Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: ...who else thinks the movement towards empowering PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?... How is that different from the status quo where a podling with active mentors can have their releases +1ed by their mentors, requiring minimal interaction with the IPMC? In spirit it may not be very different, but in practice it is the polar opposite. As someone who has worked through the incubation of a few projects both as an initial committer as well as a mentor, I feel that the biggest weakness of the current Incubator is it's very strength of being all inclusive of different interpretations/understandings of the goals of incubation. With every IPMC member having their own close-to-heart issues and inclinations, along with their good intentions, I don't think we are doing very much to help the podlings understand the principals of Apache Way or learn self-governance that works best for their communities. Instead, we often end up prescribing things which go beyond the charter of the Incubator, just to establish a sense of comfort in ensuring we have met our responsibilities. Therefore, I too favor the idea of a smaller, well-defined, tactical IPMC that: a) establishes a clear objective criteria for growth and graduation including the necessary processes and policies, b) oversees the execution of these processes and policies via measurable means, and, c) has the final say in the graduation of the podling ...will be a big step in the right direction. This does look more like the way our board is organized. Arguably, this IPMC could still enlist the help of member/mentors but will be doing so without granting the decision making privileges to them. Regards, Arvind Prabhakar -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Andrew Purtell apurt...@apache.org wrote: In fact, in my opinion it leads to the very unfortunate side effect of IPMC feeling in need to justify why it exists by micromanaging podlings. I've been through incubation as a mentor on Phoenix, Nifi, and now getting up to speed on Trafodion, I have not seen micromanagement of podlings. Could you point out an example? Curious what you mean. It is worth noting that none of the IPMC members micromanage on purpose, or are even aware that their actions are being interpreted as acts of micromanagement. From their perspective, it is their responsibility to guide the podling, and that is what they are trying to do. It will unfair to bring those out as examples of micromanagement. That said, I have personally been in positions where I have seen IPMC members ask - and even demand things at times - that I feel are unreasonable requests for the podling. The reason I do not challenge those is because I feel that their asks are rooted in good intentions, and that the IPMC in its current form encourages such involvement and authority. At the same time I also worry about the state of the podling and what this does to their way of thinking about Apache and the Incubator. Regards, Arvind Prabhakar On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 7:18 PM, John D. Ament johndam...@apache.org wrote: I wonder how much of the silence is a notion of I don't want to be accountable if something goes wrong in this podling. Right, but that same concern could be applied to every single TLP and yet the board seems to do the right thing with that. Having the IPMC safety net means its at least the IPMC's fault if something goes wrong. My point all along has been that this is a false sense of security. In fact, in my opinion it leads to the very unfortunate side effect of IPMC feeling in need to justify why it exists by micromanaging podlings. Personally, I'd be happy if the PPMCs had more self governance. But I think there are also some key people on the IPMC that should be able to lend their skills out to the broader PPMCs in case of need. Which would be totally fine and gets us back to the point Daniel and I were discussing: a release compliance team (horrible name, I know) as part of ASF. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
Need to be able to edit a page on wiki.apache.org
I want to create a wiki page for a proposal to incubate Apex with ASF. Can someone give me edit access for the following page? http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal For those unfamiliar with Apex; it is an unified batch and stream processing compute platform native to Yarn that was open sourced under Apache 2.0 by DataTorrent over a month ago. my username is AmolKekre Thks, Amol
Re: Need to be able to edit a page on wiki.apache.org
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Amol Kekre a...@datatorrent.com wrote: I want to create a wiki page for a proposal to incubate Apex with ASF. Can someone give me edit access for the following page? http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ApexProposal For those unfamiliar with Apex; it is an unified batch and stream processing compute platform native to Yarn that was open sourced under Apache 2.0 by DataTorrent over a month ago. my username is AmolKekre Done. