Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com>]

Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow (Tuesday)? I
missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <ju...@hydromatic.net> wrote:

> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but the first
> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 is an example.
>
> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
>
> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/.
> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I think that is
> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a lawyer to
> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for the other
> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
>
> Julian
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <ma...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ok guys,
>>
>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability. I did a
>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an issue
>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a second
>> phase vote.
>>
>
> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
>
> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into this? Last
> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a good job of
> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
>
> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
>
>
>>
>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
>>
>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name search
>> starting with the top one.
>>
>> Link again:
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
>>
>> thanks
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jacques Nadeau
>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11 since
>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
>>>
>>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see whether
>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second tab:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
>>>
>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to 10.
>>>>
>>>> 10 is most preferred
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Single vote for most preferred?
>>>>>
>>>>> Single transferable vote?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take that
>>>>>> as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
>>>>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on Wednesday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks!
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey Guys,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
>>>>>>> proposal
>>>>>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
>>>>>>> contention
>>>>>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a name
>>>>>>> and get
>>>>>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process for
>>>>>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We do the naming in the following steps
>>>>>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
>>>>>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
>>>>>>> options
>>>>>>> 1..10
>>>>>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
>>>>>>> whether we
>>>>>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have this
>>>>>>> until
>>>>>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
>>>>>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank their
>>>>>>> top 3
>>>>>>> names
>>>>>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that doesn't
>>>>>>> work,
>>>>>>> try the second and third options.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but then
>>>>>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
>>>>>>> just do
>>>>>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev is
>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place for
>>>>>>> that but
>>>>>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
>>>>>>> think. Just
>>>>>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step 1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon, Ted
>>>>>>> Dunning,
>>>>>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem, Jacques
>>>>>>> Nadeau,
>>>>>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
>>>>>>> Kornacker,
>>>>>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse, David
>>>>>>> Alves,
>>>>>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Jason Altekruse <al...@gmail.com>]

Jake,

I think that Julian was trying make a point about the use of the complete
name Apache Arrow, not thinking about the project name in isolation. That
being said I completely agree that it is not a derogatory term. I might
make a case that the logo should be a mathematical representation of an
arrow rather than one with a big cartoonish arrowhead if we did go with it.

+1 to a vote

- Jason

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Julien Le Dem <ju...@dremio.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow (Tuesday)? I
> > missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <ju...@hydromatic.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but the
> first
> > > stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 is an
> > example.
> > >
> > > The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
> > >
> > > A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
> > >
> >
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/.
> > > Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I think that
> is
> > > as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a lawyer
> to
> > > tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for the
> > other
> > > alternatives before consulting lawyers.
> > >
> > > Julian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <ma...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ok guys,
> > >>
> > >> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability. I
> did a
> > >> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an
> issue
> > >> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a second
> > >> phase vote.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
> > >
> > > Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into this? Last
> > > time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a good job
> > of
> > > weeding out the potential trademark violations.
> > >
> > > Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
> > >>
> > >> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name search
> > >> starting with the top one.
> > >>
> > >> Link again:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
> > >>
> > >> thanks
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Jacques Nadeau
> > >> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11 since
> > >>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
> > >>>
> > >>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
> > >>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see whether
> > >>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second tab:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> >
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
> > >>>
> > >>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Jacques Nadeau
> > >>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com
> >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to 10.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 10 is most preferred
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> > >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <
> ted.dunning@gmail.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Single vote for most preferred?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Single transferable vote?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
> jacques@dremio.com>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take
> > that
> > >>>>>> as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
> > >>>>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on
> > Wednesday.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> thanks!
> > >>>>>> Jacques
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
> > >>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
> > jacques@apache.org>
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Hey Guys,
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
> > >>>>>>> proposal
> > >>>>>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
> > >>>>>>> contention
> > >>>>>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a name
> > >>>>>>> and get
> > >>>>>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process
> for
> > >>>>>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> We do the naming in the following steps
> > >>>>>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
> > >>>>>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
> > >>>>>>> options
> > >>>>>>> 1..10
> > >>>>>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
> > >>>>>>> whether we
> > >>>>>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have
> > this
> > >>>>>>> until
> > >>>>>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
> > >>>>>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank
> their
> > >>>>>>> top 3
> > >>>>>>> names
> > >>>>>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that
> doesn't
> > >>>>>>> work,
> > >>>>>>> try the second and third options.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but
> > then
> > >>>>>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
> > >>>>>>> just do
> > >>>>>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev
> is
> > >>>>>>> better
> > >>>>>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place for
> > >>>>>>> that but
> > >>>>>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
> > >>>>>>> think. Just
> > >>>>>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step
> 1.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>>>> Jacques
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon, Ted
> > >>>>>>> Dunning,
> > >>>>>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem,
> Jacques
> > >>>>>>> Nadeau,
> > >>>>>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
> > >>>>>>> Kornacker,
> > >>>>>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse,
> David
> > >>>>>>> Alves,
> > >>>>>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
> > >>>>>>> [2]
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> >
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Julien
>

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Julien Le Dem <ju...@dremio.com>]

+1

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow (Tuesday)? I
> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <ju...@hydromatic.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but the first
> > stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 is an
> example.
> >
> > The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
> >
> > A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
> >
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/.
> > Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I think that is
> > as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a lawyer to
> > tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for the
> other
> > alternatives before consulting lawyers.
> >
> > Julian
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <ma...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Ok guys,
> >>
> >> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability. I did a
> >> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an issue
> >> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a second
> >> phase vote.
> >>
> >
> > I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
> >
> > Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into this? Last
> > time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a good job
> of
> > weeding out the potential trademark violations.
> >
> > Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
> >>
> >> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name search
> >> starting with the top one.
> >>
> >> Link again:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
> >>
> >> thanks
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jacques Nadeau
> >> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >>
> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11 since
> >>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
> >>>
> >>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
> >>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see whether
> >>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second tab:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
> >>>
> >>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Jacques Nadeau
> >>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to 10.
> >>>>
> >>>> 10 is most preferred
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Single vote for most preferred?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Single transferable vote?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take
> that
> >>>>>> as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
> >>>>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on
> Wednesday.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> thanks!
> >>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
> jacques@apache.org>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hey Guys,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
> >>>>>>> proposal
> >>>>>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
> >>>>>>> contention
> >>>>>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a name
> >>>>>>> and get
> >>>>>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process for
> >>>>>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> We do the naming in the following steps
> >>>>>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
> >>>>>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
> >>>>>>> options
> >>>>>>> 1..10
> >>>>>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
> >>>>>>> whether we
> >>>>>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have
> this
> >>>>>>> until
> >>>>>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
> >>>>>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank their
> >>>>>>> top 3
> >>>>>>> names
> >>>>>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that doesn't
> >>>>>>> work,
> >>>>>>> try the second and third options.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but
> then
> >>>>>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
> >>>>>>> just do
> >>>>>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev is
> >>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place for
> >>>>>>> that but
> >>>>>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
> >>>>>>> think. Just
> >>>>>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step 1.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon, Ted
> >>>>>>> Dunning,
> >>>>>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem, Jacques
> >>>>>>> Nadeau,
> >>>>>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
> >>>>>>> Kornacker,
> >>>>>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse, David
> >>>>>>> Alves,
> >>>>>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
> >>>>>>> [2]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>



-- 
Julien

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Julian Hyde <jh...@gmail.com>]

> On Jan 12, 2016, at 09:21, Jason Altekruse <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I would not
> advocate for Julian's suggestion of diverging histories in the one repo. He
> seemed to just be mentioning for completeness in the discussion anyway

+1

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com>]

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 9:21 AM, Jason Altekruse
<al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wes,
>
> I think the overall consensus is that one repo makes the most sense.
> Considering the headache of just managing the gh-pages branch in a project
> (I normally just have a separate copy of the repo for this) I would not
> advocate for Julian's suggestion of diverging histories in the one repo. He
> seemed to just be mentioning for completeness in the discussion anyway, but
> no one else had commented on it.
>
> Also considering the nature of the project is a cross-tool in-memory format,
> I assume we will want at least some testing that goes between the different
> implementations running in the same process or with shared memory between
> two or more processes. This will be easiest if we can run both (all, if we
> also have python and other languages) builds followed by some kind of
> integration test script/framework.

1 repo is good; as soon as (if) we have the project approval and
Apache git repo set up, I can propose patches there.

>
> As far as the existing work is concerned, I'm not sure everyone is aware of
> the C++ code inside of Drill that can represent at least the scalar types in
> Drill's existing Value Vectors [1]. This is currently used by the native
> client written to hook up an ODBC driver.
>

I have read this code. From my perspective, it would be less work to
collaborate on a self-contained implementation that closely models the
Arrow / VV spec that includes builder classes and its own memory
management without coupling to Drill details. I started prototyping
something here (warning: only a few actual days of coding here):

https://github.com/arrow-data/arrow-cpp/tree/master/src/arrow

For example, you can see an example constructing an Array<Int32> or
String (== Array<UInt8>) column in the tests here

https://github.com/arrow-data/arrow-cpp/blob/master/src/arrow/builder-test.cc#L328

I've been planning to use this as the basis of a C++ Parquet
reader-writer and the associated Python pandas-like layer which
includes in-memory analytics on Arrow data structures.

> Parth who is included here has been the primary owner of this C++ code
> throughout it's life in Drill. Parth, what do you think is the best strategy
> for managing the C++ code right now? As the C++ build is not tied into the
> Java one, as I understand it we just run it manually when updates are made
> there and we need to update ODBC. Would it be disruptive to move the code to
> the arrow repo? If so, we could include Drill as a submodule in the new
> repo, or put Wes's work so far in the Drill repo.

If we can enumerate the non-Drill-client related parts (i.e. the array
accessors and data structures-oriented code) that would make sense in
a standalone Arrow library it would be great to start a side
discussion about the design of the C++ reference implementation
(metadata / schemas, IPC, array builders and accessors, etc.). Since
this is a quite urgent for me (intending to deliver a minimally viable
pandas-like Arrow + Parquet in Python stack in the next ~3 months) it
would be great to do this sooner rather than later.

cheers,
Wes

>
> [1] - https://github.com/apache/drill/tree/master/contrib/native/client
>
> - Jason
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com> wrote:
>>
>> Sounds good. We'll need to start the Apache repo with just Apache code
>> given how we've done the proposal. After we get established, we can break
>> any independent progress you've made into a set of patches to add to the
>> existing repo through the normal Apache commit process.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jacques Nadeau
>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Great to hear on the name approval!
>>>
>>> If it is OK I will consolidate to 1 repo and nest the C++ code under
>>> cpp/ and add some format Markdown files there in the next week or so.
>>>
>>> One repo is perfectly fine (as compared with Parquet) as long as the
>>> language implementations can evolve and be released in a
>>> non-monolithic way.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Good news guys, Apache trademarks just approved the name Apache Arrow
>>> > [1]. I
>>> > will update the proposal and resubmit to the board.
>>> >
>>> > thanks,
>>> > Jacques
>>> >
>>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Jacques Nadeau
>>> > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> You can also do the trick of having two branches that diverge at the
>>> >> very
>>> >> first commit. C++ and Java are in the same repository but if you have
>>> >> a
>>> >> given branch checked out you are looking at one or the other.
>>> >>
>>> >> That said, I’d be inclined to put everything in the same repo.
>>> >>
>>> >> The repo size will not be prohibitive as long as we follow Julien’s
>>> >> recommendation to put large objects (e.g. test data sets) elsewhere.
>>> >>
>>> >> And it makes it possible for a single patch to update both C++ and
>>> >> Java
>>> >> code lines, and also update shared content (the specification and the
>>> >> source
>>> >> files for the web site).
>>> >>
>>> >> And having said THAT, it doesn’t really matter. If we realize we’ve
>>> >> made a
>>> >> horrible mistake in 2 years we can split the repo or merge the repos.
>>> >>
>>> >> Julian
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> > On Dec 17, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Julien Le Dem <ju...@ledem.net>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I guess what I meant is: separate repos => separate releases.
>>> >> > One repo can still have separate releases as was mentioned.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I’m not too fond of the separate repos in parquet anymore.
>>> >> > The only reason I would split to a separate repo now is if we have
>>> >> > large
>>> >> > files for regression testing and that’s because of how git works.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Separate directories java and cpp seems a given since they will
>>> >> > build
>>> >> > independently.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I’d vote for just one repo with /format /java /cpp.
>>> >> > both /java and /cpp depend on /format
>>> >> >
>>> >> > releasing the format independently is useful because the semantics
>>> >> > are
>>> >> > different than for an API.
>>> >> > A breaking change in the format may not be an API change and
>>> >> > vice-versa.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Julien
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> On Dec 16, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> One repo should be a given.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Separate directories should be the question.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Jason Altekruse
>>> >> >> <altekrusejason@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> >> >> I think that is a worthwhile discussion, parallel vs independent
>>> >> >> releases, but I don't understand why it relates to one repo or not.
>>> >> >> Couldn't
>>> >> >> the release tag names just include the language (cpp, java python)?
>>> >> >> What
>>> >> >> other parts of version control are related to releasing?
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Julien Le Dem <julien@dremio.com
>>> >> >> <ma...@dremio.com>> wrote:
>>> >> >> for the git repos it boils down to wether we want to release
>>> >> >> arrow-cpp
>>> >> >> and arrow-java independently or together with the same version
>>> >> >> numbers.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com
>>> >> >> <ma...@dremio.com>> wrote:
>>> >> >> Thanks Wes, that's great!
>>> >> >> On Dec 14, 2015 9:44 AM, "Wes McKinney" <wes@cloudera.com
>>> >> >> <ma...@cloudera.com>> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> hi folks,
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> In the interim I created a new public GitHub organization to host
>>> >> >>> code
>>> >> >>> for this effort so we can organize ourselves in advance of more
>>> >> >>> progress in the ASF:
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> https://github.com/arrow-data <https://github.com/arrow-data>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> I have a partial C++ implementation of the Arrow spec that I can
>>> >> >>> move
>>> >> >>> there, along with a to-be-Markdown-ified version of a
>>> >> >>> specification
>>> >> >>> subject to more iteration. The more pressing short term matter
>>> >> >>> will be
>>> >> >>> making some progress on the metadata / data headers / IPC protocol
>>> >> >>> (e.g. using Flatbuffers or the like).
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> Thoughts on git repo structure?
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> 1) Avro-style — "one repo to rule them all"
>>> >> >>> 2) Parquet-style — arrow-format, arrow-cpp, arrow-java, etc.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> (I'm personally more in the latter camp, though integration tests
>>> >> >>> may
>>> >> >>> be more tedious that way)
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> Thanks
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com
>>> >> >>> <ma...@dremio.com>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>> I've opened a name search for our top vote getter.
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92
>>> >> >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> I also just realized that my previously email dropped other
>>> >> >>>> recipients.
>>> >> >>>> Here it is below.
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> ----
>>> >> >>>> I think we can call the voting closed. Top vote getters:
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> Apache Arrow (17)
>>> >> >>>> Apache Herringbone (9)
>>> >> >>>> Apache Joist (8)
>>> >> >>>> Apache Colbuf (8)
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> I'll up a PODLINGNAMESEARCH-* shortly for Arrow.
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> ---
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> --
>>> >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Marcel Kornacker
>>> >> >>>> <marcel@cloudera.com
>>> >> >>>> <ma...@cloudera.com>>
>>> >> >>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>> Just added my vote.
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Wes McKinney <wes@cloudera.com
>>> >> >>>>> <ma...@cloudera.com>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>> Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers?
>>> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning
>>> >> >>>>>> <ted.dunning@gmail.com
>>> >> >>>>>> <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>> >> >>>>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>> Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place.
>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>> Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache. As
>>> >> >>>>>>> such,
>>> >> >>>>>>> their
>>> >> >>>>>>> opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice.  There are
>>> >> >>>>>>> issues
>>> >> >>> of
>>> >> >>>>>>> privilege, conflict of interest and so on.
>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson
>>> >> >>>>>>> <alexlevenson@twitter.com <ma...@twitter.com>>
>>> >> >>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>> I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help out -- is
>>> >> >>>>>>>> that
>>> >> >>>>>>>> something we need? Or is that something apache helps out with
>>> >> >>>>>>>> in
>>> >> >>>>>>>> the
>>> >> >>>>>>>> next
>>> >> >>>>>>>> step?
>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde
>>> >> >>>>>>>> <jhyde@apache.org
>>> >> >>>>>>>> <ma...@apache.org>>
>>> >> >>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> search
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> for
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> “joist"),
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> at
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> no
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> trademarks
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> active
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> project
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> called “joist” [1].
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has native-american
>>> >> >>> connotations
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> that we may or may not want to live with (just ask the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Washington
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Redskins
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> how they feel about their name).
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90>, and
>>> >> >>> fill
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> out
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> column C in the spreadsheet.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Julian
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/stephenh/joist>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <jacques@dremio.com
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <ma...@dremio.com>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> +1
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> --
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <wes@cloudera.com
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <ma...@cloudera.com>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow
>>> >> >>> (Tuesday)?
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <
>>> >> >>> julian@hydromatic.net <ma...@hydromatic.net>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> but
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> first
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> is an
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> example.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> <http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/>.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> think
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> that is
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> a
>>> >> >>> lawyer
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> to
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> for
>>> >> >>> the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> other
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Julian
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <marcel@cloudera.com <ma...@cloudera.com>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>>> >> >>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Ok guys,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> viaability.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> did a
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> have
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> an
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> issue
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> do a
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> second
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> phase vote.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> this?
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Last
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> a
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> good
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> job
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> of
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> name
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> search
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> starting with the top one.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Link again:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> thanks
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> --
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
>>> >> >>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 11
>>> >> >>> since
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> see
>>> >> >>> whether
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> second
>>> >> >>> tab:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> conflicts?
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> --
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>>> >> >>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 1 to
>>> >> >>> 10.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 10 is most preferred
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> --
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <
>>> >> >>> ted.dunning@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Single vote for most preferred?
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Single transferable vote?
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
>>> >> >>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> take
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Wednesday.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> thanks!
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> --
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>>> >> >>> jacques@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Hey Guys,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Vector
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> proposal
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> of
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> contention
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> name
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> and get
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> process
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> for
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> and
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> We do the naming in the following steps
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 10
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> options
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 1..10
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> of
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> whether we
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> have
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> this until
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> their
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> top 3
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> names
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> work,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> try the second and third options.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> but
>>> >> >>> then
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> could
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> just do
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> dev
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> is
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> better
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> place
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> for
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> that but
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> others
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> think. Just
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> step
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 1.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Lipcon,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Ted
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Dunning,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadeau,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Marcel
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Kornacker,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Altekruse,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> David
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Alves,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Xin.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> [2]
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>> --
>>> >> >>>>>>>> Alex Levenson
>>> >> >>>>>>>> @THISWILLWORK
>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> --
>>> >> >> Julien
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Jason Altekruse <al...@gmail.com>]

