On Apr 8, 2014 1:15 PM, "Sebastian Schelter" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm still letting the current discussion settle in my head. I'll try to come up with new thoughts in a few days. I think we should first identify things that a majority can agree on and then walk through the controversary stuff later. > > One thing that I would like to start now and that I think is consensus, (given that it was in the board report) is to rename the upcoming release to 0.10.
Can we have fun just like hbase did when they jumped from 0.22 to 0.89? Where are we really? I suggest 0.33 We already stated in the board report that we "won't be shipping a 1.0 release any time soon" > > Shout if you disagree, otherwise I will do the renaming end of the week. > > --sebastian > > > > On 04/08/2014 03:17 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: >> >> >> On Apr 7, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Pat Ferrel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Mahout needs a reboot. Grant has the right perspective, but I'd take it further. His #2 (two efforts) is not and never would be reasonable in anything but a huge company. >>> >> >> FWIW, that was my view _if_ I were in a company funding it. Further down, my take is that for the most part we should follow the natural Apache way and let those who do the work make the choices, which AFAICT, point at forgetting about #1 and pursuing #2 only. >> >> -Grant >> >> >>> I have never and would never take a team the size of Mahout (even with some new commiters) and split a reboot into two parts on two engines. No sane project manager would allow this. Why do we think it will work here? >>> >>> The recent Gigaom article left me sympathetic with how confused the readers must be, let alone potential users or contributors. >>> >>> Sean is not being nihilistic, two directions will not work for Mahout. Mahout has a bad reputation already for being a poorly documented and a poorly integrated loose collections of code with a lot of technical debt. Honestly has anyone reading this seen increasing interest in the project? A reboot is the only thing I can imagine to re-energize it and even that must be done with the utmost in clear communication. >>> >>> If you accept the above then there seem to be some ways forward: >>> 1) reboot on Spark, let 0xdata do what they will. >>> 2) reboot on 0xdata and let the Spark commiters consider becoming MLlib commiters or other. >>> 3) fail by issuing confusing direction statements, spending too much time supporting and reconciling multiple significantly disparate efforts and dividing commiters. This is such a classic fail that I have a hard time even considering it. >>> >>> I'd like to see #1 for what it's worth. A concerted effort by all on #1 would ensure Mahout is included in future distros. Maybe even #2 would be included but #3? It's a non-starter. >>> >>> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >
