That all makes sense to me. Voting for the models does seem prudent for the reasons you mention — these are sort of new problems to have and I don’t think it’s very well established what the right answer is so validating consensus even if not obligated makes sense.
-joey > On Mar 16, 2021, at 4:08 AM, Jeff Zemerick <jzemer...@apache.org> wrote: > > Joey, thanks for the comments/questions. > > - The models can be named along with the 1.9.3 version to show that's what > trained it but we should be careful to not give the impression that the > models *only* work with that version. I think that can be made sufficiently > clear in the documentation. > - My opinion is that it would be best if the models were not tied to the > OpenNLP lifecycle. I would like for the project to be able to release new > models independently of OpenNLP releases. So I hope we can do the latter > and train the models from an official OpenNLP release, vote, and publish. > - I feel that the models fall somewhere in between being a direct binary > artifact and something more derivative like a Docker container because a > model needs to be evaluated prior to being made available. Contrast that > with a docker container which either works or doesn't. More things (how it > was trained, performance, etc.) should be considered when voting on a model > release than just if it works or not. > > From that page https://incubator.apache.org/guides/distribution.html: > > - Convenience binaries must be made from IPMC approved ASF releases. > - Convenience binaries need to follow licensing policy and not include any > category X licensed software. > - Convenience binaries should be signed and have hashes to verify their > contents. > > I think we are ok with those 3 things. I will update the naming of the > models as Joey suggested (to include the OpenNLP version that created them) > and update the README to explain 1.9.3 is the version that created them but > should work with all OpenNLP versions (but only tested with 1.9.3). > > Are there any concerns about the model release process given my responses > to your questions? > > Thanks, > Jeff > > > > >> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 7:49 PM Joey Frazee <joey.fra...@icloud.com.invalid> >> wrote: >> >> Jeff, in the other thread you mentioned “I personally have been thinking >> of the models as convenience binaries”. >> >> I think that’s the most obvious answer and is what I’d think too. >> >> If that’s the case, then the policies suggest that the version needs to >> match the version they’re created from. So should this be something like >> opennlp-ud-models-1.0-1.9.3 or similar? >> >> The other thing, which is murky in practice, is that do the models need to >> be voted on concurrently with a release or just created by the PMC from an >> official release and published on Apache supported infrastructure? >> >> Direct binary artifacts are almost always evaluated at the time of a >> release vote but more derivative ones often aren’t. E.g., a lot of projects >> publish Docker images from approved releases but not with an independent >> vote. Which are these? >> >> Incubator recently published some helpful guidelines which clarify related >> stuff for the podlings: >> >> https://incubator.apache.org/guides/distribution.html >> >> -joey >> >>>> On Mar 15, 2021, at 3:26 PM, Jeff Zemerick <jzemer...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> Before starting a second release vote thread for the OpenNLP models and >>> since this is the first release of pretrained OpenNLP models, I would >> like >>> to pause to solicit feedback from the community in regards to the release >>> configuration. >>> >>> - The files are staged on the ASF dev SVN at >>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/opennlp/ud-models-1.0/. >>> - The model files are signed and hashed. >>> - Includes README, CHANGES, NOTICE, and LICENSE files. >>> - The training and evaluation outputs are in the training-eval-logs.zip >>> file (also signed and hashed). >>> >>> Please let me know if anything is missing or should be changed. Once >> things >>> are in a good state I will make a PR to document the steps on the website >>> (OPENNLP-1328) and start a vote thread. >>> >>> ASF Release Creation Process: >>> https://infra.apache.org/release-publishing.html >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jeff >>