Wes,

I think the overall consensus is that one repo makes the most sense.
Considering the headache of just managing the gh-pages branch in a project
(I normally just have a separate copy of the repo for this) I would not
advocate for Julian's suggestion of diverging histories in the one repo. He
seemed to just be mentioning for completeness in the discussion anyway, but
no one else had commented on it.

Also considering the nature of the project is a cross-tool in-memory
format, I assume we will want at least some testing that goes between the
different implementations running in the same process or with shared memory
between two or more processes. This will be easiest if we can run both
(all, if we also have python and other languages) builds followed by some
kind of integration test script/framework.

As far as the existing work is concerned, I'm not sure everyone is aware of
the C++ code inside of Drill that can represent at least the scalar types
in Drill's existing Value Vectors [1]. This is currently used by the native
client written to hook up an ODBC driver.

Parth who is included here has been the primary owner of this C++ code
throughout it's life in Drill. Parth, what do you think is the best
strategy for managing the C++ code right now? As the C++ build is not tied
into the Java one, as I understand it we just run it manually when updates
are made there and we need to update ODBC. Would it be disruptive to move
the code to the arrow repo? If so, we could include Drill as a submodule in
the new repo, or put Wes's work so far in the Drill repo.

[1] - https://github.com/apache/drill/tree/master/contrib/native/client

- Jason



On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com> wrote:

> Sounds good. We'll need to start the Apache repo with just Apache code
> given how we've done the proposal. After we get established, we can break
> any independent progress you've made into a set of patches to add to the
> existing repo through the normal Apache commit process.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jacques Nadeau
> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
>> Great to hear on the name approval!
>>
>> If it is OK I will consolidate to 1 repo and nest the C++ code under
>> cpp/ and add some format Markdown files there in the next week or so.
>>
>> One repo is perfectly fine (as compared with Parquet) as long as the
>> language implementations can evolve and be released in a
>> non-monolithic way.
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Good news guys, Apache trademarks just approved the name Apache Arrow
>> [1]. I
>> > will update the proposal and resubmit to the board.
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> > Jacques
>> >
>> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jacques Nadeau
>> > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You can also do the trick of having two branches that diverge at the
>> very
>> >> first commit. C++ and Java are in the same repository but if you have a
>> >> given branch checked out you are looking at one or the other.
>> >>
>> >> That said, I’d be inclined to put everything in the same repo.
>> >>
>> >> The repo size will not be prohibitive as long as we follow Julien’s
>> >> recommendation to put large objects (e.g. test data sets) elsewhere.
>> >>
>> >> And it makes it possible for a single patch to update both C++ and Java
>> >> code lines, and also update shared content (the specification and the
>> source
>> >> files for the web site).
>> >>
>> >> And having said THAT, it doesn’t really matter. If we realize we’ve
>> made a
>> >> horrible mistake in 2 years we can split the repo or merge the repos.
>> >>
>> >> Julian
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > On Dec 17, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Julien Le Dem <ju...@ledem.net>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I guess what I meant is: separate repos => separate releases.
>> >> > One repo can still have separate releases as was mentioned.
>> >> >
>> >> > I’m not too fond of the separate repos in parquet anymore.
>> >> > The only reason I would split to a separate repo now is if we have
>> large
>> >> > files for regression testing and that’s because of how git works.
>> >> >
>> >> > Separate directories java and cpp seems a given since they will build
>> >> > independently.
>> >> >
>> >> > I’d vote for just one repo with /format /java /cpp.
>> >> > both /java and /cpp depend on /format
>> >> >
>> >> > releasing the format independently is useful because the semantics
>> are
>> >> > different than for an API.
>> >> > A breaking change in the format may not be an API change and
>> vice-versa.
>> >> >
>> >> > Julien
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Dec 16, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> One repo should be a given.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Separate directories should be the question.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Jason Altekruse
>> >> >> <altekrusejason@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >> >> I think that is a worthwhile discussion, parallel vs independent
>> >> >> releases, but I don't understand why it relates to one repo or not.
>> Couldn't
>> >> >> the release tag names just include the language (cpp, java python)?
>> What
>> >> >> other parts of version control are related to releasing?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Julien Le Dem <julien@dremio.com
>> >> >> <ma...@dremio.com>> wrote:
>> >> >> for the git repos it boils down to wether we want to release
>> arrow-cpp
>> >> >> and arrow-java independently or together with the same version
>> numbers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com
>> >> >> <ma...@dremio.com>> wrote:
>> >> >> Thanks Wes, that's great!
>> >> >> On Dec 14, 2015 9:44 AM, "Wes McKinney" <wes@cloudera.com
>> >> >> <ma...@cloudera.com>> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> hi folks,
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> In the interim I created a new public GitHub organization to host
>> code
>> >> >>> for this effort so we can organize ourselves in advance of more
>> >> >>> progress in the ASF:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> https://github.com/arrow-data <https://github.com/arrow-data>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I have a partial C++ implementation of the Arrow spec that I can
>> move
>> >> >>> there, along with a to-be-Markdown-ified version of a specification
>> >> >>> subject to more iteration. The more pressing short term matter
>> will be
>> >> >>> making some progress on the metadata / data headers / IPC protocol
>> >> >>> (e.g. using Flatbuffers or the like).
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Thoughts on git repo structure?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> 1) Avro-style — "one repo to rule them all"
>> >> >>> 2) Parquet-style — arrow-format, arrow-cpp, arrow-java, etc.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> (I'm personally more in the latter camp, though integration tests
>> may
>> >> >>> be more tedious that way)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Thanks
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com
>> >> >>> <ma...@dremio.com>> wrote:
>> >> >>>> I've opened a name search for our top vote getter.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92
>> >> >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I also just realized that my previously email dropped other
>> >> >>>> recipients.
>> >> >>>> Here it is below.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> ----
>> >> >>>> I think we can call the voting closed. Top vote getters:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Apache Arrow (17)
>> >> >>>> Apache Herringbone (9)
>> >> >>>> Apache Joist (8)
>> >> >>>> Apache Colbuf (8)
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I'll up a PODLINGNAMESEARCH-* shortly for Arrow.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> ---
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> --
>> >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Marcel Kornacker <
>> marcel@cloudera.com
>> >> >>>> <ma...@cloudera.com>>
>> >> >>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Just added my vote.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Wes McKinney <wes@cloudera.com
>> >> >>>>> <ma...@cloudera.com>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers?
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning <
>> ted.dunning@gmail.com
>> >> >>>>>> <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> >> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place.
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache. As
>> such,
>> >> >>>>>>> their
>> >> >>>>>>> opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice.  There are
>> >> >>>>>>> issues
>> >> >>> of
>> >> >>>>>>> privilege, conflict of interest and so on.
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson
>> >> >>>>>>> <alexlevenson@twitter.com <ma...@twitter.com>>
>> >> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help out -- is
>> that
>> >> >>>>>>>> something we need? Or is that something apache helps out with
>> in
>> >> >>>>>>>> the
>> >> >>>>>>>> next
>> >> >>>>>>>> step?
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde <
>> jhyde@apache.org
>> >> >>>>>>>> <ma...@apache.org>>
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick
>> search
>> >> >>>>>>>>> for
>> >> >>>>>>>>> the
>> >> >>>>>>>>> top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”,
>> “joist"),
>> >> >>>>>>>>> at
>> >> >>>>>>>>> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are
>> no
>> >> >>>>>>>>> trademarks
>> >> >>>>>>>>> for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately
>> active
>> >> >>>>>>>>> project
>> >> >>>>>>>>> called “joist” [1].
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has native-american
>> >> >>> connotations
>> >> >>>>>>>>> that we may or may not want to live with (just ask the
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Washington
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Redskins
>> >> >>>>>>>>> how they feel about their name).
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on
>> >> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90
>> >> >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90>,
>> and
>> >> >>> fill
>> >> >>>>>>>>> out
>> >> >>>>>>>>> column C in the spreadsheet.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Julian
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist
>> >> >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/stephenh/joist>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>> jacques@dremio.com
>> >> >>>>>>>>> <ma...@dremio.com>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> +1
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> --
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <
>> wes@cloudera.com
>> >> >>>>>>>>> <ma...@cloudera.com>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow
>> >> >>> (Tuesday)?
>> >> >>>>>>>>> I
>> >> >>>>>>>>> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <
>> >> >>> julian@hydromatic.net <ma...@hydromatic.net>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process
>> but
>> >> >>>>>>>>> the
>> >> >>>>>>>>> first
>> >> >>>>>>>>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
>> >> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90
>> >> >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90>
>> is an
>> >> >>>>>>>>> example.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/
>> >> >>> <
>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/
>> >.
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I
>> >> >>>>>>>>> think
>> >> >>>>>>>>> that is
>> >> >>>>>>>>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need
>> a
>> >> >>> lawyer
>> >> >>>>>>>>> to
>> >> >>>>>>>>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts
>> for
>> >> >>> the
>> >> >>>>>>>>> other
>> >> >>>>>>>>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Julian
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker
>> >> >>>>>>>>> <marcel@cloudera.com <ma...@cloudera.com>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>> >> >>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Ok guys,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of
>> viaability.
>> >> >>>>>>>>> I
>> >> >>>>>>>>> did a
>> >> >>>>>>>>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would
>> have
>> >> >>>>>>>>> an
>> >> >>>>>>>>> issue
>> >> >>>>>>>>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's
>> do a
>> >> >>>>>>>>> second
>> >> >>>>>>>>> phase vote.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into
>> >> >>>>>>>>> this?
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Last
>> >> >>>>>>>>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did
>> a
>> >> >>>>>>>>> good
>> >> >>>>>>>>> job
>> >> >>>>>>>>> of
>> >> >>>>>>>>> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling
>> name
>> >> >>>>>>>>> search
>> >> >>>>>>>>> starting with the top one.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Link again:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
>> >> >>> <
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
>> >
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> thanks
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> --
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
>> >> >>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got
>> 11
>> >> >>> since
>> >> >>>>>>>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see
>> >> >>> whether
>> >> >>>>>>>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a
>> second
>> >> >>> tab:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
>> >> >>> <
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
>> >
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> --
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>> >> >>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers
>> 1 to
>> >> >>> 10.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> 10 is most preferred
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> --
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <
>> >> >>> ted.dunning@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Single vote for most preferred?
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Single transferable vote?
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
>> >> >>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll
>> take
>> >> >>>>>>>>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
>> >> >>>>>>>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Wednesday.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> thanks!
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> --
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>> >> >>> jacques@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Hey Guys,
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
>> >> >>>>>>>>> proposal
>> >> >>>>>>>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
>> >> >>>>>>>>> contention
>> >> >>>>>>>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a
>> >> >>>>>>>>> name
>> >> >>>>>>>>> and get
>> >> >>>>>>>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a
>> process
>> >> >>>>>>>>> for
>> >> >>>>>>>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal
>> and
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> We do the naming in the following steps
>> >> >>>>>>>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
>> >> >>>>>>>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top
>> 10
>> >> >>>>>>>>> options
>> >> >>>>>>>>> 1..10
>> >> >>>>>>>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
>> >> >>>>>>>>> whether we
>> >> >>>>>>>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that
>> have
>> >> >>>>>>>>> this until
>> >> >>>>>>>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
>> >> >>>>>>>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank
>> >> >>>>>>>>> their
>> >> >>>>>>>>> top 3
>> >> >>>>>>>>> names
>> >> >>>>>>>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that
>> >> >>>>>>>>> doesn't
>> >> >>>>>>>>> work,
>> >> >>>>>>>>> try the second and third options.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone
>> but
>> >> >>> then
>> >> >>>>>>>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We
>> could
>> >> >>>>>>>>> just do
>> >> >>>>>>>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill
>> dev
>> >> >>>>>>>>> is
>> >> >>>>>>>>> better
>> >> >>>>>>>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place
>> >> >>>>>>>>> for
>> >> >>>>>>>>> that but
>> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what
>> others
>> >> >>>>>>>>> think. Just
>> >> >>>>>>>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for
>> step
>> >> >>>>>>>>> 1.
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon,
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Ted
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Dunning,
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem,
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadeau,
>> >> >>>>>>>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson,
>> Marcel
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Kornacker,
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse,
>> >> >>>>>>>>> David
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Alves,
>> >> >>>>>>>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold
>> Xin.
>> >> >>>>>>>>> [2]
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
>> >> >>> <
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
>> >
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> --
>> >> >>>>>>>> Alex Levenson
>> >> >>>>>>>> @THISWILLWORK
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Julien
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>]

Sounds good. We'll need to start the Apache repo with just Apache code
given how we've done the proposal. After we get established, we can break
any independent progress you've made into a set of patches to add to the
existing repo through the normal Apache commit process.





