Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal
On 2/19/2016 4:25 PM, Bhupesh Chawda wrote: Thanks for all the replies. This definitely looks interesting, particularly how a Quarks application is modeled as a streaming topology. I would also like to be part of this project and contribute to it. Thank you Bhupesh and welcome! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal
On 2/19/2016 3:49 PM, Justin Mclean wrote: You add add me if you want, I’ve a little busy right now so may no be so active initially. Thank you Justin for volunteering. It will be great to have a mentor with your experience on the project. Best Kathey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal
Thanks for all the replies. This definitely looks interesting, particularly how a Quarks application is modeled as a streaming topology. I would also like to be part of this project and contribute to it. Thanks. -Bhupesh On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 12:31 AM, Katherine Marsden wrote: > On 2/18/2016 10:19 PM, Bhupesh Chawda wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Seems to be a nice idea for offloading processing from the centralized >> systems. >> I am just trying to understand the need for streaming analytics engine at >> the edge devices. An example use case justifying the need for such systems >> would definitely help. >> >> One such example might be engine or equipment monitoring. You want to > transmit data if parameters are out of range, (for example too hot), but > don't want to communicate if things are operating within normal parameters. > > The Quarks overview gives more details at: > http://quarks-edge.github.io/quarks.documentation/docs/quarks/overview/ > > > > Best > > Kathey > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Regards, Bhupesh Chawda
Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal
On 2/19/2016 3:36 PM, Luciano Resende wrote: Just FYI, we don't need to wait for you and Dan to be officially part of IPMC, vote can be started sooner (we had similar issue with couple mentors on SystemML) Thank you Luciano. That's good news! I will call the vote Wednesday then, unless something comes up. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal
Hi, >> Is anyone else willing to be a mentor? We have three volunteers, but >> would appreciate more. You add add me if you want, I’ve a little busy right now so may no be so active initially. I’m one f the mentors on several other incubating projects (including IoT projects) and a couple of those should graduate soon. Thanks, Justin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Katherine Marsden wrote: > I really appreciate the input so far on this proposal. I was wondering... > > Is anyone else willing to be a mentor? We have three volunteers, but > would appreciate more. > Does anyone have any concerns that they have not expressed? If not, I > would like to call a vote Wednesday, February 24 or as soon as the IPMC > approves Dan and I joining (we have both submitted member requests) , > whichever comes later. > > Just FYI, we don't need to wait for you and Dan to be officially part of IPMC, vote can be started sooner (we had similar issue with couple mentors on SystemML) > https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/QuarksProposal > > Best > > Kathey > > > -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/
[DISCUSS] Graduate Sentry from the Apache Incubator
Hi all, The Sentry community has discussed[1] and voted upon[2] graduation as a TLP. Now we would like to get feedback from the incubator before we can start a formal vote on general@. I have put down a summary of the community and the project below. And we have also filled out the Sentry maturity assessment document[3] for your reference. The Sentry community and project has made significant progress during its time in incubation. From fine grained access control to just Hive, the project has evolved to enable storing/managing policies and enforcing the rules for other Hadoop access methods like Solr, Impala, HDFS, MapReduce, Sqoop, and soon Kafka. Each of these integrations collaboratively driven by multiple Apache project communities. Other highlights: - We have many new contributors (~20) who have contributed to the project during the time of incubation, among which ~8 became committers for their long term contributions. - We have made 5 Apache releases, which were driven by 5 different release managers. - We have a diverse set of PMCs from different organizations(~15) and we have passed the vote to make all current committers(8) be PMCs[1]. To simplify logistics, we propose this take effect at the time of graduation. - We have active mailing lists, JIRA tracking to facilitate communication in the community. And we also have a monthly high bandwidth communication mechanism (hangouts) which facilitate the design discussions. [1] https://s.apache.org/dev_discuss [2] https://s.apache.org/dev_vote_result [3] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SENTRY/Sentry+maturity+assessment ## Resolution to create a TLP from graduating Incubator podling - Sentry: = X. Establish the Apache Sentry Project WHEREAS, the Board of Directors deems it to be in the best interests of the Foundation and consistent with the Foundation's purpose to establish a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and maintenance of open-source software, for distribution at no charge to the public, related to Fine grained authorization to data and metadata in Hadoop. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that a Project Management Committee (PMC), to be known as the "Apache Sentry Project", be and hereby is established pursuant to Bylaws of the Foundation; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Apache Sentry Project be and hereby is responsible for the creation and maintenance of software related to Fine grained authorization to data and metadata in Hadoop; and be it further RESOLVED, that the office of "Vice President, Apache Sentry" be and hereby is created, the person holding such office to serve at the direction of the Board of Directors as the chair of the Apache Sentry Project, and to have primary responsibility for management of the projects within the scope of responsibility of the Apache Sentry Project; and be it further RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the Apache Sentry Project: * Ali Rizvi * Anne Yu * Arun Suresh * Brock Noland * Chaoyu Tang * Colin Ma * Daisy Zhou * Dapeng Sun * David Nalley * Erick Tryzelaar * Gregory Chanan * Guoquan Shen * Hadi Nahari * Hao Hao * Jarek Jarcec Cecho * Johnny Zhang * Karthik Ramachandran * Mark Grover * Milo Polte * Lenni Kuff * Patrick Daly * Patrick Hunt * Prasad Mujumdar * Raghu Mani * Sean Mackrory * Shreepadma Venugopalan * Sravya Tirukkovalur * Tuong Truong * Vamsee Yarlagadda * Xiaomeng Huang * Xuefu Zhang NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Sravya Tirukkovalur be appointed to the office of Vice President, Apache Sentry, to serve in accordance with and subject to the direction of the Board of Directors and the Bylaws of the Foundation until death, resignation, retirement, removal or disqualification, or until a successor is appointed; and be it further RESOLVED, that the initial Apache Sentry PMC be and hereby is tasked with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open development and increased participation in the Apache Sentry Project; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Apache Sentry Project be and hereby is tasked with the migration and rationalization of the Apache Incubator Sentry podling; and be it further RESOLVED, that all responsibilities pertaining to the Apache Incubator Sentry podling encumbered upon the Apache Incubator Project are hereafter discharged. Regards,
Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal
I really appreciate the input so far on this proposal. I was wondering... Is anyone else willing to be a mentor? We have three volunteers, but would appreciate more. Does anyone have any concerns that they have not expressed? If not, I would like to call a vote Wednesday, February 24 or as soon as the IPMC approves Dan and I joining (we have both submitted member requests) , whichever comes later. https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/QuarksProposal Best Kathey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 10:19 PM, Bhupesh Chawda wrote: I am just trying to understand the need for streaming analytics engine at the edge devices. An example use case justifying the need for such systems would definitely help. There are at least a couple of drivers: 1) Intelligently reducing the volume of data sent from edge devices to central systems, for example transportation companies wanting to reduce their big monthly cellular bill. 2) Being able to locally detect & react to anomalies even when connectivity is not available. Dan.
Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Katherine Marsden wrote: > On 2/18/2016 10:19 PM, Bhupesh Chawda wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Seems to be a nice idea for offloading processing from the centralized >> systems. >> I am just trying to understand the need for streaming analytics engine at >> the edge devices. An example use case justifying the need for such systems >> would definitely help. >> >> One such example might be engine or equipment monitoring. You want to > transmit data if parameters are out of range, (for example too hot), but > don't want to communicate if things are operating within normal parameters. > > Particularly if the sensors for example are in limited bandwidth connections, etc > The Quarks overview gives more details at: > http://quarks-edge.github.io/quarks.documentation/docs/quarks/overview/ > > > > Best > > Kathey > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal
On 2/18/2016 10:19 PM, Bhupesh Chawda wrote: Hi All, Seems to be a nice idea for offloading processing from the centralized systems. I am just trying to understand the need for streaming analytics engine at the edge devices. An example use case justifying the need for such systems would definitely help. One such example might be engine or equipment monitoring. You want to transmit data if parameters are out of range, (for example too hot), but don't want to communicate if things are operating within normal parameters. The Quarks overview gives more details at: http://quarks-edge.github.io/quarks.documentation/docs/quarks/overview/ Best Kathey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Henry Saputra wrote: > Officially it means nothing =P > > Exactly, this is what worried my a little bit. > But it is nice way to express interest and support to the proposal. > > Agree, so it's ok to leave there, as long as we understand is just a way to express support and officially it does not mean anything on the proposal content. > - Henry > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Seetharam Venkatesh < > venkat...