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 11:36AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: ...who else thinks the movement towards empowering PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?... How is that different from the status quo where a podling with active mentors can have their releases +1ed by their mentors, requiring minimal interaction with the IPMC? I think it is more of a bias issue. IOW, today it seems that the default bias of IPMC is to consider itself a final authority (or a gatekeeper) on podling releases. We need to break that bias and make it so that it is truly a safety net, rather than a gatekeeper. IOW, I'd like the release traffic on general@ to ONLY consist of [NOTICE] emails, not [VOTE]. We perhaps are observing the well known phenomena called self-selection bias [1] And it seems to me that the simplification and better clarification of the incubation guidelines might be exactly what's needed to prevent a bureaucratism outbreak. As well as the situation when ppl express their expectations as a law-of-the-land (even from best intentions). Cos signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: I've been waiting for a bout a week for other to chime in, but it seems that nobody has so I'll repeat my question as of a week ago: what would be the effective way to change the status quo around IPMC an make it more board like? Perhaps we can start from making the release policy actually make sense along the lines that Ross has outlined. I guess I can propose a change to the current policies (or to Ross' point just get it back from the wayback machine :-)). But seriously, who else thinks the movement towards empowering PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense? I think the thread fizzled because there's not a lot of support for the idea. At least, on my end, I'm not in favor. Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier j...@zonker.net Twitter: @jzb http://www.dissociatedpress.net/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
On 2015-08-03 09:37, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: ...who else thinks the movement towards empowering PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?... How is that different from the status quo where a podling with active mentors can have their releases +1ed by their mentors, requiring minimal interaction with the IPMC? As you say, releases can - if done right - be done with minimal friction from the IPMC, so the issue seems more to be an issue of perception and procedure than an issue of policy. There is a clear distinction between how the board acts towards TLPs and how the IPMC acts towards podlings, and in my opinion there should be: TLPs are _expected to know how to act, how to release, how to self-govern_. They have learned this through trial and error, many of them in the Incubator, and have built up procedures and cultures that enable them to (mostly) govern themselves. Podlings are _in training to be like that_, and even with 4, 5, 6 mentors, it has been shown time and time again (as I believe Marvin also mentioned), that there will be issues with the first one or two releases, as is only natural when a project is learning how to do Apache-style releases, and then the IPMC says hang on, you need to do these things differently, fix this, that, and then do this, and then the podling slowly adapts to the way we do releases. As we continue to let in more and more podlings, it is also safe to assume, that the number of 'initial release bugs' will increase, thus this system becomes even more important. To sum up my view: We have a release process that has shown many times that it both works and is necessary for podlings, especially on the first release. I think this is awesome, and I don't see the need to change this specific policy - *but perhaps we could ease the process, as I suggested last week, through better tooling and education.* Allow me to also ask this question: If there is a _visible_ need for this existing policy, as has been shown on numerous occasions, how is empowering PPMCs by removing the policy going to solve or help the issue? I am all for a hands-off approach if it leads to a desired goal (wholly or partially), but this specific proposition seems to be counter-intuitive to me. Therefore, I will suggest the same thing I did last week: - Keep the existing policy - Make better processes and tooling to aid podlings in their first release(s) (see my previous email for details) - Consider a mentor rotation/swap-in principle to ensure a fresh unbiased/non-myopic governance. Heck, I'd even, to some degree, recommend these steps for TLPs, but eh, that's another story :) If we can create procedures and tools that can do most of the basic legal and structural checks in new release candidates, we could cut down the time spent arguing about the nitty gritty details, and a lot of the unfortunate situations where a podling needs to release fast, but gets caught in a legal issue, could be avoided or at the very least be resolved a lot faster. With regards, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
apache binary distributions
Hi all, some of the general discussion recently made me wonder about one point with regards to binary distributions. It was pointed out, that a binary distribution of a source code release has to be handled like a release itself, and that there should be no download source of it outside of apache. This seems to be one motivation for the asf having its own maven repository. I seem to misunderstand something here, or why can there be apache maven artifacts in maven central and package in linux distributions for for example httpd, if this policy is followed? I mean it was even suggested to use the trademark to forbid the distribution through third parties. I am quite irritated about this. bye blackdrag -- Jochen blackdrag Theodorou blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Request to add username in Incubator Wiki
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote: Requesting adding of username AtriSharma to Incubator wiki ContributorGroup. Done. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Request to add username in Incubator Wiki
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Marvin Humphrey mar...@rectangular.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Atri Sharma atri.j...@gmail.com wrote: Requesting adding of username AtriSharma to Incubator wiki ContributorGroup. Done. Marvin Humphrey Thanks.