--
Jacques Nadeau
CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Great to hear on the name approval!
>
> If it is OK I will consolidate to 1 repo and nest the C++ code under
> cpp/ and add some format Markdown files there in the next week or so.
>
> One repo is perfectly fine (as compared with Parquet) as long as the
> language implementations can evolve and be released in a
> non-monolithic way.
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> wrote:
> > Good news guys, Apache trademarks just approved the name Apache Arrow
> [1]. I
> > will update the proposal and resubmit to the board.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Jacques
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92
> >
> > --
> > Jacques Nadeau
> > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> You can also do the trick of having two branches that diverge at the
> very
> >> first commit. C++ and Java are in the same repository but if you have a
> >> given branch checked out you are looking at one or the other.
> >>
> >> That said, I’d be inclined to put everything in the same repo.
> >>
> >> The repo size will not be prohibitive as long as we follow Julien’s
> >> recommendation to put large objects (e.g. test data sets) elsewhere.
> >>
> >> And it makes it possible for a single patch to update both C++ and Java
> >> code lines, and also update shared content (the specification and the
> source
> >> files for the web site).
> >>
> >> And having said THAT, it doesn’t really matter. If we realize we’ve
> made a
> >> horrible mistake in 2 years we can split the repo or merge the repos.
> >>
> >> Julian
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Dec 17, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Julien Le Dem <ju...@ledem.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I guess what I meant is: separate repos => separate releases.
> >> > One repo can still have separate releases as was mentioned.
> >> >
> >> > I’m not too fond of the separate repos in parquet anymore.
> >> > The only reason I would split to a separate repo now is if we have
> large
> >> > files for regression testing and that’s because of how git works.
> >> >
> >> > Separate directories java and cpp seems a given since they will build
> >> > independently.
> >> >
> >> > I’d vote for just one repo with /format /java /cpp.
> >> > both /java and /cpp depend on /format
> >> >
> >> > releasing the format independently is useful because the semantics are
> >> > different than for an API.
> >> > A breaking change in the format may not be an API change and
> vice-versa.
> >> >
> >> > Julien
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> On Dec 16, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> One repo should be a given.
> >> >>
> >> >> Separate directories should be the question.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Jason Altekruse
> >> >> <altekrusejason@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> >> I think that is a worthwhile discussion, parallel vs independent
> >> >> releases, but I don't understand why it relates to one repo or not.
> Couldn't
> >> >> the release tag names just include the language (cpp, java python)?
> What
> >> >> other parts of version control are related to releasing?
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Julien Le Dem <julien@dremio.com
> >> >> <ma...@dremio.com>> wrote:
> >> >> for the git repos it boils down to wether we want to release
> arrow-cpp
> >> >> and arrow-java independently or together with the same version
> numbers.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com
> >> >> <ma...@dremio.com>> wrote:
> >> >> Thanks Wes, that's great!
> >> >> On Dec 14, 2015 9:44 AM, "Wes McKinney" <wes@cloudera.com
> >> >> <ma...@cloudera.com>> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> hi folks,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> In the interim I created a new public GitHub organization to host
> code
> >> >>> for this effort so we can organize ourselves in advance of more
> >> >>> progress in the ASF:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> https://github.com/arrow-data <https://github.com/arrow-data>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I have a partial C++ implementation of the Arrow spec that I can
> move
> >> >>> there, along with a to-be-Markdown-ified version of a specification
> >> >>> subject to more iteration. The more pressing short term matter will
> be
> >> >>> making some progress on the metadata / data headers / IPC protocol
> >> >>> (e.g. using Flatbuffers or the like).
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thoughts on git repo structure?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 1) Avro-style — "one repo to rule them all"
> >> >>> 2) Parquet-style — arrow-format, arrow-cpp, arrow-java, etc.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> (I'm personally more in the latter camp, though integration tests
> may
> >> >>> be more tedious that way)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com
> >> >>> <ma...@dremio.com>> wrote:
> >> >>>> I've opened a name search for our top vote getter.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92
> >> >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I also just realized that my previously email dropped other
> >> >>>> recipients.
> >> >>>> Here it is below.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> ----
> >> >>>> I think we can call the voting closed. Top vote getters:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Apache Arrow (17)
> >> >>>> Apache Herringbone (9)
> >> >>>> Apache Joist (8)
> >> >>>> Apache Colbuf (8)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I'll up a PODLINGNAMESEARCH-* shortly for Arrow.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> ---
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> --
> >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Marcel Kornacker <
> marcel@cloudera.com
> >> >>>> <ma...@cloudera.com>>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Just added my vote.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Wes McKinney <wes@cloudera.com
> >> >>>>> <ma...@cloudera.com>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers?
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning <
> ted.dunning@gmail.com
> >> >>>>>> <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >> >>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache. As
> such,
> >> >>>>>>> their
> >> >>>>>>> opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice.  There are
> >> >>>>>>> issues
> >> >>> of
> >> >>>>>>> privilege, conflict of interest and so on.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson
> >> >>>>>>> <alexlevenson@twitter.com <ma...@twitter.com>>
> >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help out -- is
> that
> >> >>>>>>>> something we need? Or is that something apache helps out with
> in
> >> >>>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>> next
> >> >>>>>>>> step?
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde <jhyde@apache.org
> >> >>>>>>>> <ma...@apache.org>>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick search
> >> >>>>>>>>> for
> >> >>>>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>>> top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”,
> “joist"),
> >> >>>>>>>>> at
> >> >>>>>>>>> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are
> no
> >> >>>>>>>>> trademarks
> >> >>>>>>>>> for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately
> active
> >> >>>>>>>>> project
> >> >>>>>>>>> called “joist” [1].
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has native-american
> >> >>> connotations
> >> >>>>>>>>> that we may or may not want to live with (just ask the
> >> >>>>>>>>> Washington
> >> >>>>>>>>> Redskins
> >> >>>>>>>>> how they feel about their name).
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on
> >> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90
> >> >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90>,
> and
> >> >>> fill
> >> >>>>>>>>> out
> >> >>>>>>>>> column C in the spreadsheet.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Julian
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist
> >> >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/stephenh/joist>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
> jacques@dremio.com
> >> >>>>>>>>> <ma...@dremio.com>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> +1
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <
> wes@cloudera.com
> >> >>>>>>>>> <ma...@cloudera.com>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow
> >> >>> (Tuesday)?
> >> >>>>>>>>> I
> >> >>>>>>>>> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <
> >> >>> julian@hydromatic.net <ma...@hydromatic.net>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but
> >> >>>>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>>> first
> >> >>>>>>>>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
> >> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90
> >> >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90>
> is an
> >> >>>>>>>>> example.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/
> >> >>> <
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/
> >.
> >> >>>>>>>>> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I
> >> >>>>>>>>> think
> >> >>>>>>>>> that is
> >> >>>>>>>>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a
> >> >>> lawyer
> >> >>>>>>>>> to
> >> >>>>>>>>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts
> for
> >> >>> the
> >> >>>>>>>>> other
> >> >>>>>>>>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Julian
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker
> >> >>>>>>>>> <marcel@cloudera.com <ma...@cloudera.com>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
> >> >>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Ok guys,
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of
> viaability.
> >> >>>>>>>>> I
> >> >>>>>>>>> did a
> >> >>>>>>>>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have
> >> >>>>>>>>> an
> >> >>>>>>>>> issue
> >> >>>>>>>>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do
> a
> >> >>>>>>>>> second
> >> >>>>>>>>> phase vote.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into
> >> >>>>>>>>> this?
> >> >>>>>>>>> Last
> >> >>>>>>>>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a
> >> >>>>>>>>> good
> >> >>>>>>>>> job
> >> >>>>>>>>> of
> >> >>>>>>>>> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling
> name
> >> >>>>>>>>> search
> >> >>>>>>>>> starting with the top one.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Link again:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
> >> >>> <
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
> >
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> thanks
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
> >> >>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11
> >> >>> since
> >> >>>>>>>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
> >> >>>>>>>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see
> >> >>> whether
> >> >>>>>>>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a
> second
> >> >>> tab:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
> >> >>> <
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
> >
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
> >> >>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1
> to
> >> >>> 10.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> 10 is most preferred
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <
> >> >>> ted.dunning@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Single vote for most preferred?
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Single transferable vote?
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
> >> >>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll
> take
> >> >>>>>>>>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
> >> >>>>>>>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on
> >> >>>>>>>>> Wednesday.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> thanks!
> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
> >> >>> jacques@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Hey Guys,
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
> >> >>>>>>>>> proposal
> >> >>>>>>>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
> >> >>>>>>>>> contention
> >> >>>>>>>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a
> >> >>>>>>>>> name
> >> >>>>>>>>> and get
> >> >>>>>>>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a
> process
> >> >>>>>>>>> for
> >> >>>>>>>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> We do the naming in the following steps
> >> >>>>>>>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
> >> >>>>>>>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top
> 10
> >> >>>>>>>>> options
> >> >>>>>>>>> 1..10
> >> >>>>>>>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
> >> >>>>>>>>> whether we
> >> >>>>>>>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that
> have
> >> >>>>>>>>> this until
> >> >>>>>>>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
> >> >>>>>>>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank
> >> >>>>>>>>> their
> >> >>>>>>>>> top 3
> >> >>>>>>>>> names
> >> >>>>>>>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that
> >> >>>>>>>>> doesn't
> >> >>>>>>>>> work,
> >> >>>>>>>>> try the second and third options.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone
> but
> >> >>> then
> >> >>>>>>>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We
> could
> >> >>>>>>>>> just do
> >> >>>>>>>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill
> dev
> >> >>>>>>>>> is
> >> >>>>>>>>> better
> >> >>>>>>>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place
> >> >>>>>>>>> for
> >> >>>>>>>>> that but
> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what
> others
> >> >>>>>>>>> think. Just
> >> >>>>>>>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for
> step
> >> >>>>>>>>> 1.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon,
> >> >>>>>>>>> Ted
> >> >>>>>>>>> Dunning,
> >> >>>>>>>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem,
> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques
> >> >>>>>>>>> Nadeau,
> >> >>>>>>>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson,
> Marcel
> >> >>>>>>>>> Kornacker,
> >> >>>>>>>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse,
> >> >>>>>>>>> David
> >> >>>>>>>>> Alves,
> >> >>>>>>>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold
> Xin.
> >> >>>>>>>>> [2]
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
> >> >>> <
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
> >
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>>> Alex Levenson
> >> >>>>>>>> @THISWILLWORK
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Julien
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com>]

Great to hear on the name approval!

If it is OK I will consolidate to 1 repo and nest the C++ code under
cpp/ and add some format Markdown files there in the next week or so.

One repo is perfectly fine (as compared with Parquet) as long as the
language implementations can evolve and be released in a
non-monolithic way.

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com> wrote:
> Good news guys, Apache trademarks just approved the name Apache Arrow [1]. I
> will update the proposal and resubmit to the board.
>
> thanks,
> Jacques
>
> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92
>
> --
> Jacques Nadeau
> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> You can also do the trick of having two branches that diverge at the very
>> first commit. C++ and Java are in the same repository but if you have a
>> given branch checked out you are looking at one or the other.
>>
>> That said, I’d be inclined to put everything in the same repo.
>>
>> The repo size will not be prohibitive as long as we follow Julien’s
>> recommendation to put large objects (e.g. test data sets) elsewhere.
>>
>> And it makes it possible for a single patch to update both C++ and Java
>> code lines, and also update shared content (the specification and the source
>> files for the web site).
>>
>> And having said THAT, it doesn’t really matter. If we realize we’ve made a
>> horrible mistake in 2 years we can split the repo or merge the repos.
>>
>> Julian
>>
>>
>> > On Dec 17, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Julien Le Dem <ju...@ledem.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > I guess what I meant is: separate repos => separate releases.
>> > One repo can still have separate releases as was mentioned.
>> >
>> > I’m not too fond of the separate repos in parquet anymore.
>> > The only reason I would split to a separate repo now is if we have large
>> > files for regression testing and that’s because of how git works.
>> >
>> > Separate directories java and cpp seems a given since they will build
>> > independently.
>> >
>> > I’d vote for just one repo with /format /java /cpp.
>> > both /java and /cpp depend on /format
>> >
>> > releasing the format independently is useful because the semantics are
>> > different than for an API.
>> > A breaking change in the format may not be an API change and vice-versa.
>> >
>> > Julien
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Dec 16, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> One repo should be a given.
>> >>
>> >> Separate directories should be the question.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Jason Altekruse
>> >> <altekrusejason@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >> I think that is a worthwhile discussion, parallel vs independent
>> >> releases, but I don't understand why it relates to one repo or not. Couldn't
>> >> the release tag names just include the language (cpp, java python)? What
>> >> other parts of version control are related to releasing?
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Julien Le Dem <julien@dremio.com
>> >> <ma...@dremio.com>> wrote:
>> >> for the git repos it boils down to wether we want to release arrow-cpp
>> >> and arrow-java independently or together with the same version numbers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com
>> >> <ma...@dremio.com>> wrote:
>> >> Thanks Wes, that's great!
>> >> On Dec 14, 2015 9:44 AM, "Wes McKinney" <wes@cloudera.com
>> >> <ma...@cloudera.com>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> hi folks,
>> >>>
>> >>> In the interim I created a new public GitHub organization to host code
>> >>> for this effort so we can organize ourselves in advance of more
>> >>> progress in the ASF:
>> >>>
>> >>> https://github.com/arrow-data <https://github.com/arrow-data>
>> >>>
>> >>> I have a partial C++ implementation of the Arrow spec that I can move
>> >>> there, along with a to-be-Markdown-ified version of a specification
>> >>> subject to more iteration. The more pressing short term matter will be
>> >>> making some progress on the metadata / data headers / IPC protocol
>> >>> (e.g. using Flatbuffers or the like).
>> >>>
>> >>> Thoughts on git repo structure?
>> >>>
>> >>> 1) Avro-style — "one repo to rule them all"
>> >>> 2) Parquet-style — arrow-format, arrow-cpp, arrow-java, etc.
>> >>>
>> >>> (I'm personally more in the latter camp, though integration tests may
>> >>> be more tedious that way)
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com
>> >>> <ma...@dremio.com>> wrote:
>> >>>> I've opened a name search for our top vote getter.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92
>> >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I also just realized that my previously email dropped other
>> >>>> recipients.
>> >>>> Here it is below.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ----
>> >>>> I think we can call the voting closed. Top vote getters:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Apache Arrow (17)
>> >>>> Apache Herringbone (9)
>> >>>> Apache Joist (8)
>> >>>> Apache Colbuf (8)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'll up a PODLINGNAMESEARCH-* shortly for Arrow.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ---
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Marcel Kornacker <marcel@cloudera.com
>> >>>> <ma...@cloudera.com>>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Just added my vote.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Wes McKinney <wes@cloudera.com
>> >>>>> <ma...@cloudera.com>> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com
>> >>>>>> <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache. As such,
>> >>>>>>> their
>> >>>>>>> opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice.  There are
>> >>>>>>> issues
>> >>> of
>> >>>>>>> privilege, conflict of interest and so on.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson
>> >>>>>>> <alexlevenson@twitter.com <ma...@twitter.com>>
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help out -- is that
>> >>>>>>>> something we need? Or is that something apache helps out with in
>> >>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>> next
>> >>>>>>>> step?
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde <jhyde@apache.org
>> >>>>>>>> <ma...@apache.org>>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick search
>> >>>>>>>>> for
>> >>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>> top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”, “joist"),
>> >>>>>>>>> at
>> >>>>>>>>> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are no
>> >>>>>>>>> trademarks
>> >>>>>>>>> for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately active
>> >>>>>>>>> project
>> >>>>>>>>> called “joist” [1].
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has native-american
>> >>> connotations
>> >>>>>>>>> that we may or may not want to live with (just ask the
>> >>>>>>>>> Washington
>> >>>>>>>>> Redskins
>> >>>>>>>>> how they feel about their name).
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on
>> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90
>> >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90>, and
>> >>> fill
>> >>>>>>>>> out
>> >>>>>>>>> column C in the spreadsheet.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Julian
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist
>> >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/stephenh/joist>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com
>> >>>>>>>>> <ma...@dremio.com>>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> +1
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <wes@cloudera.com
>> >>>>>>>>> <ma...@cloudera.com>>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow
>> >>> (Tuesday)?
>> >>>>>>>>> I
>> >>>>>>>>> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <
>> >>> julian@hydromatic.net <ma...@hydromatic.net>>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but
>> >>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>> first
>> >>>>>>>>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
>> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90
>> >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90> is an
>> >>>>>>>>> example.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/
>> >>> <http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/>.
>> >>>>>>>>> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I
>> >>>>>>>>> think
>> >>>>>>>>> that is
>> >>>>>>>>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a
>> >>> lawyer
>> >>>>>>>>> to
>> >>>>>>>>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for
>> >>> the
>> >>>>>>>>> other
>> >>>>>>>>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Julian
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker
>> >>>>>>>>> <marcel@cloudera.com <ma...@cloudera.com>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>> >>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Ok guys,
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability.
>> >>>>>>>>> I
>> >>>>>>>>> did a
>> >>>>>>>>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have
>> >>>>>>>>> an
>> >>>>>>>>> issue
>> >>>>>>>>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a
>> >>>>>>>>> second
>> >>>>>>>>> phase vote.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into
>> >>>>>>>>> this?
>> >>>>>>>>> Last
>> >>>>>>>>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a
>> >>>>>>>>> good
>> >>>>>>>>> job
>> >>>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>>> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name
>> >>>>>>>>> search
>> >>>>>>>>> starting with the top one.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Link again:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
>> >>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> thanks
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
>> >>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11
>> >>> since
>> >>>>>>>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
>> >>>>>>>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see
>> >>> whether
>> >>>>>>>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second
>> >>> tab:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
>> >>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>> >>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to
>> >>> 10.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> 10 is most preferred
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <
>> >>> ted.dunning@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Single vote for most preferred?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Single transferable vote?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
>> >>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take
>> >>>>>>>>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
>> >>>>>>>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on
>> >>>>>>>>> Wednesday.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> thanks!
>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>> >>> jacques@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Hey Guys,
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
>> >>>>>>>>> proposal
>> >>>>>>>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
>> >>>>>>>>> contention
>> >>>>>>>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a
>> >>>>>>>>> name
>> >>>>>>>>> and get
>> >>>>>>>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process
>> >>>>>>>>> for
>> >>>>>>>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> We do the naming in the following steps
>> >>>>>>>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
>> >>>>>>>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
>> >>>>>>>>> options
>> >>>>>>>>> 1..10
>> >>>>>>>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
>> >>>>>>>>> whether we
>> >>>>>>>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have
>> >>>>>>>>> this until
>> >>>>>>>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
>> >>>>>>>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank
>> >>>>>>>>> their
>> >>>>>>>>> top 3
>> >>>>>>>>> names
>> >>>>>>>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that
>> >>>>>>>>> doesn't
>> >>>>>>>>> work,
>> >>>>>>>>> try the second and third options.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but
>> >>> then
>> >>>>>>>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
>> >>>>>>>>> just do
>> >>>>>>>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev
>> >>>>>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>>> better
>> >>>>>>>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place
>> >>>>>>>>> for
>> >>>>>>>>> that but
>> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
>> >>>>>>>>> think. Just
>> >>>>>>>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step
>> >>>>>>>>> 1.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon,
>> >>>>>>>>> Ted
>> >>>>>>>>> Dunning,
>> >>>>>>>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem,
>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques
>> >>>>>>>>> Nadeau,
>> >>>>>>>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
>> >>>>>>>>> Kornacker,
>> >>>>>>>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse,
>> >>>>>>>>> David
>> >>>>>>>>> Alves,
>> >>>>>>>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
>> >>>>>>>>> [2]
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
>> >>> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>> Alex Levenson
>> >>>>>>>> @THISWILLWORK
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Julien
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>]