@innerzeal.com> wrote: > > > Apache Beam (incubating) did just this and there were a lot of 'em who > > signed up as interested contributors. Its not clear as to what it means > > though. > > > > Thanks! > > > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:09 AM Katherine Marsden > > wrote: > > > > > On 2/18/2016 8:57 PM, Luciano Resende wrote: > > > > On Thursday, February 18, 2016, Katherine Marsden < > kmars...@apache.org > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> I created an Additional Interested Contributors section > > > >> > > > >> > > > > What is the intent of the new section ? I would say, either add > > possible > > > > contributors as initial committers or don't add at all as it will > cause > > > > confusion. > > > I don't think it is confusing, but rather highlights the project's > > > potential for growth in numbers and diversity and recognizes folks who > > > have expressed interest in contributing, but for whom we don't have > > > details yet. I don't feel super strongly about keeping the section in > > > though, so can take it out if you or others feel strongly about it. > > > > > > Best > > > > > > Kathey > > > > > > - > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > -- Luciano Resende http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://twitter.com/lresende1975 http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal
Officially it means nothing =P But it is nice way to express interest and support to the proposal. - Henry On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:48 AM, Seetharam Venkatesh < venkat...@innerzeal.com> wrote: > Apache Beam (incubating) did just this and there were a lot of 'em who > signed up as interested contributors. Its not clear as to what it means > though. > > Thanks! > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:09 AM Katherine Marsden > wrote: > > > On 2/18/2016 8:57 PM, Luciano Resende wrote: > > > On Thursday, February 18, 2016, Katherine Marsden > > > > wrote: > > >> I created an Additional Interested Contributors section > > >> > > >> > > > What is the intent of the new section ? I would say, either add > possible > > > contributors as initial committers or don't add at all as it will cause > > > confusion. > > I don't think it is confusing, but rather highlights the project's > > potential for growth in numbers and diversity and recognizes folks who > > have expressed interest in contributing, but for whom we don't have > > details yet. I don't feel super strongly about keeping the section in > > though, so can take it out if you or others feel strongly about it. > > > > Best > > > > Kathey > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal
Apache Beam (incubating) did just this and there were a lot of 'em who signed up as interested contributors. Its not clear as to what it means though. Thanks! On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 9:09 AM Katherine Marsden wrote: > On 2/18/2016 8:57 PM, Luciano Resende wrote: > > On Thursday, February 18, 2016, Katherine Marsden > > wrote: > >> I created an Additional Interested Contributors section > >> > >> > > What is the intent of the new section ? I would say, either add possible > > contributors as initial committers or don't add at all as it will cause > > confusion. > I don't think it is confusing, but rather highlights the project's > potential for growth in numbers and diversity and recognizes folks who > have expressed interest in contributing, but for whom we don't have > details yet. I don't feel super strongly about keeping the section in > though, so can take it out if you or others feel strongly about it. > > Best > > Kathey > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
RE: License statement third party modified code
Thanks, I will take the question to legal-discuss list. --Steve > -Original Message- > From: Marvin Humphrey [mailto:mar...@rectangular.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 6:36 PM > To: general@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: License statement third party modified code > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Steve Varnau > wrote: > > > I did not see any responses in the past week on the general list. Is > > there > > another place I should ask this question? > > This was a good list to ask on. Since you've haven't received > answers, though, I'd ask on legal-discuss@apache next. > > For what it's worth, I haven't answered in part because although I > have ideas about how these cases could be handled, I don't know if my > ideas align with the recommendations you'd hear from others. This > issue hasn't come up a lot since I got active in the Incubator around > 2010 and the policy predates that. > > 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: [DISCUSS] Quarks proposal
On 2/18/2016 8:57 PM, Luciano Resende wrote: On Thursday, February 18, 2016, Katherine Marsden wrote: I created an Additional Interested Contributors section What is the intent of the new section ? I would say, either add possible contributors as initial committers or don't add at all as it will cause confusion. I don't think it is confusing, but rather highlights the project's potential for growth in numbers and diversity and recognizes folks who have expressed interest in contributing, but for whom we don't have details yet. I don't feel super strongly about keeping the section in though, so can take it out if you or others feel strongly about it. Best Kathey - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Release dependant on LGPL