Request to add username in Incubator Wiki
Hi, Requesting adding of username AtriSharma to Incubator wiki ContributorGroup. -- Regards, Atri *l'apprenant*
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: ...who else thinks the movement towards empowering PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?... How is that different from the status quo where a podling with active mentors can have their releases +1ed by their mentors, requiring minimal interaction with the IPMC? -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: apache binary distributions
OK, I’ll bite. Do you have links to where you got this information? -Alex On 8/3/15, 2:55 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote: Hi all, some of the general discussion recently made me wonder about one point with regards to binary distributions. It was pointed out, that a binary distribution of a source code release has to be handled like a release itself, and that there should be no download source of it outside of apache. This seems to be one motivation for the asf having its own maven repository. I seem to misunderstand something here, or why can there be apache maven artifacts in maven central and package in linux distributions for for example httpd, if this policy is followed? I mean it was even suggested to use the trademark to forbid the distribution through third parties. I am quite irritated about this. bye blackdrag -- Jochen blackdrag Theodorou blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 7:18 PM, John D. Ament johndam...@apache.org wrote: I wonder how much of the silence is a notion of I don't want to be accountable if something goes wrong in this podling. Right, but that same concern could be applied to every single TLP and yet the board seems to do the right thing with that. Having the IPMC safety net means its at least the IPMC's fault if something goes wrong. My point all along has been that this is a false sense of security. In fact, in my opinion it leads to the very unfortunate side effect of IPMC feeling in need to justify why it exists by micromanaging podlings. Personally, I'd be happy if the PPMCs had more self governance. But I think there are also some key people on the IPMC that should be able to lend their skills out to the broader PPMCs in case of need. Which would be totally fine and gets us back to the point Daniel and I were discussing: a release compliance team (horrible name, I know) as part of ASF. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
This is that proverbial political overhead that a lot of folks are accusing
ASF of and cite as a reason of not going into the foundation. Which is grossly
unfair at the board level, but unfortunately seems to be very true at IPMC
level today.
+1000
-Original Message-
From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman
Shaposhnik
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 12:13 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the
Apache Incubator)
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@zonker.net wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
I've been waiting for a bout a week for other to chime in, but it
seems that nobody has so I'll repeat my question as of a week ago:
what would be the effective way to change the status quo around IPMC
an make it more board like?
Perhaps we can start from making the release policy actually make
sense along the lines that Ross has outlined. I guess I can propose a
change to the current policies (or to Ross'
point just get it back from the wayback machine :-)).
But seriously, who else thinks the movement towards empowering PPMCs
and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?
I think the thread fizzled because there's not a lot of support for
the idea. At least, on my end, I'm not in favor.
Yup. I believe this to be an unfortunate (at least from my standpoint) but and
extremely fair observation.
As far as I'm concerned the issue of RRs of IPMC is in a state of a stalemate
right now. We clearly have a everything's fine lets just add more policy
constituency vs. IPMC should be small and more board like crowd.
The good news is that we're all united on making sure that the foundation is
growing by podlings making progress and graduating to TLPs. The bad news is
that because of the current mentality I don't see the types of unfortunate
threads that Ignite just went through going away anytime soon.
This is that proverbial political overhead that a lot of folks are accusing
ASF of and cite as a reason of not going into the foundation. Which is grossly
unfair at the board level, but unfortunately seems to be very true at IPMC
level today.
It is clear to me that the change has very little chance of coming from within
IPMC.
Thanks,
Roman.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@zonker.net wrote: On Sun, Aug 2, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: I've been waiting for a bout a week for other to chime in, but it seems that nobody has so I'll repeat my question as of a week ago: what would be the effective way to change the status quo around IPMC an make it more board like? Perhaps we can start from making the release policy actually make sense along the lines that Ross has outlined. I guess I can propose a change to the current policies (or to Ross' point just get it back from the wayback machine :-)). But seriously, who else thinks the movement towards empowering PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense? I think the thread fizzled because there's not a lot of support for the idea. At least, on my end, I'm not in favor. Yup. I believe this to be an unfortunate (at least from my standpoint) but and extremely fair observation. As far as I'm concerned the issue of RRs of IPMC is in a state of a stalemate right now. We clearly have a everything's fine lets just add more policy constituency vs. IPMC should be small and more board like crowd. The good news is that we're all united on making sure that the foundation is growing by podlings making progress and graduating to TLPs. The bad news is that because of the current mentality I don't see the types of unfortunate threads that Ignite just went through going away anytime soon. This is that proverbial political overhead that a lot of folks are accusing ASF of and cite as a reason of not going into the foundation. Which is grossly unfair at the board level, but unfortunately seems to be very true at IPMC level today. It is clear to me that the change has very little chance of coming from within IPMC. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: ...who else thinks the movement towards empowering PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?... How is that different from the status quo where a podling with active mentors can have their releases +1ed by their mentors, requiring minimal interaction with the IPMC? I think it is more of a bias issue. IOW, today it seems that the default bias of IPMC is to consider itself a final authority (or a gatekeeper) on podling releases. We need to break that bias and make it so that it is truly a safety net, rather than a gatekeeper. IOW, I'd like the release traffic on general@ to ONLY consist of [NOTICE] emails, not [VOTE]. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Arvind Prabhakar arv...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz bdelacre...@apache.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: ...who else thinks the movement towards empowering PPMCs and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?... How is that different from the status quo where a podling with active mentors can have their releases +1ed by their mentors, requiring minimal interaction with the IPMC? In spirit it may not be very different, but in practice it is the polar opposite. As someone who has worked through the incubation of a few projects both as an initial committer as well as a mentor, I feel that the biggest weakness of the current Incubator is it's very strength of being all inclusive of different interpretations/understandings of the goals of incubation. With every IPMC member having their own close-to-heart issues and inclinations, along with their good intentions, I don't think we are doing very much to help the podlings understand the principals of Apache Way or learn self-governance that works best for their communities. Instead, we often end up prescribing things which go beyond the charter of the Incubator, just to establish a sense of comfort in ensuring we have met our responsibilities. It's not the central Incubator folks like our regular release reviewers and report contributors who invent these extra criteria -- it's individual Mentors out on the podling lists. Inaccuracy and overreach on general@incubator is self-correcting, precisely because this is where everyone comes together. When inaccuracy and overreach out on individual podling dev lists, whether that gets corrected depends on whether the podling is fortunate enough to have a well-rounded collection of active Mentors. Therefore, I too favor the idea of a smaller, well-defined, tactical IPMC that: a) establishes a clear objective criteria for growth and graduation including the necessary processes and policies, The objective of establishing clear policy documentation is certainly not going to be made any easier by atomizing the Incubator. Instead, Mentors who have strong opinions and strong personalities will entrench provincial points of view in the podlings they oversee. When we finally come together, it will be that much more painful to establish consensus, whether that is to discuss policy on general@incubator or legal-discuss@apache, or when the Board comes into conflict with a TLP that received bad advice as a podling. As someone who has worked hard building consensus for policy documentation at Apache, and who has seen that hard work pay off when Incubator threads which would have been contended several years ago are now settled quickly, I certainly agree that documenting clear objective criteria is valuable. But nothing about the present makeup of the Incubator gets in the way of pursuing that objective -- it's the opposite. Its because we resolve our differences in small amounts here that we do not end up as irreconcilable factions later. Marvin Humphrey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
RE: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
+1
-Original Message-
From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com]
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 09:37
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the
Apache Incubator)
[ ... ]
It's not the central Incubator folks like our regular release
reviewers and report contributors who invent these extra criteria --
it's individual Mentors out on the podling lists. Inaccuracy and
overreach on general@incubator is self-correcting, precisely because
this is where everyone comes together. When inaccuracy and overreach
out on individual podling dev lists, whether that gets corrected
depends on whether the podling is fortunate enough to have a
well-rounded collection of active Mentors.
[ ... ]
The objective of establishing clear policy documentation is certainly
not going to be made any easier by atomizing the Incubator. Instead,
Mentors who have strong opinions and strong personalities will
entrench provincial points of view in the podlings they oversee. When
we finally come together, it will be that much more painful to
establish consensus, whether that is to discuss policy on
general@incubator or legal-discuss@apache, or when the Board comes
into conflict with a TLP that received bad advice as a podling.
As someone who has worked hard building consensus for policy
documentation at Apache, and who has seen that hard work pay off when
Incubator threads which would have been contended several years ago
are now settled quickly, I certainly agree that documenting clear
objective criteria is valuable. But nothing about the present makeup
of the Incubator gets in the way of pursuing that objective -- it's
the opposite. Its because we resolve our differences in small amounts
here that we do not end up as irreconcilable factions later.
Marvin Humphrey
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Zeppelin 0.5.0-incubating released
Congratulations on achieving this milestone and good luck for many more to achieve in near future! Best, Dhaval Sent from my iPhone, plaese excuse any typos :) On Aug 3, 2015, at 1:29 AM, Rajat Gupta rajat.iit...@gmail.com wrote: congrats guys On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Luke Han luke...@apache.org wrote: Congratulations! On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:43 AM, 김영우 warwit...@gmail.com wrote: Congratulations! On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 3:08 PM, moon soo Lee m...@apache.org wrote: Hi, The Apache Zeppelin team is proud to annouce the first release of Zeppelin inside the Apache incubator: 0.5.0-incubating. Apache Zeppelin is a web-based notebook that enables interactive data analytics with many different distributed computing back-end system support, to make data analytics more fun and enjoyable. This release includes interpreter for Apache Spark, Apache Flink, Apache Hive and Apache Tajo with many new features and improvements from 42 contributors. Release notes available at http://zeppelin.incubator.apache.org/docs/releases/zeppelin-release-0.5.0-incubating.html Release artifacts available at http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/incubator/zeppelin/0.5.0-incubating More details on Apache Zeppelin can be found at http://zeppelin.incubator.apache.org The Apache Zeppelin team would like to thank the Apache community for all their contributions, the Apache Zeppelin mentors, and last but not least, our awesome user community for using, testing, and providing valuable feedback. Thanks, The Apache Zeppelin team DISCLAIMER Apache Zeppelin is an effort undergoing incubation at The Apache Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by Apache Incubator. Incubation is required of all newly accepted projects until a further review indicates that the infrastructure, communications, and decision making process have stabilized in a manner consistent with other successful ASF projects. While incubation status is not necessarily a reflection of the completeness or stability of the code, it does indicate that the project has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF.