Good news guys, Apache trademarks just approved the name Apache Arrow [1].
I will update the proposal and resubmit to the board.

thanks,
Jacques

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92

--
Jacques Nadeau
CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:

> You can also do the trick of having two branches that diverge at the very
> first commit. C++ and Java are in the same repository but if you have a
> given branch checked out you are looking at one or the other.
>
> That said, I’d be inclined to put everything in the same repo.
>
> The repo size will not be prohibitive as long as we follow Julien’s
> recommendation to put large objects (e.g. test data sets) elsewhere.
>
> And it makes it possible for a single patch to update both C++ and Java
> code lines, and also update shared content (the specification and the
> source files for the web site).
>
> And having said THAT, it doesn’t really matter. If we realize we’ve made a
> horrible mistake in 2 years we can split the repo or merge the repos.
>
> Julian
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Julien Le Dem <ju...@ledem.net> wrote:
> >
> > I guess what I meant is: separate repos => separate releases.
> > One repo can still have separate releases as was mentioned.
> >
> > I’m not too fond of the separate repos in parquet anymore.
> > The only reason I would split to a separate repo now is if we have large
> files for regression testing and that’s because of how git works.
> >
> > Separate directories java and cpp seems a given since they will build
> independently.
> >
> > I’d vote for just one repo with /format /java /cpp.
> > both /java and /cpp depend on /format
> >
> > releasing the format independently is useful because the semantics are
> different than for an API.
> > A breaking change in the format may not be an API change and vice-versa.
> >
> > Julien
> >
> >
> >> On Dec 16, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> One repo should be a given.
> >>
> >> Separate directories should be the question.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Jason Altekruse <
> altekrusejason@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> I think that is a worthwhile discussion, parallel vs independent
> releases, but I don't understand why it relates to one repo or not.
> Couldn't the release tag names just include the language (cpp, java
> python)? What other parts of version control are related to releasing?
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Julien Le Dem <julien@dremio.com
> <ma...@dremio.com>> wrote:
> >> for the git repos it boils down to wether we want to release arrow-cpp
> and arrow-java independently or together with the same version numbers.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com
> <ma...@dremio.com>> wrote:
> >> Thanks Wes, that's great!
> >> On Dec 14, 2015 9:44 AM, "Wes McKinney" <wes@cloudera.com <mailto:
> wes@cloudera.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> hi folks,
> >>>
> >>> In the interim I created a new public GitHub organization to host code
> >>> for this effort so we can organize ourselves in advance of more
> >>> progress in the ASF:
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/arrow-data <https://github.com/arrow-data>
> >>>
> >>> I have a partial C++ implementation of the Arrow spec that I can move
> >>> there, along with a to-be-Markdown-ified version of a specification
> >>> subject to more iteration. The more pressing short term matter will be
> >>> making some progress on the metadata / data headers / IPC protocol
> >>> (e.g. using Flatbuffers or the like).
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts on git repo structure?
> >>>
> >>> 1) Avro-style — "one repo to rule them all"
> >>> 2) Parquet-style — arrow-format, arrow-cpp, arrow-java, etc.
> >>>
> >>> (I'm personally more in the latter camp, though integration tests may
> >>> be more tedious that way)
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com
> <ma...@dremio.com>> wrote:
> >>>> I've opened a name search for our top vote getter.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I also just realized that my previously email dropped other
> recipients.
> >>>> Here it is below.
> >>>>
> >>>> ----
> >>>> I think we can call the voting closed. Top vote getters:
> >>>>
> >>>> Apache Arrow (17)
> >>>> Apache Herringbone (9)
> >>>> Apache Joist (8)
> >>>> Apache Colbuf (8)
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll up a PODLINGNAMESEARCH-* shortly for Arrow.
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Marcel Kornacker <marcel@cloudera.com
> <ma...@cloudera.com>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just added my vote.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Wes McKinney <wes@cloudera.com
> <ma...@cloudera.com>> wrote:
> >>>>>> Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com
> <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache. As such,
> >>>>>>> their
> >>>>>>> opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice.  There are
> issues
> >>> of
> >>>>>>> privilege, conflict of interest and so on.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson
> >>>>>>> <alexlevenson@twitter.com <ma...@twitter.com>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help out -- is that
> >>>>>>>> something we need? Or is that something apache helps out with in
> the
> >>>>>>>> next
> >>>>>>>> step?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde <jhyde@apache.org
> <ma...@apache.org>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick search
> for
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”, “joist"),
> at
> >>>>>>>>> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are no
> >>>>>>>>> trademarks
> >>>>>>>>> for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately active
> >>>>>>>>> project
> >>>>>>>>> called “joist” [1].
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has native-american
> >>> connotations
> >>>>>>>>> that we may or may not want to live with (just ask the Washington
> >>>>>>>>> Redskins
> >>>>>>>>> how they feel about their name).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on
> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90>, and
> >>> fill
> >>>>>>>>> out
> >>>>>>>>> column C in the spreadsheet.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Julian
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist <
> https://github.com/stephenh/joist>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com
> <ma...@dremio.com>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <wes@cloudera.com
> <ma...@cloudera.com>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow
> >>> (Tuesday)?
> >>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <
> >>> julian@hydromatic.net <ma...@hydromatic.net>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but
> the
> >>>>>>>>> first
> >>>>>>>>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90> is an
> >>>>>>>>> example.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/
> <http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/
> >.
> >>>>>>>>> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I think
> >>>>>>>>> that is
> >>>>>>>>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a
> >>> lawyer
> >>>>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for
> >>> the
> >>>>>>>>> other
> >>>>>>>>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Julian
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <
> marcel@cloudera.com <ma...@cloudera.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
> >>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ok guys,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability.
> I
> >>>>>>>>> did a
> >>>>>>>>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an
> >>>>>>>>> issue
> >>>>>>>>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a
> >>>>>>>>> second
> >>>>>>>>> phase vote.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into
> this?
> >>>>>>>>> Last
> >>>>>>>>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a
> good
> >>>>>>>>> job
> >>>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name
> >>>>>>>>> search
> >>>>>>>>> starting with the top one.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Link again:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
> <
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
> >
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> thanks
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
> >>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11
> >>> since
> >>>>>>>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
> >>>>>>>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see
> >>> whether
> >>>>>>>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second
> >>> tab:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
> <
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
> >
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
> >>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to
> >>> 10.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 10 is most preferred
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <
> >>> ted.dunning@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Single vote for most preferred?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Single transferable vote?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
> >>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take
> >>>>>>>>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
> >>>>>>>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on
> >>>>>>>>> Wednesday.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> thanks!
> >>>>>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
> >>> jacques@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hey Guys,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
> >>>>>>>>> proposal
> >>>>>>>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
> >>>>>>>>> contention
> >>>>>>>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a name
> >>>>>>>>> and get
> >>>>>>>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process
> for
> >>>>>>>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> We do the naming in the following steps
> >>>>>>>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
> >>>>>>>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
> >>>>>>>>> options
> >>>>>>>>> 1..10
> >>>>>>>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
> >>>>>>>>> whether we
> >>>>>>>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have
> >>>>>>>>> this until
> >>>>>>>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
> >>>>>>>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank
> their
> >>>>>>>>> top 3
> >>>>>>>>> names
> >>>>>>>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that
> doesn't
> >>>>>>>>> work,
> >>>>>>>>> try the second and third options.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but
> >>> then
> >>>>>>>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
> >>>>>>>>> just do
> >>>>>>>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev
> is
> >>>>>>>>> better
> >>>>>>>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place for
> >>>>>>>>> that but
> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
> >>>>>>>>> think. Just
> >>>>>>>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step
> 1.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>> Jacques
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon, Ted
> >>>>>>>>> Dunning,
> >>>>>>>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem,
> Jacques
> >>>>>>>>> Nadeau,
> >>>>>>>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
> >>>>>>>>> Kornacker,
> >>>>>>>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse,
> David
> >>>>>>>>> Alves,
> >>>>>>>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
> >>>>>>>>> [2]
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
> <
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
> >
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Alex Levenson
> >>>>>>>> @THISWILLWORK
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Julien
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org>]

You can also do the trick of having two branches that diverge at the very first commit. C++ and Java are in the same repository but if you have a given branch checked out you are looking at one or the other.

That said, I’d be inclined to put everything in the same repo.

The repo size will not be prohibitive as long as we follow Julien’s recommendation to put large objects (e.g. test data sets) elsewhere.

And it makes it possible for a single patch to update both C++ and Java code lines, and also update shared content (the specification and the source files for the web site).

And having said THAT, it doesn’t really matter. If we realize we’ve made a horrible mistake in 2 years we can split the repo or merge the repos.

Julian


> On Dec 17, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Julien Le Dem <ju...@ledem.net> wrote:
> 
> I guess what I meant is: separate repos => separate releases.
> One repo can still have separate releases as was mentioned.
> 
> I’m not too fond of the separate repos in parquet anymore.
> The only reason I would split to a separate repo now is if we have large files for regression testing and that’s because of how git works.
> 
> Separate directories java and cpp seems a given since they will build independently.
> 
> I’d vote for just one repo with /format /java /cpp.
> both /java and /cpp depend on /format
> 
> releasing the format independently is useful because the semantics are different than for an API.
> A breaking change in the format may not be an API change and vice-versa.
> 
> Julien
> 
> 
>> On Dec 16, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> One repo should be a given.
>> 
>> Separate directories should be the question.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Jason Altekruse <altekrusejason@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> I think that is a worthwhile discussion, parallel vs independent releases, but I don't understand why it relates to one repo or not. Couldn't the release tag names just include the language (cpp, java python)? What other parts of version control are related to releasing?
>> 
>> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Julien Le Dem <julien@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>> wrote:
>> for the git repos it boils down to wether we want to release arrow-cpp and arrow-java independently or together with the same version numbers.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>> wrote:
>> Thanks Wes, that's great!
>> On Dec 14, 2015 9:44 AM, "Wes McKinney" <wes@cloudera.com <ma...@cloudera.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> hi folks,
>>> 
>>> In the interim I created a new public GitHub organization to host code
>>> for this effort so we can organize ourselves in advance of more
>>> progress in the ASF:
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/arrow-data <https://github.com/arrow-data>
>>> 
>>> I have a partial C++ implementation of the Arrow spec that I can move
>>> there, along with a to-be-Markdown-ified version of a specification
>>> subject to more iteration. The more pressing short term matter will be
>>> making some progress on the metadata / data headers / IPC protocol
>>> (e.g. using Flatbuffers or the like).
>>> 
>>> Thoughts on git repo structure?
>>> 
>>> 1) Avro-style — "one repo to rule them all"
>>> 2) Parquet-style — arrow-format, arrow-cpp, arrow-java, etc.
>>> 
>>> (I'm personally more in the latter camp, though integration tests may
>>> be more tedious that way)
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>> wrote:
>>>> I've opened a name search for our top vote getter.
>>>> 
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I also just realized that my previously email dropped other recipients.
>>>> Here it is below.
>>>> 
>>>> ----
>>>> I think we can call the voting closed. Top vote getters:
>>>> 
>>>> Apache Arrow (17)
>>>> Apache Herringbone (9)
>>>> Apache Joist (8)
>>>> Apache Colbuf (8)
>>>> 
>>>> I'll up a PODLINGNAMESEARCH-* shortly for Arrow.
>>>> 
>>>> ---
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Marcel Kornacker <marcel@cloudera.com <ma...@cloudera.com>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just added my vote.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Wes McKinney <wes@cloudera.com <ma...@cloudera.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache. As such,
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice.  There are issues
>>> of
>>>>>>> privilege, conflict of interest and so on.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson
>>>>>>> <alexlevenson@twitter.com <ma...@twitter.com>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help out -- is that
>>>>>>>> something we need? Or is that something apache helps out with in the
>>>>>>>> next
>>>>>>>> step?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde <jhyde@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick search for
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”, “joist"), at
>>>>>>>>> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are no
>>>>>>>>> trademarks
>>>>>>>>> for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately active
>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>>> called “joist” [1].
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has native-american
>>> connotations
>>>>>>>>> that we may or may not want to live with (just ask the Washington
>>>>>>>>> Redskins
>>>>>>>>> how they feel about their name).
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on
>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90>, and
>>> fill
>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>> column C in the spreadsheet.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Julian
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist <https://github.com/stephenh/joist>
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <wes@cloudera.com <ma...@cloudera.com>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow
>>> (Tuesday)?
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <
>>> julian@hydromatic.net <ma...@hydromatic.net>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but the
>>>>>>>>> first
>>>>>>>>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90> is an
>>>>>>>>> example.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/ <http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/>.
>>>>>>>>> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I think
>>>>>>>>> that is
>>>>>>>>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a
>>> lawyer
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for
>>> the
>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Julian
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <marcel@cloudera.com <ma...@cloudera.com>
>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Ok guys,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability. I
>>>>>>>>> did a
>>>>>>>>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an
>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a
>>>>>>>>> second
>>>>>>>>> phase vote.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into this?
>>>>>>>>> Last
>>>>>>>>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a good
>>>>>>>>> job
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name
>>>>>>>>> search
>>>>>>>>> starting with the top one.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Link again:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1 <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1>
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
>>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11
>>> since
>>>>>>>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
>>>>>>>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see
>>> whether
>>>>>>>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second
>>> tab:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532 <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532>
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to
>>> 10.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 10 is most preferred
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <
>>> ted.dunning@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Single vote for most preferred?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Single transferable vote?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
>>> jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take
>>>>>>>>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
>>>>>>>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on
>>>>>>>>> Wednesday.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> thanks!
>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>>> jacques@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hey Guys,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
>>>>>>>>> proposal
>>>>>>>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
>>>>>>>>> contention
>>>>>>>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a name
>>>>>>>>> and get
>>>>>>>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process for
>>>>>>>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> We do the naming in the following steps
>>>>>>>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
>>>>>>>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
>>>>>>>>> options
>>>>>>>>> 1..10
>>>>>>>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
>>>>>>>>> whether we
>>>>>>>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have
>>>>>>>>> this until
>>>>>>>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
>>>>>>>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank their
>>>>>>>>> top 3
>>>>>>>>> names
>>>>>>>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that doesn't
>>>>>>>>> work,
>>>>>>>>> try the second and third options.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but
>>> then
>>>>>>>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
>>>>>>>>> just do
>>>>>>>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev is
>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place for
>>>>>>>>> that but
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
>>>>>>>>> think. Just
>>>>>>>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step 1.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon, Ted
>>>>>>>>> Dunning,
>>>>>>>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem, Jacques
>>>>>>>>> Nadeau,
>>>>>>>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
>>>>>>>>> Kornacker,
>>>>>>>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse, David
>>>>>>>>> Alves,
>>>>>>>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0 <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0>
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Alex Levenson
>>>>>>>> @THISWILLWORK
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Julien
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Julien Le Dem <ju...@ledem.net>]

I guess what I meant is: separate repos => separate releases.
One repo can still have separate releases as was mentioned.