On 2/19/16 6:15 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Greg Stein wrote: ...Speaking as an IPMC Member, and a Mynewt Mentor … yes, this is fine with a disclaimer in the release notes Except we don't have a standard for release notes, so how about we require a mention in the DISCLAIMER file that incubating releases are required to include? Something like "This release is not fully compliant with Apache release policy and includes..." in that file. That would be fine with us. The main point of this release was to familiarize ourself with the process, and find out all the warts. We have a beta2 planned shortly afterwards, where we will clean up everything we found going through beta1 (which seems doable.) We'd like to go ahead, just so we've put it through the paces prior to our next beta, and we have the full list of things we need to improve. As a quick summary on the license front, we've found: - We have some Go LGPL dependencies in our build tool that need to ... go... This is a day's worth of work, unfortunately because of where they are in the dependency chain. - (more serious) Some of the chip vendor license headers have a modified 3-clause BSD license for their driver headers. They end up being some derivant of: http://www.st.com/web/en/resource/legal/legal_agreement/license_agreement/ultimate-liberty-v2.txt?sc=software_license_agreement_liberty_v2 "4. This software, including modifications and/or derivative works of this software, must execute solely and exclusively on microcontroller or microprocessor devices manufactured by or for STMicroelectronics." That's obviously not kosher. We have two potential remedies, which we'll need to work through prior to next release: 1- Many of these vendors seem to have the same header files licensed many ways, depending on version and phase of the moon. Sometimes the exact same files are available straight up BSD. We'll move to those where possible. 2- For ones that aren't, Newt has a package search and install tool. These files are in packages that only need to be included when building for that platform (and therefore compliant with the license.) We can break these out and host them on Github, and people can search for and install them.We've done this with one of the packages as a test for this release: https://github.com/runtimeinc/mynewt_stm32f3 3- We'll work with the chip vendors and ask them to re-license their files. This will be a slower process, but many of them are actually excited about Mynewt, and may be receptive. Thanks, Sterling - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Release dependant on LGPL
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Greg Stein wrote: > ...Speaking as an IPMC Member, and a Mynewt Mentor … yes, this is fine with a > disclaimer in the release notes Except we don't have a standard for release notes, so how about we require a mention in the DISCLAIMER file that incubating releases are required to include? Something like "This release is not fully compliant with Apache release policy and includes..." in that file. -Bertrand - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Release dependant on LGPL
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I would say that for this single request and this single release, a one-time > exception is warranted. Cool, except that I will note that Toree is in the same situation, and is preparing a release. I would hope that that request would be OK too? - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
Re: Release dependant on LGPL
I would say that for this single request and this single release, a one-time exception is warranted. > On Feb 15, 2016, at 6:01 PM, Craig Russell wrote: > > I agree that an incubating release does not need to be fully compliant with > the proscription against mandatory LGPL dependencies for Apache releases. > > Clearly the podling is well aware of the need to replace the LGPL dependency > before graduation. And I agree with Greg that a podling learning the > requirements of release and turning the crank is most important. > > Craig > >> On Feb 15, 2016, at 1:49 PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Luciano Resende >> wrote: >>> Apache Toree had a similar issue, and we have discussed this in >>> legal-discuss, and here is the feedback from Jim, VP of Legal >>> >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/201602.mbox/%3C2A8B931C-1AD6-4230-B2DE-0B33361B3A2B%40jaguNET.com%3E >> >> The LGPL's reverse engineering provisions make it more difficult to >> understand the licensing obligations of any ostensibly >> Apache-2-licensed product with an LGPL-licensed mandatory runtime >> dependency. Jim speaks for many of us in that thread. >> >> However, one of the reasons we have the "incubating" label is to let >> people know that "incubating" releases may not be fully compliant with >> all Apache policies. >> >> See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-86 for an example of >> where incubating releases were allowed with a runtime dependency on a >> non-approved license. Just as Greg laid out, a plan was proposed for >> removing the dependency before graduation and the VP Legal at the >> time, Sam Ruby, gave his OK. >> >> With LEGAL-86, VP Legal's approval was sought in advance, and in >> general podlings should should be aware of resources like the >> legal-discuss@apache list and should learn when and how to utilize >> them. However, unless Greg advises Mynewt to consult VP Legal (and I'm >> all but certain he won't), that won't be necessary in this case. >> >> 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 > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