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Zeppelin 0.5.0-incubating released
Good job!! On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Nihal Bhagchandani nihal_bhagchand...@yahoo.com wrote: that is a great news guys thumbs up to the whole team... Nihal On Saturday, 1 August 2015 11:42 AM, IT CTO goi@gmail.com wrote: Well done! Great team effort and great leadership by Moon. 0.6 here we come! Eran בתאריך שבת, 1 באוג׳ 2015, 09:08 מאת moon soo Lee m...@apache.org: Hi, The Apache Zeppelin team is proud to annouce the first release of Zeppelin inside the Apache incubator: 0.5.0-incubating. Apache Zeppelin is a web-based notebook that enables interactive data analytics with many different distributed computing back-end system support, to make data analytics more fun and enjoyable. This release includes interpreter for Apache Spark, Apache Flink, Apache Hive and Apache Tajo with many new features and improvements from 42 contributors. Release notes available at http://zeppelin.incubator.apache.org/docs/releases/zeppelin-release-0.5.0-incubating.html Release artifacts available at http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/incubator/zeppelin/0.5.0-incubating More details on Apache Zeppelin can be found at http://zeppelin.incubator.apache.org The Apache Zeppelin team would like to thank the Apache community for all their contributions, the Apache Zeppelin mentors, and last but not least, our awesome user community for using, testing, and providing valuable feedback. Thanks, The Apache Zeppelin team DISCLAIMER Apache Zeppelin is an effort undergoing incubation at The Apache Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by Apache Incubator. Incubation is required of all newly accepted projects until a further review indicates that the infrastructure, communications, and decision making process have stabilized in a manner consistent with other successful ASF projects. While incubation status is not necessarily a reflection of the completeness or stability of the code, it does indicate that the project has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF. -- 이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈 http://madeng.net
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Zeppelin 0.5.0-incubating released
Well done! Great team effort and great leadership by Moon. 0.6 here we come! Eran בתאריך שבת, 1 באוג׳ 2015, 09:08 מאת moon soo Lee m...@apache.org: Hi, The Apache Zeppelin team is proud to annouce the first release of Zeppelin inside the Apache incubator: 0.5.0-incubating. Apache Zeppelin is a web-based notebook that enables interactive data analytics with many different distributed computing back-end system support, to make data analytics more fun and enjoyable. This release includes interpreter for Apache Spark, Apache Flink, Apache Hive and Apache Tajo with many new features and improvements from 42 contributors. Release notes available at http://zeppelin.incubator.apache.org/docs/releases/zeppelin-release-0.5.0-incubating.html Release artifacts available at http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/incubator/zeppelin/0.5.0-incubating More details on Apache Zeppelin can be found at http://zeppelin.incubator.apache.org The Apache Zeppelin team would like to thank the Apache community for all their contributions, the Apache Zeppelin mentors, and last but not least, our awesome user community for using, testing, and providing valuable feedback. Thanks, The Apache Zeppelin team DISCLAIMER Apache Zeppelin is an effort undergoing incubation at The Apache Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by Apache Incubator. Incubation is required of all newly accepted projects until a further review indicates that the infrastructure, communications, and decision making process have stabilized in a manner consistent with other successful ASF projects. While incubation status is not necessarily a reflection of the completeness or stability of the code, it does indicate that the project has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF.
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Zeppelin 0.5.0-incubating released
that is a great news guys thumbs up to the whole team... Nihal On Saturday, 1 August 2015 11:42 AM, IT CTO goi@gmail.com wrote: Well done! Great team effort and great leadership by Moon. 0.6 here we come! Eran בתאריך שבת, 1 באוג׳ 2015, 09:08 מאת moon soo Lee m...@apache.org: Hi, The Apache Zeppelin team is proud to annouce the first release of Zeppelin inside the Apache incubator: 0.5.0-incubating. Apache Zeppelin is a web-based notebook that enables interactive data analytics with many different distributed computing back-end system support, to make data analytics more fun and enjoyable. This release includes interpreter for Apache Spark, Apache Flink, Apache Hive and Apache Tajo with many new features and improvements from 42 contributors. Release notes available at http://zeppelin.incubator.apache.org/docs/releases/zeppelin-release-0.5.0-incubating.html Release artifacts available at http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/incubator/zeppelin/0.5.0-incubating More details on Apache Zeppelin can be found at http://zeppelin.incubator.apache.org The Apache Zeppelin team would like to thank the Apache community for all their contributions, the Apache Zeppelin mentors, and last but not least, our awesome user community for using, testing, and providing valuable feedback. Thanks, The Apache Zeppelin team DISCLAIMER Apache Zeppelin is an effort undergoing incubation at The Apache Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by Apache Incubator. Incubation is required of all newly accepted projects until a further review indicates that the infrastructure, communications, and decision making process have stabilized in a manner consistent with other successful ASF projects. While incubation status is not necessarily a reflection of the completeness or stability of the code, it does indicate that the project has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF.
