ML projects can say that, even if > they have better technical implementations or are less fragmented. Once you > realize something has outlived it's usefulness in software, however, there is > no point in lingering. > > That being said, at least for the foreseeable future, I am not in a position > to contribute much code. So, from my perspective, the ASF Meritocratic > approach takes over: those who do the work make the decisions. If you want > something in, then put up the patch and ask for feedback. If no one provides > feedback, assume lazy consensus and move forward. Nothing convinces people > better than actual, real, executing code. For my part, I am happy to > continue to work the bureaucratic side of things to make sure reports get > filed, credentials get created, etc. and the occasional patch. I hope one > day I will have time to contribute again. > > I will follow up w/ a separate email on what I am going to put in the Board > Report. > > On Apr 7, 2014, at 1:52 AM, Sean Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> No, it's about the opposite. I'm referring to the default, current >> state of play here. >> >> The issues for a vendor are demand and supportability. Do people want >> to pay for support of X? Can you honestly say you have expertise to >> support and influence X over at least a major release cycle (12-18 >> months)? The latter needs a reasonably reliable roadmap and >> continuity. >> >> I'm suggesting that in the current state, demand is low and going >> down. The current code base seems de facto deprecated/unsupported >> already, and possibly to be removed or dramatically changed into >> something as-yet unclear. Nobody here seems to have taken a hard >> decision regarding a next major release, but, the trajectory of that >> decision seems clear if the current state remains the same. >> >> From my perspective, "middle-ground" new directions like adding a bit >> of H2O, a bit of Spark, leaving bits of M/R code around, etc. are only >> worse. I can see why there may be a little renewed demand for the new >> bits, but then, why not go all in on one of them? >> >> Because a substantially all-new direction is a different story. If a >> "Mahout2O" or "Spahout" ("Mark"?) emerges as a plan, I could imagine a >> lot of renewed demand. And a clearer underlying roadmap sounds >> possible. It would remain to be seen, but there's nothing stopping >> those ideas from becoming part of a distro too. >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Please be explicit here. It sounds like you are saying that if Mahout goes >>> in the proposed new direction that Cloudera will drop Mahout. >>> >>> Is that what you mean to say? > > -------------------------------------------- Grant Ingersoll | @gsingers http://www.lucidworks.com