I’m not too fond of the separate repos in parquet anymore.
The only reason I would split to a separate repo now is if we have large files for regression testing and that’s because of how git works.

Separate directories java and cpp seems a given since they will build independently.

I’d vote for just one repo with /format /java /cpp.
both /java and /cpp depend on /format

releasing the format independently is useful because the semantics are different than for an API.
A breaking change in the format may not be an API change and vice-versa.

Julien


> On Dec 16, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> One repo should be a given.
> 
> Separate directories should be the question.
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Jason Altekruse <altekrusejason@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> I think that is a worthwhile discussion, parallel vs independent releases, but I don't understand why it relates to one repo or not. Couldn't the release tag names just include the language (cpp, java python)? What other parts of version control are related to releasing?
> 
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Julien Le Dem <julien@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>> wrote:
> for the git repos it boils down to wether we want to release arrow-cpp and arrow-java independently or together with the same version numbers.
>  
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>> wrote:
> Thanks Wes, that's great!
> On Dec 14, 2015 9:44 AM, "Wes McKinney" <wes@cloudera.com <ma...@cloudera.com>> wrote:
> 
> > hi folks,
> >
> > In the interim I created a new public GitHub organization to host code
> > for this effort so we can organize ourselves in advance of more
> > progress in the ASF:
> >
> > https://github.com/arrow-data <https://github.com/arrow-data>
> >
> > I have a partial C++ implementation of the Arrow spec that I can move
> > there, along with a to-be-Markdown-ified version of a specification
> > subject to more iteration. The more pressing short term matter will be
> > making some progress on the metadata / data headers / IPC protocol
> > (e.g. using Flatbuffers or the like).
> >
> > Thoughts on git repo structure?
> >
> > 1) Avro-style — "one repo to rule them all"
> > 2) Parquet-style — arrow-format, arrow-cpp, arrow-java, etc.
> >
> > (I'm personally more in the latter camp, though integration tests may
> > be more tedious that way)
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>> wrote:
> > > I've opened a name search for our top vote getter.
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92>
> > >
> > >
> > > I also just realized that my previously email dropped other recipients.
> > > Here it is below.
> > >
> > > ----
> > > I think we can call the voting closed. Top vote getters:
> > >
> > > Apache Arrow (17)
> > > Apache Herringbone (9)
> > > Apache Joist (8)
> > > Apache Colbuf (8)
> > >
> > > I'll up a PODLINGNAMESEARCH-* shortly for Arrow.
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jacques Nadeau
> > > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Marcel Kornacker <marcel@cloudera.com <ma...@cloudera.com>>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Just added my vote.
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Wes McKinney <wes@cloudera.com <ma...@cloudera.com>> wrote:
> > >> > Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers?
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache. As such,
> > >> >> their
> > >> >> opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice.  There are issues
> > of
> > >> >> privilege, conflict of interest and so on.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson
> > >> >> <alexlevenson@twitter.com <ma...@twitter.com>>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help out -- is that
> > >> >>> something we need? Or is that something apache helps out with in the
> > >> >>> next
> > >> >>> step?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde <jhyde@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>>
> > wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick search for
> > >> >>>> the
> > >> >>>> top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”, “joist"), at
> > >> >>>> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are no
> > >> >>>> trademarks
> > >> >>>> for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately active
> > >> >>>> project
> > >> >>>> called “joist” [1].
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has native-american
> > connotations
> > >> >>>> that we may or may not want to live with (just ask the Washington
> > >> >>>> Redskins
> > >> >>>> how they feel about their name).
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on
> > >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90>, and
> > fill
> > >> >>>> out
> > >> >>>> column C in the spreadsheet.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Julian
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist <https://github.com/stephenh/joist>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> +1
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> --
> > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <wes@cloudera.com <ma...@cloudera.com>>
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow
> > (Tuesday)?
> > >> >>>> I
> > >> >>>> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <
> > julian@hydromatic.net <ma...@hydromatic.net>>
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but the
> > >> >>>> first
> > >> >>>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
> > >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90> is an
> > >> >>>> example.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/ <http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/>.
> > >> >>>> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I think
> > >> >>>> that is
> > >> >>>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a
> > lawyer
> > >> >>>> to
> > >> >>>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for
> > the
> > >> >>>> other
> > >> >>>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Julian
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <marcel@cloudera.com <ma...@cloudera.com>
> > >
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
> > jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Ok guys,
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability. I
> > >> >>>> did a
> > >> >>>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an
> > >> >>>> issue
> > >> >>>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a
> > >> >>>> second
> > >> >>>> phase vote.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into this?
> > >> >>>> Last
> > >> >>>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a good
> > >> >>>> job
> > >> >>>> of
> > >> >>>> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name
> > >> >>>> search
> > >> >>>> starting with the top one.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Link again:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1 <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> thanks
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> --
> > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
> > jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11
> > since
> > >> >>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
> > >> >>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see
> > whether
> > >> >>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second
> > tab:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532 <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> --
> > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
> > jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to
> > 10.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> 10 is most preferred
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> --
> > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <
> > ted.dunning@gmail.com <ma...@gmail.com>>
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Single vote for most preferred?
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Single transferable vote?
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
> > jacques@dremio.com <ma...@dremio.com>>
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take
> > >> >>>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
> > >> >>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on
> > >> >>>> Wednesday.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> thanks!
> > >> >>>> Jacques
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> --
> > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
> > jacques@apache.org <ma...@apache.org>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Hey Guys,
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
> > >> >>>> proposal
> > >> >>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
> > >> >>>> contention
> > >> >>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a name
> > >> >>>> and get
> > >> >>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process for
> > >> >>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> We do the naming in the following steps
> > >> >>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
> > >> >>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
> > >> >>>> options
> > >> >>>> 1..10
> > >> >>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
> > >> >>>> whether we
> > >> >>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have
> > >> >>>> this until
> > >> >>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
> > >> >>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank their
> > >> >>>> top 3
> > >> >>>> names
> > >> >>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that doesn't
> > >> >>>> work,
> > >> >>>> try the second and third options.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but
> > then
> > >> >>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
> > >> >>>> just do
> > >> >>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev is
> > >> >>>> better
> > >> >>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place for
> > >> >>>> that but
> > >> >>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
> > >> >>>> think. Just
> > >> >>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step 1.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Thanks,
> > >> >>>> Jacques
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon, Ted
> > >> >>>> Dunning,
> > >> >>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem, Jacques
> > >> >>>> Nadeau,
> > >> >>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
> > >> >>>> Kornacker,
> > >> >>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse, David
> > >> >>>> Alves,
> > >> >>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
> > >> >>>> [2]
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0 <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> --
> > >> >>> Alex Levenson
> > >> >>> @THISWILLWORK
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Julien
> 
> 

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>]

One repo should be a given.

Separate directories should be the question.



On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Jason Altekruse <al...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I think that is a worthwhile discussion, parallel vs independent releases,
> but I don't understand why it relates to one repo or not. Couldn't the
> release tag names just include the language (cpp, java python)? What other
> parts of version control are related to releasing?
>
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Julien Le Dem <ju...@dremio.com> wrote:
>
>> for the git repos it boils down to wether we want to release arrow-cpp
>> and arrow-java independently or together with the same version numbers.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Wes, that's great!
>>> On Dec 14, 2015 9:44 AM, "Wes McKinney" <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > hi folks,
>>> >
>>> > In the interim I created a new public GitHub organization to host code
>>> > for this effort so we can organize ourselves in advance of more
>>> > progress in the ASF:
>>> >
>>> > https://github.com/arrow-data
>>> >
>>> > I have a partial C++ implementation of the Arrow spec that I can move
>>> > there, along with a to-be-Markdown-ified version of a specification
>>> > subject to more iteration. The more pressing short term matter will be
>>> > making some progress on the metadata / data headers / IPC protocol
>>> > (e.g. using Flatbuffers or the like).
>>> >
>>> > Thoughts on git repo structure?
>>> >
>>> > 1) Avro-style — "one repo to rule them all"
>>> > 2) Parquet-style — arrow-format, arrow-cpp, arrow-java, etc.
>>> >
>>> > (I'm personally more in the latter camp, though integration tests may
>>> > be more tedious that way)
>>> >
>>> > Thanks
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > I've opened a name search for our top vote getter.
>>> > >
>>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > I also just realized that my previously email dropped other
>>> recipients.
>>> > > Here it is below.
>>> > >
>>> > > ----
>>> > > I think we can call the voting closed. Top vote getters:
>>> > >
>>> > > Apache Arrow (17)
>>> > > Apache Herringbone (9)
>>> > > Apache Joist (8)
>>> > > Apache Colbuf (8)
>>> > >
>>> > > I'll up a PODLINGNAMESEARCH-* shortly for Arrow.
>>> > >
>>> > > ---
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > > Jacques Nadeau
>>> > > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>> > >
>>> > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Marcel Kornacker <
>>> marcel@cloudera.com>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Just added my vote.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >> > Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers?
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning <
>>> ted.dunning@gmail.com>
>>> > >> > wrote:
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place.
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache. As
>>> such,
>>> > >> >> their
>>> > >> >> opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice.  There are
>>> issues
>>> > of
>>> > >> >> privilege, conflict of interest and so on.
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson
>>> > >> >> <al...@twitter.com>
>>> > >> >> wrote:
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>> I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help out -- is
>>> that
>>> > >> >>> something we need? Or is that something apache helps out with
>>> in the
>>> > >> >>> next
>>> > >> >>> step?
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick search
>>> for
>>> > >> >>>> the
>>> > >> >>>> top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”,
>>> “joist"), at
>>> > >> >>>> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are no
>>> > >> >>>> trademarks
>>> > >> >>>> for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately
>>> active
>>> > >> >>>> project
>>> > >> >>>> called “joist” [1].
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has native-american
>>> > connotations
>>> > >> >>>> that we may or may not want to live with (just ask the
>>> Washington
>>> > >> >>>> Redskins
>>> > >> >>>> how they feel about their name).
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on
>>> > >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90,
>>> and
>>> > fill
>>> > >> >>>> out
>>> > >> >>>> column C in the spreadsheet.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Julian
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>>> jacques@dremio.com>
>>> > >> >>>> wrote:
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> +1
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> --
>>> > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <
>>> wes@cloudera.com>
>>> > >> >>>> wrote:
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow
>>> > (Tuesday)?
>>> > >> >>>> I
>>> > >> >>>> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <
>>> > julian@hydromatic.net>
>>> > >> >>>> wrote:
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but
>>> the
>>> > >> >>>> first
>>> > >> >>>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
>>> > >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 is
>>> an
>>> > >> >>>> example.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> >
>>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/
>>> .
>>> > >> >>>> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I
>>> think
>>> > >> >>>> that is
>>> > >> >>>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a
>>> > lawyer
>>> > >> >>>> to
>>> > >> >>>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts
>>> for
>>> > the
>>> > >> >>>> other
>>> > >> >>>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Julian
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <
>>> marcel@cloudera.com
>>> > >
>>> > >> >>>> wrote:
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>>> > jacques@dremio.com>
>>> > >> >>>> wrote:
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Ok guys,
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of
>>> viaability. I
>>> > >> >>>> did a
>>> > >> >>>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have
>>> an
>>> > >> >>>> issue
>>> > >> >>>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a
>>> > >> >>>> second
>>> > >> >>>> phase vote.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into
>>> this?
>>> > >> >>>> Last
>>> > >> >>>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a
>>> good
>>> > >> >>>> job
>>> > >> >>>> of
>>> > >> >>>> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name
>>> > >> >>>> search
>>> > >> >>>> starting with the top one.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Link again:
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> >
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> thanks
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> --
>>> > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
>>> > jacques@dremio.com>
>>> > >> >>>> wrote:
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11
>>> > since
>>> > >> >>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
>>> > >> >>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see
>>> > whether
>>> > >> >>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second
>>> > tab:
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> >
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> --
>>> > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>>> > jacques@dremio.com>
>>> > >> >>>> wrote:
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1
>>> to
>>> > 10.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> 10 is most preferred
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> --
>>> > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <
>>> > ted.dunning@gmail.com>
>>> > >> >>>> wrote:
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Single vote for most preferred?
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Single transferable vote?
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
>>> > jacques@dremio.com>
>>> > >> >>>> wrote:
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll
>>> take
>>> > >> >>>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
>>> > >> >>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on
>>> > >> >>>> Wednesday.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> thanks!
>>> > >> >>>> Jacques
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> --
>>> > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>>> > jacques@apache.org
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> wrote:
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Hey Guys,
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
>>> > >> >>>> proposal
>>> > >> >>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
>>> > >> >>>> contention
>>> > >> >>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a
>>> name
>>> > >> >>>> and get
>>> > >> >>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a
>>> process for
>>> > >> >>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> We do the naming in the following steps
>>> > >> >>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
>>> > >> >>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
>>> > >> >>>> options
>>> > >> >>>> 1..10
>>> > >> >>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
>>> > >> >>>> whether we
>>> > >> >>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have
>>> > >> >>>> this until
>>> > >> >>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
>>> > >> >>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank
>>> their
>>> > >> >>>> top 3
>>> > >> >>>> names
>>> > >> >>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that
>>> doesn't
>>> > >> >>>> work,
>>> > >> >>>> try the second and third options.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but
>>> > then
>>> > >> >>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We
>>> could
>>> > >> >>>> just do
>>> > >> >>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill
>>> dev is
>>> > >> >>>> better
>>> > >> >>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place
>>> for
>>> > >> >>>> that but
>>> > >> >>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
>>> > >> >>>> think. Just
>>> > >> >>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for
>>> step 1.
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> Thanks,
>>> > >> >>>> Jacques
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon,
>>> Ted
>>> > >> >>>> Dunning,
>>> > >> >>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem,
>>> Jacques
>>> > >> >>>> Nadeau,
>>> > >> >>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson,
>>> Marcel
>>> > >> >>>> Kornacker,
>>> > >> >>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse,
>>> David
>>> > >> >>>> Alves,
>>> > >> >>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold
>>> Xin.
>>> > >> >>>> [2]
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> >
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>>
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>>
>>> > >> >>> --
>>> > >> >>> Alex Levenson
>>> > >> >>> @THISWILLWORK
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >> >>
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Julien
>>
>
>

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Jason Altekruse <al...@gmail.com>]

I think that is a worthwhile discussion, parallel vs independent releases,
but I don't understand why it relates to one repo or not. Couldn't the
release tag names just include the language (cpp, java python)? What other
parts of version control are related to releasing?