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Zeppelin 0.5.0-incubating released
congrats guys On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Luke Han luke...@apache.org wrote: Congratulations! On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:43 AM, 김영우 warwit...@gmail.com wrote: Congratulations! On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 3:08 PM, moon soo Lee m...@apache.org wrote: Hi, The Apache Zeppelin team is proud to annouce the first release of Zeppelin inside the Apache incubator: 0.5.0-incubating. Apache Zeppelin is a web-based notebook that enables interactive data analytics with many different distributed computing back-end system support, to make data analytics more fun and enjoyable. This release includes interpreter for Apache Spark, Apache Flink, Apache Hive and Apache Tajo with many new features and improvements from 42 contributors. Release notes available at http://zeppelin.incubator.apache.org/docs/releases/zeppelin-release-0.5.0-incubating.html Release artifacts available at http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/incubator/zeppelin/0.5.0-incubating More details on Apache Zeppelin can be found at http://zeppelin.incubator.apache.org The Apache Zeppelin team would like to thank the Apache community for all their contributions, the Apache Zeppelin mentors, and last but not least, our awesome user community for using, testing, and providing valuable feedback. Thanks, The Apache Zeppelin team DISCLAIMER Apache Zeppelin is an effort undergoing incubation at The Apache Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by Apache Incubator. Incubation is required of all newly accepted projects until a further review indicates that the infrastructure, communications, and decision making process have stabilized in a manner consistent with other successful ASF projects. While incubation status is not necessarily a reflection of the completeness or stability of the code, it does indicate that the project has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF.
Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Zeppelin 0.5.0-incubating released
Congratulation!! +1 On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 11:38 AM, moon soo Lee m...@apache.org wrote: Hi, The Apache Zeppelin team is proud to annouce the first release of Zeppelin inside the Apache incubator: 0.5.0-incubating. Apache Zeppelin is a web-based notebook that enables interactive data analytics with many different distributed computing back-end system support, to make data analytics more fun and enjoyable. This release includes interpreter for Apache Spark, Apache Flink, Apache Hive and Apache Tajo with many new features and improvements from 42 contributors. Release notes available at http://zeppelin.incubator.apache.org/docs/releases/zeppelin-release-0.5.0-incubating.html Release artifacts available at http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/incubator/zeppelin/0.5.0-incubating More details on Apache Zeppelin can be found at http://zeppelin.incubator.apache.org The Apache Zeppelin team would like to thank the Apache community for all their contributions, the Apache Zeppelin mentors, and last but not least, our awesome user community for using, testing, and providing valuable feedback. Thanks, The Apache Zeppelin team DISCLAIMER Apache Zeppelin is an effort undergoing incubation at The Apache Software Foundation (ASF), sponsored by Apache Incubator. Incubation is required of all newly accepted projects until a further review indicates that the infrastructure, communications, and decision making process have stabilized in a manner consistent with other successful ASF projects. While incubation status is not necessarily a reflection of the completeness or stability of the code, it does indicate that the project has yet to be fully endorsed by the ASF. -- Cheers, Madhuka Udantha http://madhukaudantha.blogspot.com
Incubator PMC/Board report for Aug 2015 ([ppmc])
Dear podling, This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache Incubator PMC. It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your quarterly board report. The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 19 August 2015, 10:30 am PST. The report for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC report. The Incubator PMC requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks before the board meeting, to allow sufficient time for review and submission (Wed, Aug 5th). Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the incubator PMC, and subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the very latest you should submit your report is 2 weeks prior to the board meeting. Thanks, The Apache Incubator PMC Submitting your Report -- Your report should contain the following: * Your project name * A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge of the project or necessarily of its field * A list of the three most important issues to address in the move towards graduation. * Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need to be aware of * How has the community developed since the last report * How has the project developed since the last report. This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at: http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/August2015 Note: This is manually populated. You may need to wait a little before this page is created from a template. Mentors --- Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off on the Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are following the project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms for the Incubator PMC. Incubator PMC - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
On 2015-08-03 21:13, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: Yup. I believe this to be an unfortunate (at least from my standpoint) but and extremely fair observation. As far as I'm concerned the issue of RRs of IPMC is in a state of a stalemate right now. We clearly have a everything's fine lets just add more policy constituency vs. IPMC should be small and more board like crowd. I don't think anyone is suggesting we add more policy - at least, I haven't heard anyone say that. I'd rather say we're caught between the policy is fine, but we may need to streamline the process and the policy is hindering development and needs to be trimmed. I count myself among the 'followers' of the first statement. I think the policy itself is sound, but the process of incubation leaves something to be desired. In my view, if a release, graduation, vote etc is being held up by the IPMC, that is not the fault of the policy, it is the fault of tacit knowledge not being shared and used among mentors and podlings in an efficient manner. If a release is being held up due to missing/incorrect licenses or notices, that is an issue we should solve through better education and tooling in the Incubator. If a podling wants to graduate, but legitimate concerns (however true or unfounded they may be) are raised, that is an issue we should solve - or at least make speedier - through better education and tooling/processes. I see a lot of places where we can definitely improve on processes, make them faster and easier, but what I do not see is how the policies are to blame. The very fact that these policies cause discussions and delays are, in my view, not a nuisance that needs to be abolished, but proof that we have procedural and educational flaws. Again, I would be very interested in working with people on improving these processes and tools. I would also ask the people who think we need to trim down our policies to be more specific about which policies need to be removed or changed, and how it would help the Incubator while still retaining the core mission of it; To educate and grow communities wishing to follow the Apache Way. With regards, Daniel. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
In fact, in my opinion it leads to the very unfortunate side effect of IPMC feeling in need to justify why it exists by micromanaging podlings. I've been through incubation as a mentor on Phoenix, Nifi, and now getting up to speed on Trafodion, I have not seen micromanagement of podlings. Could you point out an example? Curious what you mean. On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Roman Shaposhnik ro...@shaposhnik.org wrote: On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 7:18 PM, John D. Ament johndam...@apache.org wrote: I wonder how much of the silence is a notion of I don't want to be accountable if something goes wrong in this podling. Right, but that same concern could be applied to every single TLP and yet the board seems to do the right thing with that. Having the IPMC safety net means its at least the IPMC's fault if something goes wrong. My point all along has been that this is a false sense of security. In fact, in my opinion it leads to the very unfortunate side effect of IPMC feeling in need to justify why it exists by micromanaging podlings. Personally, I'd be happy if the PPMCs had more self governance. But I think there are also some key people on the IPMC that should be able to lend their skills out to the broader PPMCs in case of need. Which would be totally fine and gets us back to the point Daniel and I were discussing: a release compliance team (horrible name, I know) as part of ASF. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org -- Best regards, - Andy Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. - Piet Hein (via Tom White)
Re: apache binary distributions
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Jochen Theodorou blackd...@gmx.org wrote: Hi all, some of the general discussion recently made me wonder about one point with regards to binary distributions. It was pointed out, that a binary distribution of a source code release has to be handled like a release itself, and that there should be no download source of it outside of apache. This seems to be one motivation for the asf having its own maven repository. I seem to misunderstand something here, or why can there be apache maven artifacts in maven central and package in linux distributions for for example httpd, if this policy is followed? I mean it was even suggested to use the trademark to forbid the distribution through third parties. I am quite irritated about this. bye blackdrag I am not aware of any policy that dictates that (but would love to see links.) I am aware that releases MUST at least be distributed via dist.apache.org [1], but that isn't exclusive, meaning the PMC is welcome to distribute _released software_ via other means (PyPy, NPM, Maven, Docker Registry, CPAN, Bintray, carrier pigeon, etc). --David [1] http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#where-do-releases-go - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
On 03.08.2015 18:36, Marvin Humphrey wrote: It's not the central Incubator folks like our regular release reviewers and report contributors who invent these extra criteria Sorry but this has to be said: I see folks on this list inventing policy (or rather, confusing opinion and policy) all the time. The Ignite graduation discussion was a good example of that, but by no means unique. It's this micromanagement self-preservation reflex (thanks, Roman!) that puts me squarely on the side of a smaller IPMC that would hopefully also be less of a peanut gallery. No offence meant and especially not to the people who do put in a stellar performance hereabouts. -- Brane - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
In my experience incubating Calcite, the “overhead” was mostly the
infrastructure and process, not politics. (If you think the incubator is
political, you haven’t seen politics…) The process is necessary (mostly) to
ensure clean IP. The infrastructure, less so. So, if we’re talking about how to
reduce the burden on podlings, those are the areas I would focus on.
Roman’s proposed reform places more responsibility on podling PMCs and, by
implication, the mentors embedded in those PMCs. I am not sure how well that
would work in practice given the ongoing problem of absentee mentors. The IPMC
epitomizes the “it takes a village to raise a child”, in particular with
village elders stepping in with help/advice from time to time. It would be a
shame to lose that.