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Julien Le Dem <ju...@dremio.com> wrote:

> for the git repos it boils down to wether we want to release arrow-cpp and
> arrow-java independently or together with the same version numbers.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Wes, that's great!
>> On Dec 14, 2015 9:44 AM, "Wes McKinney" <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>
>> > hi folks,
>> >
>> > In the interim I created a new public GitHub organization to host code
>> > for this effort so we can organize ourselves in advance of more
>> > progress in the ASF:
>> >
>> > https://github.com/arrow-data
>> >
>> > I have a partial C++ implementation of the Arrow spec that I can move
>> > there, along with a to-be-Markdown-ified version of a specification
>> > subject to more iteration. The more pressing short term matter will be
>> > making some progress on the metadata / data headers / IPC protocol
>> > (e.g. using Flatbuffers or the like).
>> >
>> > Thoughts on git repo structure?
>> >
>> > 1) Avro-style — "one repo to rule them all"
>> > 2) Parquet-style — arrow-format, arrow-cpp, arrow-java, etc.
>> >
>> > (I'm personally more in the latter camp, though integration tests may
>> > be more tedious that way)
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > I've opened a name search for our top vote getter.
>> > >
>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I also just realized that my previously email dropped other
>> recipients.
>> > > Here it is below.
>> > >
>> > > ----
>> > > I think we can call the voting closed. Top vote getters:
>> > >
>> > > Apache Arrow (17)
>> > > Apache Herringbone (9)
>> > > Apache Joist (8)
>> > > Apache Colbuf (8)
>> > >
>> > > I'll up a PODLINGNAMESEARCH-* shortly for Arrow.
>> > >
>> > > ---
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Jacques Nadeau
>> > > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Marcel Kornacker <marcel@cloudera.com
>> >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Just added my vote.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>> > >> > Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers?
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com
>> >
>> > >> > wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache. As such,
>> > >> >> their
>> > >> >> opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice.  There are
>> issues
>> > of
>> > >> >> privilege, conflict of interest and so on.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson
>> > >> >> <al...@twitter.com>
>> > >> >> wrote:
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help out -- is that
>> > >> >>> something we need? Or is that something apache helps out with in
>> the
>> > >> >>> next
>> > >> >>> step?
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick search
>> for
>> > >> >>>> the
>> > >> >>>> top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”,
>> “joist"), at
>> > >> >>>> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are no
>> > >> >>>> trademarks
>> > >> >>>> for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately active
>> > >> >>>> project
>> > >> >>>> called “joist” [1].
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has native-american
>> > connotations
>> > >> >>>> that we may or may not want to live with (just ask the
>> Washington
>> > >> >>>> Redskins
>> > >> >>>> how they feel about their name).
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on
>> > >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90, and
>> > fill
>> > >> >>>> out
>> > >> >>>> column C in the spreadsheet.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Julian
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com
>> >
>> > >> >>>> wrote:
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> +1
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> --
>> > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <wes@cloudera.com
>> >
>> > >> >>>> wrote:
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow
>> > (Tuesday)?
>> > >> >>>> I
>> > >> >>>> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <
>> > julian@hydromatic.net>
>> > >> >>>> wrote:
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but
>> the
>> > >> >>>> first
>> > >> >>>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
>> > >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 is
>> an
>> > >> >>>> example.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> >
>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/
>> .
>> > >> >>>> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I
>> think
>> > >> >>>> that is
>> > >> >>>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a
>> > lawyer
>> > >> >>>> to
>> > >> >>>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for
>> > the
>> > >> >>>> other
>> > >> >>>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Julian
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <
>> marcel@cloudera.com
>> > >
>> > >> >>>> wrote:
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>> > jacques@dremio.com>
>> > >> >>>> wrote:
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Ok guys,
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of
>> viaability. I
>> > >> >>>> did a
>> > >> >>>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have
>> an
>> > >> >>>> issue
>> > >> >>>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a
>> > >> >>>> second
>> > >> >>>> phase vote.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into
>> this?
>> > >> >>>> Last
>> > >> >>>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a
>> good
>> > >> >>>> job
>> > >> >>>> of
>> > >> >>>> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name
>> > >> >>>> search
>> > >> >>>> starting with the top one.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Link again:
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> >
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> thanks
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> --
>> > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
>> > jacques@dremio.com>
>> > >> >>>> wrote:
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11
>> > since
>> > >> >>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
>> > >> >>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see
>> > whether
>> > >> >>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second
>> > tab:
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> >
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> --
>> > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>> > jacques@dremio.com>
>> > >> >>>> wrote:
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to
>> > 10.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> 10 is most preferred
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> --
>> > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <
>> > ted.dunning@gmail.com>
>> > >> >>>> wrote:
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Single vote for most preferred?
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Single transferable vote?
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
>> > jacques@dremio.com>
>> > >> >>>> wrote:
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take
>> > >> >>>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
>> > >> >>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on
>> > >> >>>> Wednesday.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> thanks!
>> > >> >>>> Jacques
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> --
>> > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
>> > jacques@apache.org
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> wrote:
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Hey Guys,
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
>> > >> >>>> proposal
>> > >> >>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
>> > >> >>>> contention
>> > >> >>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a
>> name
>> > >> >>>> and get
>> > >> >>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process
>> for
>> > >> >>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> We do the naming in the following steps
>> > >> >>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
>> > >> >>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
>> > >> >>>> options
>> > >> >>>> 1..10
>> > >> >>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
>> > >> >>>> whether we
>> > >> >>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have
>> > >> >>>> this until
>> > >> >>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
>> > >> >>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank
>> their
>> > >> >>>> top 3
>> > >> >>>> names
>> > >> >>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that
>> doesn't
>> > >> >>>> work,
>> > >> >>>> try the second and third options.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but
>> > then
>> > >> >>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
>> > >> >>>> just do
>> > >> >>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill
>> dev is
>> > >> >>>> better
>> > >> >>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place
>> for
>> > >> >>>> that but
>> > >> >>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
>> > >> >>>> think. Just
>> > >> >>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for
>> step 1.
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> Thanks,
>> > >> >>>> Jacques
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon,
>> Ted
>> > >> >>>> Dunning,
>> > >> >>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem,
>> Jacques
>> > >> >>>> Nadeau,
>> > >> >>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
>> > >> >>>> Kornacker,
>> > >> >>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse,
>> David
>> > >> >>>> Alves,
>> > >> >>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
>> > >> >>>> [2]
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> >
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>>
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>>
>> > >> >>> --
>> > >> >>> Alex Levenson
>> > >> >>> @THISWILLWORK
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Julien
>

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Julien Le Dem <ju...@dremio.com>]

for the git repos it boils down to wether we want to release arrow-cpp and
arrow-java independently or together with the same version numbers.



On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com> wrote:

> Thanks Wes, that's great!
> On Dec 14, 2015 9:44 AM, "Wes McKinney" <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> > hi folks,
> >
> > In the interim I created a new public GitHub organization to host code
> > for this effort so we can organize ourselves in advance of more
> > progress in the ASF:
> >
> > https://github.com/arrow-data
> >
> > I have a partial C++ implementation of the Arrow spec that I can move
> > there, along with a to-be-Markdown-ified version of a specification
> > subject to more iteration. The more pressing short term matter will be
> > making some progress on the metadata / data headers / IPC protocol
> > (e.g. using Flatbuffers or the like).
> >
> > Thoughts on git repo structure?
> >
> > 1) Avro-style — "one repo to rule them all"
> > 2) Parquet-style — arrow-format, arrow-cpp, arrow-java, etc.
> >
> > (I'm personally more in the latter camp, though integration tests may
> > be more tedious that way)
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> wrote:
> > > I've opened a name search for our top vote getter.
> > >
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92
> > >
> > >
> > > I also just realized that my previously email dropped other recipients.
> > > Here it is below.
> > >
> > > ----
> > > I think we can call the voting closed. Top vote getters:
> > >
> > > Apache Arrow (17)
> > > Apache Herringbone (9)
> > > Apache Joist (8)
> > > Apache Colbuf (8)
> > >
> > > I'll up a PODLINGNAMESEARCH-* shortly for Arrow.
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jacques Nadeau
> > > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Marcel Kornacker <ma...@cloudera.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Just added my vote.
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> > >> > Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers?
> > >> >
> > >> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache. As such,
> > >> >> their
> > >> >> opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice.  There are
> issues
> > of
> > >> >> privilege, conflict of interest and so on.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson
> > >> >> <al...@twitter.com>
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help out -- is that
> > >> >>> something we need? Or is that something apache helps out with in
> the
> > >> >>> next
> > >> >>> step?
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick search
> for
> > >> >>>> the
> > >> >>>> top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”, “joist"),
> at
> > >> >>>> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are no
> > >> >>>> trademarks
> > >> >>>> for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately active
> > >> >>>> project
> > >> >>>> called “joist” [1].
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has native-american
> > connotations
> > >> >>>> that we may or may not want to live with (just ask the Washington
> > >> >>>> Redskins
> > >> >>>> how they feel about their name).
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on
> > >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90, and
> > fill
> > >> >>>> out
> > >> >>>> column C in the spreadsheet.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Julian
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> +1
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> --
> > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com>
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow
> > (Tuesday)?
> > >> >>>> I
> > >> >>>> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <
> > julian@hydromatic.net>
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but
> the
> > >> >>>> first
> > >> >>>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
> > >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 is an
> > >> >>>> example.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> >
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/.
> > >> >>>> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I think
> > >> >>>> that is
> > >> >>>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a
> > lawyer
> > >> >>>> to
> > >> >>>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for
> > the
> > >> >>>> other
> > >> >>>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Julian
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <
> marcel@cloudera.com
> > >
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
> > jacques@dremio.com>
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Ok guys,
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability.
> I
> > >> >>>> did a
> > >> >>>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an
> > >> >>>> issue
> > >> >>>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a
> > >> >>>> second
> > >> >>>> phase vote.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into
> this?
> > >> >>>> Last
> > >> >>>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a
> good
> > >> >>>> job
> > >> >>>> of
> > >> >>>> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name
> > >> >>>> search
> > >> >>>> starting with the top one.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Link again:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> >
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> thanks
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> --
> > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
> > jacques@dremio.com>
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11
> > since
> > >> >>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
> > >> >>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see
> > whether
> > >> >>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second
> > tab:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> >
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> --
> > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
> > jacques@dremio.com>
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to
> > 10.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> 10 is most preferred
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> --
> > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <
> > ted.dunning@gmail.com>
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Single vote for most preferred?
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Single transferable vote?
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
> > jacques@dremio.com>
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take
> > >> >>>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
> > >> >>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on
> > >> >>>> Wednesday.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> thanks!
> > >> >>>> Jacques
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> --
> > >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> > >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
> > jacques@apache.org
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> wrote:
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Hey Guys,
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
> > >> >>>> proposal
> > >> >>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
> > >> >>>> contention
> > >> >>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a name
> > >> >>>> and get
> > >> >>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process
> for
> > >> >>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> We do the naming in the following steps
> > >> >>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
> > >> >>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
> > >> >>>> options
> > >> >>>> 1..10
> > >> >>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
> > >> >>>> whether we
> > >> >>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have
> > >> >>>> this until
> > >> >>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
> > >> >>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank
> their
> > >> >>>> top 3
> > >> >>>> names
> > >> >>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that
> doesn't
> > >> >>>> work,
> > >> >>>> try the second and third options.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but
> > then
> > >> >>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
> > >> >>>> just do
> > >> >>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev
> is
> > >> >>>> better
> > >> >>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place for
> > >> >>>> that but
> > >> >>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
> > >> >>>> think. Just
> > >> >>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step
> 1.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> Thanks,
> > >> >>>> Jacques
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon, Ted
> > >> >>>> Dunning,
> > >> >>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem,
> Jacques
> > >> >>>> Nadeau,
> > >> >>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
> > >> >>>> Kornacker,
> > >> >>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse,
> David
> > >> >>>> Alves,
> > >> >>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
> > >> >>>> [2]
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> >
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> --
> > >> >>> Alex Levenson
> > >> >>> @THISWILLWORK
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>



-- 
Julien

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>]

Thanks Wes, that's great!
On Dec 14, 2015 9:44 AM, "Wes McKinney" <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> hi folks,
>
> In the interim I created a new public GitHub organization to host code
> for this effort so we can organize ourselves in advance of more
> progress in the ASF:
>
> https://github.com/arrow-data
>
> I have a partial C++ implementation of the Arrow spec that I can move
> there, along with a to-be-Markdown-ified version of a specification
> subject to more iteration. The more pressing short term matter will be
> making some progress on the metadata / data headers / IPC protocol
> (e.g. using Flatbuffers or the like).
>
> Thoughts on git repo structure?
>
> 1) Avro-style — "one repo to rule them all"
> 2) Parquet-style — arrow-format, arrow-cpp, arrow-java, etc.
>
> (I'm personally more in the latter camp, though integration tests may
> be more tedious that way)
>
> Thanks
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com> wrote:
> > I've opened a name search for our top vote getter.
> >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92
> >
> >
> > I also just realized that my previously email dropped other recipients.
> > Here it is below.
> >
> > ----
> > I think we can call the voting closed. Top vote getters:
> >
> > Apache Arrow (17)
> > Apache Herringbone (9)
> > Apache Joist (8)
> > Apache Colbuf (8)
> >
> > I'll up a PODLINGNAMESEARCH-* shortly for Arrow.
> >
> > ---
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jacques Nadeau
> > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Marcel Kornacker <ma...@cloudera.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Just added my vote.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> >> > Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers?
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place.
> >> >>
> >> >> Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache. As such,
> >> >> their
> >> >> opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice.  There are issues
> of
> >> >> privilege, conflict of interest and so on.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson
> >> >> <al...@twitter.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help out -- is that
> >> >>> something we need? Or is that something apache helps out with in the
> >> >>> next
> >> >>> step?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick search for
> >> >>>> the
> >> >>>> top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”, “joist"), at
> >> >>>> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are no
> >> >>>> trademarks
> >> >>>> for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately active
> >> >>>> project
> >> >>>> called “joist” [1].
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has native-american
> connotations
> >> >>>> that we may or may not want to live with (just ask the Washington
> >> >>>> Redskins
> >> >>>> how they feel about their name).
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on
> >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90, and
> fill
> >> >>>> out
> >> >>>> column C in the spreadsheet.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Julian
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> +1
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> --
> >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow
> (Tuesday)?
> >> >>>> I
> >> >>>> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <
> julian@hydromatic.net>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but the
> >> >>>> first
> >> >>>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
> >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 is an
> >> >>>> example.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/.
> >> >>>> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I think
> >> >>>> that is
> >> >>>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a
> lawyer
> >> >>>> to
> >> >>>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for
> the
> >> >>>> other
> >> >>>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Julian
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <marcel@cloudera.com
> >
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
> jacques@dremio.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Ok guys,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability. I
> >> >>>> did a
> >> >>>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an
> >> >>>> issue
> >> >>>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a
> >> >>>> second
> >> >>>> phase vote.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into this?
> >> >>>> Last
> >> >>>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a good
> >> >>>> job
> >> >>>> of
> >> >>>> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name
> >> >>>> search
> >> >>>> starting with the top one.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Link again:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> thanks
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> --
> >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
> jacques@dremio.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11
> since
> >> >>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
> >> >>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see
> whether
> >> >>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second
> tab:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> --
> >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
> jacques@dremio.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to
> 10.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> 10 is most preferred
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> --
> >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <
> ted.dunning@gmail.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Single vote for most preferred?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Single transferable vote?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <
> jacques@dremio.com>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take
> >> >>>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
> >> >>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on
> >> >>>> Wednesday.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> thanks!
> >> >>>> Jacques
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> --
> >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <
> jacques@apache.org
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Hey Guys,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
> >> >>>> proposal
> >> >>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
> >> >>>> contention
> >> >>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a name
> >> >>>> and get
> >> >>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process for
> >> >>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> We do the naming in the following steps
> >> >>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
> >> >>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
> >> >>>> options
> >> >>>> 1..10
> >> >>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
> >> >>>> whether we
> >> >>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have
> >> >>>> this until
> >> >>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
> >> >>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank their
> >> >>>> top 3
> >> >>>> names
> >> >>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that doesn't
> >> >>>> work,
> >> >>>> try the second and third options.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but
> then
> >> >>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
> >> >>>> just do
> >> >>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev is
> >> >>>> better
> >> >>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place for
> >> >>>> that but
> >> >>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
> >> >>>> think. Just
> >> >>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step 1.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Thanks,
> >> >>>> Jacques
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon, Ted
> >> >>>> Dunning,
> >> >>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem, Jacques
> >> >>>> Nadeau,
> >> >>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
> >> >>>> Kornacker,
> >> >>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse, David
> >> >>>> Alves,
> >> >>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
> >> >>>> [2]
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> Alex Levenson
> >> >>> @THISWILLWORK
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com>]

For now I have presumptuously moved my C++ prototype to

https://github.com/arrow-data/arrow

I may have some cycles for this over the next few weeks -- it would be
great to develop a draft of the IPC protocol for transmitting table /
row batch metadata and data headers. I am going to be working on
building up enough tools and scaffolding to start assembling a
pandas.DataFrame-like Python wrapper layer which will keep me busy for
a fair while.

Let's decide soon whether we want 1 repo or multiple repos for the
reference implementations (C/C++ and Java). 1 repo might be easier for
integration testing.

I can convert the Google doc spec floating around to Markdown and
perhaps we can discuss specific details in GitHub issues? I'll use a
separate repo for the format docs.

best,
Wes

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> hi folks,
>
> In the interim I created a new public GitHub organization to host code
> for this effort so we can organize ourselves in advance of more
> progress in the ASF:
>
> https://github.com/arrow-data
>
> I have a partial C++ implementation of the Arrow spec that I can move
> there, along with a to-be-Markdown-ified version of a specification
> subject to more iteration. The more pressing short term matter will be
> making some progress on the metadata / data headers / IPC protocol
> (e.g. using Flatbuffers or the like).
>
> Thoughts on git repo structure?
>
> 1) Avro-style — "one repo to rule them all"
> 2) Parquet-style — arrow-format, arrow-cpp, arrow-java, etc.
>
> (I'm personally more in the latter camp, though integration tests may
> be more tedious that way)
>
> Thanks
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com> wrote:
>> I've opened a name search for our top vote getter.
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92
>>
>>
>> I also just realized that my previously email dropped other recipients.
>> Here it is below.
>>
>> ----
>> I think we can call the voting closed. Top vote getters:
>>
>> Apache Arrow (17)
>> Apache Herringbone (9)
>> Apache Joist (8)
>> Apache Colbuf (8)
>>
>> I'll up a PODLINGNAMESEARCH-* shortly for Arrow.
>>
>> ---
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jacques Nadeau
>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Marcel Kornacker <ma...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just added my vote.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>> > Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers?
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place.
>>> >>
>>> >> Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache. As such,
>>> >> their
>>> >> opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice.  There are issues of
>>> >> privilege, conflict of interest and so on.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson
>>> >> <al...@twitter.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help out -- is that
>>> >>> something we need? Or is that something apache helps out with in the
>>> >>> next
>>> >>> step?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick search for
>>> >>>> the
>>> >>>> top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”, “joist"), at
>>> >>>> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are no
>>> >>>> trademarks
>>> >>>> for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately active
>>> >>>> project
>>> >>>> called “joist” [1].
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has native-american connotations
>>> >>>> that we may or may not want to live with (just ask the Washington
>>> >>>> Redskins
>>> >>>> how they feel about their name).
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on
>>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90, and fill
>>> >>>> out
>>> >>>> column C in the spreadsheet.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Julian
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> +1
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> --
>>> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow (Tuesday)?
>>> >>>> I
>>> >>>> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <ju...@hydromatic.net>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but the
>>> >>>> first
>>> >>>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
>>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 is an
>>> >>>> example.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/.
>>> >>>> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I think
>>> >>>> that is
>>> >>>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a lawyer
>>> >>>> to
>>> >>>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for the
>>> >>>> other
>>> >>>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Julian
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <ma...@cloudera.com>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Ok guys,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability. I
>>> >>>> did a
>>> >>>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an
>>> >>>> issue
>>> >>>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a
>>> >>>> second
>>> >>>> phase vote.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into this?
>>> >>>> Last
>>> >>>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a good
>>> >>>> job
>>> >>>> of
>>> >>>> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name
>>> >>>> search
>>> >>>> starting with the top one.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Link again:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> thanks
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> --
>>> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11 since
>>> >>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
>>> >>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see whether
>>> >>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second tab:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> --
>>> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to 10.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> 10 is most preferred
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> --
>>> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Single vote for most preferred?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Single transferable vote?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take
>>> >>>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
>>> >>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on
>>> >>>> Wednesday.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> thanks!
>>> >>>> Jacques
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> --
>>> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@apache.org
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Hey Guys,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
>>> >>>> proposal
>>> >>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
>>> >>>> contention
>>> >>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a name
>>> >>>> and get
>>> >>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process for
>>> >>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> We do the naming in the following steps
>>> >>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
>>> >>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
>>> >>>> options
>>> >>>> 1..10
>>> >>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
>>> >>>> whether we
>>> >>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have
>>> >>>> this until
>>> >>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
>>> >>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank their
>>> >>>> top 3
>>> >>>> names
>>> >>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that doesn't
>>> >>>> work,
>>> >>>> try the second and third options.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but then
>>> >>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
>>> >>>> just do
>>> >>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev is
>>> >>>> better
>>> >>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place for
>>> >>>> that but
>>> >>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
>>> >>>> think. Just
>>> >>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step 1.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Thanks,
>>> >>>> Jacques
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon, Ted
>>> >>>> Dunning,
>>> >>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem, Jacques
>>> >>>> Nadeau,
>>> >>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
>>> >>>> Kornacker,
>>> >>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse, David
>>> >>>> Alves,
>>> >>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
>>> >>>> [2]
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> Alex Levenson
>>> >>> @THISWILLWORK
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>
>>

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com>]

hi folks,

In the interim I created a new public GitHub organization to host code
for this effort so we can organize ourselves in advance of more
progress in the ASF:

https://github.com/arrow-data

I have a partial C++ implementation of the Arrow spec that I can move
there, along with a to-be-Markdown-ified version of a specification
subject to more iteration. The more pressing short term matter will be
making some progress on the metadata / data headers / IPC protocol
(e.g. using Flatbuffers or the like).

Thoughts on git repo structure?

1) Avro-style — "one repo to rule them all"
2) Parquet-style — arrow-format, arrow-cpp, arrow-java, etc.

(I'm personally more in the latter camp, though integration tests may
be more tedious that way)

Thanks

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com> wrote:
> I've opened a name search for our top vote getter.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92
>
>
> I also just realized that my previously email dropped other recipients.
> Here it is below.
>
> ----
> I think we can call the voting closed. Top vote getters:
>
> Apache Arrow (17)
> Apache Herringbone (9)
> Apache Joist (8)
> Apache Colbuf (8)
>
> I'll up a PODLINGNAMESEARCH-* shortly for Arrow.
>
> ---
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jacques Nadeau
> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Marcel Kornacker <ma...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Just added my vote.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>> > Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers?
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place.
>> >>
>> >> Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache. As such,
>> >> their
>> >> opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice.  There are issues of
>> >> privilege, conflict of interest and so on.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson
>> >> <al...@twitter.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help out -- is that
>> >>> something we need? Or is that something apache helps out with in the
>> >>> next
>> >>> step?
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick search for
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”, “joist"), at
>> >>>> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are no
>> >>>> trademarks
>> >>>> for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately active
>> >>>> project
>> >>>> called “joist” [1].
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has native-american connotations
>> >>>> that we may or may not want to live with (just ask the Washington
>> >>>> Redskins
>> >>>> how they feel about their name).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on
>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90, and fill
>> >>>> out
>> >>>> column C in the spreadsheet.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Julian
>> >>>>
>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> +1
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow (Tuesday)?
>> >>>> I
>> >>>> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <ju...@hydromatic.net>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but the
>> >>>> first
>> >>>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
>> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 is an
>> >>>> example.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/.
>> >>>> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I think
>> >>>> that is
>> >>>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a lawyer
>> >>>> to
>> >>>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for the
>> >>>> other
>> >>>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Julian
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <ma...@cloudera.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Ok guys,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability. I
>> >>>> did a
>> >>>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an
>> >>>> issue
>> >>>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a
>> >>>> second
>> >>>> phase vote.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into this?
>> >>>> Last
>> >>>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a good
>> >>>> job
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name
>> >>>> search
>> >>>> starting with the top one.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Link again:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
>> >>>>
>> >>>> thanks
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11 since
>> >>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
>> >>>>
>> >>>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
>> >>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see whether
>> >>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second tab:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to 10.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 10 is most preferred
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Single vote for most preferred?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Single transferable vote?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take
>> >>>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
>> >>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on
>> >>>> Wednesday.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> thanks!
>> >>>> Jacques
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
>> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@apache.org
>> >>>>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hey Guys,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
>> >>>> proposal
>> >>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
>> >>>> contention
>> >>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a name
>> >>>> and get
>> >>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process for
>> >>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We do the naming in the following steps
>> >>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
>> >>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
>> >>>> options
>> >>>> 1..10
>> >>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
>> >>>> whether we
>> >>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have
>> >>>> this until
>> >>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
>> >>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank their
>> >>>> top 3
>> >>>> names
>> >>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that doesn't
>> >>>> work,
>> >>>> try the second and third options.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but then
>> >>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
>> >>>> just do
>> >>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev is
>> >>>> better
>> >>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place for
>> >>>> that but
>> >>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
>> >>>> think. Just
>> >>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step 1.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks,
>> >>>> Jacques
>> >>>>
>> >>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon, Ted
>> >>>> Dunning,
>> >>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem, Jacques
>> >>>> Nadeau,
>> >>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
>> >>>> Kornacker,
>> >>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse, David
>> >>>> Alves,
>> >>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
>> >>>> [2]
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Alex Levenson
>> >>> @THISWILLWORK
>> >>
>> >>
>
>

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>]

I've opened a name search for our top vote getter.

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92


I also just realized that my previously email dropped other recipients.
Here it is below.

----
I think we can call the voting closed. Top vote getters:

Apache Arrow (17)
Apache Herringbone (9)
Apache Joist (8)
Apache Colbuf (8)

I'll up a PODLINGNAMESEARCH-* shortly for Arrow.

---






--
Jacques Nadeau
CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Marcel Kornacker <ma...@cloudera.com>
wrote:

> Just added my vote.
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers?
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place.
> >>
> >> Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache. As such, their
> >> opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice.  There are issues of
> >> privilege, conflict of interest and so on.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson <alexlevenson@twitter.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help out -- is that
> >>> something we need? Or is that something apache helps out with in the
> next
> >>> step?
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
> >>>>
> >>>> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick search for the
> >>>> top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”, “joist"), at
> >>>> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are no
> trademarks
> >>>> for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately active
> project
> >>>> called “joist” [1].
> >>>>
> >>>> I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has native-american connotations
> >>>> that we may or may not want to live with (just ask the Washington
> Redskins
> >>>> how they feel about their name).
> >>>>
> >>>> If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on
> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90, and fill
> out
> >>>> column C in the spreadsheet.
> >>>>
> >>>> Julian
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> +1
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow (Tuesday)?
> I
> >>>> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <ju...@hydromatic.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but the
> first
> >>>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 is an
> example.
> >>>>
> >>>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
> >>>>
> >>>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/.
> >>>> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I think
> that is
> >>>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a lawyer
> to
> >>>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for the
> >>>> other
> >>>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
> >>>>
> >>>> Julian
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <ma...@cloudera.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Ok guys,
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability. I
> did a
> >>>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an
> issue
> >>>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a second
> >>>> phase vote.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
> >>>>
> >>>> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into this?
> Last
> >>>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a good
> job
> >>>> of
> >>>> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
> >>>>
> >>>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name search
> >>>> starting with the top one.
> >>>>
> >>>> Link again:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
> >>>>
> >>>> thanks
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11 since
> >>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
> >>>>
> >>>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
> >>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see whether
> >>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second tab:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
> >>>>
> >>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to 10.
> >>>>
> >>>> 10 is most preferred
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Single vote for most preferred?
> >>>>
> >>>> Single transferable vote?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take
> >>>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
> >>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on Wednesday.
> >>>>
> >>>> thanks!
> >>>> Jacques
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hey Guys,
> >>>>
> >>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
> >>>> proposal
> >>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
> >>>> contention
> >>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a name
> >>>> and get
> >>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
> >>>>
> >>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process for
> >>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
> >>>>
> >>>> We do the naming in the following steps
> >>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
> >>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
> >>>> options
> >>>> 1..10
> >>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
> >>>> whether we
> >>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have
> >>>> this until
> >>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
> >>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank their
> >>>> top 3
> >>>> names
> >>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that doesn't
> >>>> work,
> >>>> try the second and third options.
> >>>>
> >>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but then
> >>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
> >>>> just do
> >>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev is
> >>>> better
> >>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place for
> >>>> that but
> >>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
> >>>> think. Just
> >>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
> >>>>
> >>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step 1.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Jacques
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon, Ted
> >>>> Dunning,
> >>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem, Jacques
> >>>> Nadeau,
> >>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
> >>>> Kornacker,
> >>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse, David
> >>>> Alves,
> >>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
> >>>> [2]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Alex Levenson
> >>> @THISWILLWORK
> >>
> >>
>

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>]

I think we can call the voting closed. Top vote getters:

Apache Arrow (17)
Apache Herringbone (9)
Apache Joist (8)
Apache Colbuf (8)

I'll up a PODLINGNAMESEARCH-* shortly for Arrow.

--
Jacques Nadeau
CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Marcel Kornacker <ma...@cloudera.com>
wrote:

> Just added my vote.
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> > Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers?
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place.
> >>
> >> Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache. As such, their
> >> opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice.  There are issues of
> >> privilege, conflict of interest and so on.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson <alexlevenson@twitter.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help out -- is that
> >>> something we need? Or is that something apache helps out with in the
> next
> >>> step?
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
> >>>>
> >>>> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick search for the
> >>>> top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”, “joist"), at
> >>>> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are no
> trademarks
> >>>> for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately active
> project
> >>>> called “joist” [1].
> >>>>
> >>>> I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has native-american connotations
> >>>> that we may or may not want to live with (just ask the Washington
> Redskins
> >>>> how they feel about their name).
> >>>>
> >>>> If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on
> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90, and fill
> out
> >>>> column C in the spreadsheet.
> >>>>
> >>>> Julian
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> +1
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow (Tuesday)?
> I
> >>>> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <ju...@hydromatic.net>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but the
> first
> >>>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 is an
> example.
> >>>>
> >>>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
> >>>>
> >>>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/.
> >>>> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I think
> that is
> >>>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a lawyer
> to
> >>>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for the
> >>>> other
> >>>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
> >>>>
> >>>> Julian
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <ma...@cloudera.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Ok guys,
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability. I
> did a
> >>>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an
> issue
> >>>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a second
> >>>> phase vote.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
> >>>>
> >>>> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into this?
> Last
> >>>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a good
> job
> >>>> of
> >>>> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
> >>>>
> >>>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name search
> >>>> starting with the top one.
> >>>>
> >>>> Link again:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
> >>>>
> >>>> thanks
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11 since
> >>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
> >>>>
> >>>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
> >>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see whether
> >>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second tab:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
> >>>>
> >>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to 10.
> >>>>
> >>>> 10 is most preferred
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Single vote for most preferred?
> >>>>
> >>>> Single transferable vote?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take
> >>>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
> >>>>
> >>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
> >>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on Wednesday.
> >>>>
> >>>> thanks!
> >>>> Jacques
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hey Guys,
> >>>>
> >>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
> >>>> proposal
> >>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
> >>>> contention
> >>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a name
> >>>> and get
> >>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
> >>>>
> >>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process for
> >>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
> >>>>
> >>>> We do the naming in the following steps
> >>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
> >>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
> >>>> options
> >>>> 1..10
> >>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
> >>>> whether we
> >>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have
> >>>> this until
> >>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
> >>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank their
> >>>> top 3
> >>>> names
> >>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that doesn't
> >>>> work,
> >>>> try the second and third options.
> >>>>
> >>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but then
> >>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
> >>>> just do
> >>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev is
> >>>> better
> >>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place for
> >>>> that but
> >>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
> >>>> think. Just
> >>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
> >>>>
> >>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step 1.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Jacques
> >>>>
> >>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon, Ted
> >>>> Dunning,
> >>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem, Jacques
> >>>> Nadeau,
> >>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
> >>>> Kornacker,
> >>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse, David
> >>>> Alves,
> >>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
> >>>> [2]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Alex Levenson
> >>> @THISWILLWORK
> >>
> >>
>

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Marcel Kornacker <ma...@cloudera.com>]

Just added my vote.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers?
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place.
>>
>> Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache. As such, their
>> opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice.  There are issues of
>> privilege, conflict of interest and so on.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson <al...@twitter.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help out -- is that
>>> something we need? Or is that something apache helps out with in the next
>>> step?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick search for the
>>>> top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”, “joist"), at
>>>> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are no trademarks
>>>> for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately active project
>>>> called “joist” [1].
>>>>
>>>> I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has native-american connotations
>>>> that we may or may not want to live with (just ask the Washington Redskins
>>>> how they feel about their name).
>>>>
>>>> If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90, and fill out
>>>> column C in the spreadsheet.
>>>>
>>>> Julian
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow (Tuesday)? I
>>>> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <ju...@hydromatic.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but the first
>>>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 is an example.
>>>>
>>>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
>>>>
>>>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/.
>>>> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I think that is
>>>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a lawyer to
>>>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for the
>>>> other
>>>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
>>>>
>>>> Julian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <ma...@cloudera.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ok guys,
>>>>
>>>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability. I did a
>>>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an issue
>>>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a second
>>>> phase vote.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
>>>>
>>>> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into this? Last
>>>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a good job
>>>> of
>>>> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
>>>>
>>>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
>>>>
>>>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name search
>>>> starting with the top one.
>>>>
>>>> Link again:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
>>>>
>>>> thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11 since
>>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
>>>>
>>>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
>>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see whether
>>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second tab:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
>>>>
>>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to 10.
>>>>
>>>> 10 is most preferred
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Single vote for most preferred?
>>>>
>>>> Single transferable vote?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take
>>>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
>>>>
>>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
>>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on Wednesday.
>>>>
>>>> thanks!
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@apache.org
>>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey Guys,
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
>>>> proposal
>>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
>>>> contention
>>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a name
>>>> and get
>>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
>>>>
>>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process for
>>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
>>>>
>>>> We do the naming in the following steps
>>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
>>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
>>>> options
>>>> 1..10
>>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
>>>> whether we
>>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have
>>>> this until
>>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
>>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank their
>>>> top 3
>>>> names
>>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that doesn't
>>>> work,
>>>> try the second and third options.
>>>>
>>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but then
>>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
>>>> just do
>>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev is
>>>> better
>>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place for
>>>> that but
>>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
>>>>
>>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
>>>> think. Just
>>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
>>>>
>>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step 1.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jacques
>>>>
>>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon, Ted
>>>> Dunning,
>>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem, Jacques
>>>> Nadeau,
>>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
>>>> Kornacker,
>>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse, David
>>>> Alves,
>>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
>>>> [2]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Alex Levenson
>>> @THISWILLWORK
>>
>>

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com>]

Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers?