Julian
On Aug 3, 2015, at 12:23 PM, Ross Gardler ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
This is that proverbial political overhead that a lot of folks are
accusing ASF of and cite as a reason of not going into the foundation. Which
is grossly unfair at the board level, but unfortunately seems to be very true
at IPMC level today.
+1000
-Original Message-
From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman
Shaposhnik
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 12:13 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the
Apache Incubator)
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@zonker.net wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
I've been waiting for a bout a week for other to chime in, but it
seems that nobody has so I'll repeat my question as of a week ago:
what would be the effective way to change the status quo around IPMC
an make it more board like?
Perhaps we can start from making the release policy actually make
sense along the lines that Ross has outlined. I guess I can propose a
change to the current policies (or to Ross'
point just get it back from the wayback machine :-)).
But seriously, who else thinks the movement towards empowering PPMCs
and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?
I think the thread fizzled because there's not a lot of support for
the idea. At least, on my end, I'm not in favor.
Yup. I believe this to be an unfortunate (at least from my standpoint) but
and extremely fair observation.
As far as I'm concerned the issue of RRs of IPMC is in a state of a
stalemate right now. We clearly have a everything's fine lets just add more
policy constituency vs. IPMC should be small and more board like crowd.
The good news is that we're all united on making sure that the foundation is
growing by podlings making progress and graduating to TLPs. The bad news is
that because of the current mentality I don't see the types of unfortunate
threads that Ignite just went through going away anytime soon.
This is that proverbial political overhead that a lot of folks are accusing
ASF of and cite as a reason of not going into the foundation. Which is
grossly unfair at the board level, but unfortunately seems to be very true at
IPMC level today.
It is clear to me that the change has very little chance of coming from
within IPMC.
Thanks,
Roman.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the Apache Incubator)
On 03.08.2015 21:51, Julian Hyde wrote:
In my experience incubating Calcite, the “overhead” was mostly the
infrastructure and process, not politics. (If you think the incubator is
political, you haven’t seen politics…) The process is necessary (mostly) to
ensure clean IP. The infrastructure, less so. So, if we’re talking about how
to reduce the burden on podlings, those are the areas I would focus on.
Roman’s proposed reform places more responsibility on podling PMCs and, by
implication, the mentors embedded in those PMCs.
At the end of the day, it *is* the mentors' responsibility. The IPMC
mostly gets involved after the fact.
I am not sure how well that would work in practice given the ongoing problem
of absentee mentors. The IPMC epitomizes the “it takes a village to raise a
child”, in particular with village elders stepping in with help/advice from
time to time. It would be a shame to lose that.
There's no need to lose that. But it would be a really good idea to lose
the village spinster who makes the child afraid of the dark and monsters
under the bed ...
-- Brane
On Aug 3, 2015, at 12:23 PM, Ross Gardler ross.gard...@microsoft.com wrote:
This is that proverbial political overhead that a lot of folks are
accusing ASF of and cite as a reason of not going into the foundation. Which
is grossly unfair at the board level, but unfortunately seems to be very
true at IPMC level today.
+1000
-Original Message-
From: shaposh...@gmail.com [mailto:shaposh...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Roman
Shaposhnik
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 12:13 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Reform of Incubator {was; [DISCUSSION] Graduate Ignite from the
Apache Incubator)
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 3:44 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@zonker.net wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015, at 10:05 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
I've been waiting for a bout a week for other to chime in, but it
seems that nobody has so I'll repeat my question as of a week ago:
what would be the effective way to change the status quo around IPMC
an make it more board like?
Perhaps we can start from making the release policy actually make
sense along the lines that Ross has outlined. I guess I can propose a
change to the current policies (or to Ross'
point just get it back from the wayback machine :-)).
But seriously, who else thinks the movement towards empowering PPMCs
and making IPMC very much like the board makes sense?
I think the thread fizzled because there's not a lot of support for
the idea. At least, on my end, I'm not in favor.
Yup. I believe this to be an unfortunate (at least from my standpoint) but
and extremely fair observation.
As far as I'm concerned the issue of RRs of IPMC is in a state of a
stalemate right now. We clearly have a everything's fine lets just add more
policy constituency vs. IPMC should be small and more board like crowd.
The good news is that we're all united on making sure that the foundation is
growing by podlings making progress and graduating to TLPs. The bad news is
that because of the current mentality I don't see the types of unfortunate
threads that Ignite just went through going away anytime soon.
This is that proverbial political overhead that a lot of folks are
accusing ASF of and cite as a reason of not going into the foundation. Which
is grossly unfair at the board level, but unfortunately seems to be very
true at IPMC level today.
It is clear to me that the change has very little chance of coming from
within IPMC.
Thanks,
Roman.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