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place.
>
> Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache. As such, their
> opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice.  There are issues of
> privilege, conflict of interest and so on.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson <al...@twitter.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help out -- is that
>> something we need? Or is that something apache helps out with in the next
>> step?
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
>>>
>>> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick search for the
>>> top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”, “joist"), at
>>> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are no trademarks
>>> for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately active project
>>> called “joist” [1].
>>>
>>> I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has native-american connotations
>>> that we may or may not want to live with (just ask the Washington Redskins
>>> how they feel about their name).
>>>
>>> If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90, and fill out
>>> column C in the spreadsheet.
>>>
>>> Julian
>>>
>>> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow (Tuesday)? I
>>> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <ju...@hydromatic.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but the first
>>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 is an example.
>>>
>>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
>>>
>>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
>>>
>>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/.
>>> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I think that is
>>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a lawyer to
>>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for the
>>> other
>>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
>>>
>>> Julian
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <ma...@cloudera.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok guys,
>>>
>>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability. I did a
>>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an issue
>>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a second
>>> phase vote.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
>>>
>>> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into this? Last
>>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a good job
>>> of
>>> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
>>>
>>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
>>>
>>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name search
>>> starting with the top one.
>>>
>>> Link again:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11 since
>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
>>>
>>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see whether
>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second tab:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
>>>
>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to 10.
>>>
>>> 10 is most preferred
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Single vote for most preferred?
>>>
>>> Single transferable vote?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take
>>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
>>>
>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on Wednesday.
>>>
>>> thanks!
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@apache.org
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey Guys,
>>>
>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
>>> proposal
>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
>>> contention
>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a name
>>> and get
>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
>>>
>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process for
>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
>>>
>>> We do the naming in the following steps
>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
>>> options
>>> 1..10
>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
>>> whether we
>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have
>>> this until
>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank their
>>> top 3
>>> names
>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that doesn't
>>> work,
>>> try the second and third options.
>>>
>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but then
>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
>>> just do
>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev is
>>> better
>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place for
>>> that but
>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
>>>
>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
>>> think. Just
>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
>>>
>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step 1.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon, Ted
>>> Dunning,
>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem, Jacques
>>> Nadeau,
>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
>>> Kornacker,
>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse, David
>>> Alves,
>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
>>> [2]
>>>
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alex Levenson
>> @THISWILLWORK
>
>

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>]

Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork in place.

Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for Apache. As such, their
opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice.  There are issues of
privilege, conflict of interest and so on.



On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson <al...@twitter.com>
wrote:

> I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help out -- is that
> something we need? Or is that something apache helps out with in the next
> step?
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
>>
>> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick search for the
>> top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”, “joist"), at
>> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are no trademarks
>> for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately active project
>> called “joist” [1].
>>
>> I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has native-american connotations
>> that we may or may not want to live with (just ask the Washington Redskins
>> how they feel about their name).
>>
>> If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90, and fill out
>> column C in the spreadsheet.
>>
>> Julian
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist
>>
>>
>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>> --
>> Jacques Nadeau
>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>>
>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow (Tuesday)? I
>> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <ju...@hydromatic.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but the first
>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 is an example.
>>
>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
>>
>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/
>> .
>> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I think that is
>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a lawyer to
>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for the other
>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
>>
>> Julian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <ma...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Ok guys,
>>
>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability. I did a
>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an issue
>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a second
>> phase vote.
>>
>>
>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
>>
>> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into this? Last
>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a good job of
>> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
>>
>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
>>
>>
>>
>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
>>
>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name search
>> starting with the top one.
>>
>> Link again:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
>>
>> thanks
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jacques Nadeau
>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11 since
>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
>>
>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see whether
>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second tab:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
>>
>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jacques Nadeau
>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to 10.
>>
>> 10 is most preferred
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jacques Nadeau
>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Single vote for most preferred?
>>
>> Single transferable vote?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take
>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
>>
>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on Wednesday.
>>
>> thanks!
>> Jacques
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jacques Nadeau
>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@apache.org
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hey Guys,
>>
>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
>> proposal
>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
>> contention
>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a name
>> and get
>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
>>
>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process for
>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
>>
>> We do the naming in the following steps
>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
>> options
>> 1..10
>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
>> whether we
>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have
>> this until
>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank their
>> top 3
>> names
>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that doesn't
>> work,
>> try the second and third options.
>>
>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but then
>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
>> just do
>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev is
>> better
>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place for
>> that but
>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
>>
>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
>> think. Just
>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
>>
>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step 1.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jacques
>>
>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon, Ted
>> Dunning,
>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem, Jacques
>> Nadeau,
>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
>> Kornacker,
>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse, David
>> Alves,
>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
>> [2]
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Alex Levenson
> @THISWILLWORK
>

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Alex Levenson <al...@twitter.com.INVALID>]

I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can help out -- is that something
we need? Or is that something apache helps out with in the next step?

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org> wrote:

> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
>
> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick search for the top
> 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”, “joist"), at
> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are no trademarks
> for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately active project
> called “joist” [1].
>
> I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has native-american connotations that
> we may or may not want to live with (just ask the Washington Redskins how
> they feel about their name).
>
> If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90, and fill out
> column C in the spreadsheet.
>
> Julian
>
> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist
>
>
> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> --
> Jacques Nadeau
> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow (Tuesday)? I
> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <ju...@hydromatic.net>
> wrote:
>
> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but the first
> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 is an example.
>
> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
>
> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/.
> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I think that is
> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a lawyer to
> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for the other
> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
>
> Julian
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <ma...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> wrote:
>
> Ok guys,
>
> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability. I did a
> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an issue
> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a second
> phase vote.
>
>
> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
>
> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into this? Last
> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a good job of
> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
>
> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
>
>
>
> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
>
> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name search
> starting with the top one.
>
> Link again:
>
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
>
> thanks
>
>
> --
> Jacques Nadeau
> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> wrote:
>
> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11 since
> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
>
> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see whether
> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second tab:
>
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
>
> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
>
>
>
> --
> Jacques Nadeau
> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> wrote:
>
> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to 10.
>
> 10 is most preferred
>
>
>
> --
> Jacques Nadeau
> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Single vote for most preferred?
>
> Single transferable vote?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> wrote:
>
> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take
> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
>
> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on Wednesday.
>
> thanks!
> Jacques
>
>
>
> --
> Jacques Nadeau
> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@apache.org
>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hey Guys,
>
> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
> proposal
> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
> contention
> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a name
> and get
> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
>
> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process for
> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
>
> We do the naming in the following steps
> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
> options
> 1..10
> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
> whether we
> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have
> this until
> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank their
> top 3
> names
> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that doesn't
> work,
> try the second and third options.
>
> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but then
> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
> just do
> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev is
> better
> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place for
> that but
> I'm not sure a better place exists.
>
> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
> think. Just
> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
>
> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step 1.
>
> Thanks,
> Jacques
>
> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon, Ted
> Dunning,
> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem, Jacques
> Nadeau,
> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
> Kornacker,
> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse, David
> Alves,
> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
> [2]
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Alex Levenson
@THISWILLWORK

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Jake Luciani <ja...@apache.org>]

The term redskin is derogatory which is clearly not the same as arrow. I
think if our logo is not a native American arrow there is no real issue.
On Dec 1, 2015 12:32 AM, "Julian Hyde" <jh...@apache.org> wrote:

> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
>
> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick search for the top
> 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”, “joist"), at
> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are no trademarks
> for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately active project
> called “joist” [1].
>
> I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has native-american connotations that
> we may or may not want to live with (just ask the Washington Redskins how
> they feel about their name).
>
> If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90, and fill out
> column C in the spreadsheet.
>
> Julian
>
> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist
>
>
> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> --
> Jacques Nadeau
> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:
>
> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow (Tuesday)? I
> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <ju...@hydromatic.net>
> wrote:
>
> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but the first
> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 is an example.
>
> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
>
> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/.
> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I think that is
> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a lawyer to
> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for the other
> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
>
> Julian
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <ma...@cloudera.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> wrote:
>
> Ok guys,
>
> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability. I did a
> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an issue
> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a second
> phase vote.
>
>
> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
>
> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into this? Last
> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a good job of
> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
>
> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
>
>
>
> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
>
> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name search
> starting with the top one.
>
> Link again:
>
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
>
> thanks
>
>
> --
> Jacques Nadeau
> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> wrote:
>
> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11 since
> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
>
> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see whether
> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second tab:
>
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
>
> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
>
>
>
> --
> Jacques Nadeau
> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> wrote:
>
> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to 10.
>
> 10 is most preferred
>
>
>
> --
> Jacques Nadeau
> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Single vote for most preferred?
>
> Single transferable vote?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
> wrote:
>
> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take
> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
>
> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on Wednesday.
>
> thanks!
> Jacques
>
>
>
> --
> Jacques Nadeau
> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@apache.org
>
> wrote:
>
>
> Hey Guys,
>
> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
> proposal
> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
> contention
> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a name
> and get
> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
>
> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process for
> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
>
> We do the naming in the following steps
> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
> options
> 1..10
> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
> whether we
> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have
> this until
> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank their
> top 3
> names
> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that doesn't
> work,
> try the second and third options.
>
> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but then
> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
> just do
> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev is
> better
> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place for
> that but
> I'm not sure a better place exists.
>
> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
> think. Just
> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
>
> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step 1.
>
> Thanks,
> Jacques
>
> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon, Ted
> Dunning,
> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem, Jacques
> Nadeau,
> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
> Kornacker,
> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse, David
> Alves,
> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
> [2]
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Julian Hyde <jh...@apache.org>]

+1 to have a vote tomorrow.

Assuming that Vector is out of play, I just did a quick search for the top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”, “herringbone”, “joist"), at sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and on google. There are no trademarks for these in similar subject areas. There is a moderately active project called “joist” [1].

I will point out that “Apache Arrow” has native-american connotations that we may or may not want to live with (just ask the Washington Redskins how they feel about their name).

If someone would like to vet other names, use the links on https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90>, and fill out column C in the spreadsheet.

Julian

[1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist <https://github.com/stephenh/joist> 


> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com> wrote:
> 
> +1
> 
> --
> Jacques Nadeau
> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> 
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:
> 
>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow (Tuesday)? I
>> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
>> 
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <ju...@hydromatic.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but the first
>>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 is an example.
>>> 
>>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
>>> 
>>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
>>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/.
>>> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I think that is
>>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a lawyer to
>>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for the other
>>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
>>> 
>>> Julian
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <ma...@cloudera.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Ok guys,
>>>> 
>>>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability. I did a
>>>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an issue
>>>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a second
>>>> phase vote.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
>>> 
>>> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into this? Last
>>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a good job of
>>> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
>>> 
>>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
>>>> 
>>>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name search
>>>> starting with the top one.
>>>> 
>>>> Link again:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
>>>> 
>>>> thanks
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11 since
>>>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
>>>>> 
>>>>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
>>>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see whether
>>>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second tab:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to 10.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 10 is most preferred
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Single vote for most preferred?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Single transferable vote?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take
>>>>>>>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
>>>>>>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on Wednesday.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> thanks!
>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@apache.org
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hey Guys,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
>>>>>>>>> proposal
>>>>>>>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
>>>>>>>>> contention
>>>>>>>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a name
>>>>>>>>> and get
>>>>>>>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process for
>>>>>>>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> We do the naming in the following steps
>>>>>>>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
>>>>>>>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
>>>>>>>>> options
>>>>>>>>> 1..10
>>>>>>>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
>>>>>>>>> whether we
>>>>>>>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have
>>>>>>>>> this until
>>>>>>>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
>>>>>>>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank their
>>>>>>>>> top 3
>>>>>>>>> names
>>>>>>>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that doesn't
>>>>>>>>> work,
>>>>>>>>> try the second and third options.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but then
>>>>>>>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
>>>>>>>>> just do
>>>>>>>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev is
>>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place for
>>>>>>>>> that but
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
>>>>>>>>> think. Just
>>>>>>>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step 1.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon, Ted
>>>>>>>>> Dunning,
>>>>>>>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem, Jacques
>>>>>>>>> Nadeau,
>>>>>>>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
>>>>>>>>> Kornacker,
>>>>>>>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse, David
>>>>>>>>> Alves,
>>>>>>>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
>>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 

Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative

[Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>]

+1

--
Jacques Nadeau
CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney <we...@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Should we have a last call for votes, closing EOD tomorrow (Tuesday)? I
> missed this for a few days last week with holiday travel.
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian Hyde <ju...@hydromatic.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache branding process but the first
>> stage is to gather a list of potential conflicts -
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90 is an example.
>>
>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your battles.
>>
>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise as Vector.
>> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/.
>> Given that it is an analytic database in the Hadoop space I think that is
>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets. I don’t think we need a lawyer to
>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense to look for conflicts for the other
>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
>>
>> Julian
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker <ma...@cloudera.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok guys,
>>>
>>> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability. I did a
>>> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an issue
>>> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a second
>>> phase vote.
>>>
>>
>> I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?
>>
>> Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into this? Last
>> time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a good job of
>> weeding out the potential trademark violations.
>>
>> Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
>>>
>>> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name search
>>> starting with the top one.
>>>
>>> Link again:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11 since
>>>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
>>>>
>>>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
>>>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see whether
>>>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second tab:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
>>>>
>>>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to 10.
>>>>>
>>>>> 10 is most preferred
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Single vote for most preferred?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Single transferable vote?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <ja...@dremio.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take
>>>>>>> that as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
>>>>>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on Wednesday.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks!
>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@apache.org
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey Guys,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector
>>>>>>>> proposal
>>>>>>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
>>>>>>>> contention
>>>>>>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a name
>>>>>>>> and get
>>>>>>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process for
>>>>>>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We do the naming in the following steps
>>>>>>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
>>>>>>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
>>>>>>>> options
>>>>>>>> 1..10
>>>>>>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of
>>>>>>>> whether we
>>>>>>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have
>>>>>>>> this until
>>>>>>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
>>>>>>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank their
>>>>>>>> top 3
>>>>>>>> names
>>>>>>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that doesn't
>>>>>>>> work,
>>>>>>>> try the second and third options.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but then
>>>>>>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
>>>>>>>> just do
>>>>>>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev is
>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place for
>>>>>>>> that but
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
>>>>>>>> think. Just
>>>>>>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step 1.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon, Ted
>>>>>>>> Dunning,
>>>>>>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem, Jacques
>>>>>>>> Nadeau,
>>>>>>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
>>>>>>>> Kornacker,
>>>>>>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse, David
>>>>>>>> Alves,
>>>>>>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
>>>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>