You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@zeppelin.apache.org by Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org> on 2016/02/03 15:11:26 UTC
[DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Dear Zeppelin developers,
now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like to suggest
the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level project.
If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE thread here.
What do you guys think?
--
Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>.
Hi Amos,
thank you for the question.
Let me recap past events to give some context - last month there was a
discussion started, it stopped for the period of releasing new version
0.5.6
Now its on again in order to make sure we have a concensus before starting
a vote process.
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 19:21 Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alex -
>
> I hestitate to respond at all since recently when a pmc member has
> called for a "vote" it seems more that the purpose is to ratify
> something that a few people have already privately agreed on.
>
> But -- the last time Zeppelin applied for graduation was a month ago.
> What happened then?
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 15:11 +0100, Alexander Bezzubov wrote:
> > Dear Zeppelin developers,
> >
> > now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like to
> > suggest
> > the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level
> > project.
> >
> > If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE
> > thread here.
> >
> > What do you guys think?
> >
> > --
> > Alex
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>.
Alex -
I hestitate to respond at all since recently when a pmc member has
called for a "vote" it seems more that the purpose is to ratify
something that a few people have already privately agreed on.
But -- the last time Zeppelin applied for graduation was a month ago.
What happened then?
On Wed, 2016-02-03 at 15:11 +0100, Alexander Bezzubov wrote:
> Dear Zeppelin developers,
>
> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like to
> suggest
> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level
> project.
>
> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE
> thread here.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> --
> Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
I am going to top-post to the original message as I don't want this to be
buried 26 levels deep in this thread. Roman's request to pause this discussion
makes sense, and I would like to re-enforce it with the following.
I don't like what shape and form this goes. This is ugly, and as a mentor of Z
I am terrified; mainly is because how quickly this stuff went total ape-shit.
Few off-hands comments:
- please, take a good rule of not doing more than 2-3 emails a day on
emotionally loaded threads. It will quickly turn into spit-fight, and this
one already has
- I don't see why the initial PR discussion is coming back like a clock-work
and being a part of everything. What exactly this community is being accused
of and why?
-- PR doesn't get integrated fast enough? We deal with it elsewhere; there
were review process shortcomings, which were discussed and addressed
elsethread. Good progress, I say
-- someone allegedly took(?) somebody's else ASL2 license code and made a
derivative work out of it? Good! This is _exactly_ what the license is
designed to provide: the easy of derivations and contributions. Besides,
the derivative hasn't being offered to Zeppelin (incubation) as a
creation of a different author. This isn't the right forum for such a
discussion, so just stop
-- a community member happened disagreed with PPMC choice of a new PPMC
member? Your opinion has been heard, but no one is obliged to jump every
time you say "frog". [1]
These three are the essence of the dispute, as I see it. None of it does
sound like something that would immediately disqualify the graduation
conversation. On top of it - hanging a project graduation on a feature
request is ridiculous, at least.
There are two main outcomes of this:
- R support integration needs to be carried on as everything else is handled:
comments have to be addressed to the liking of the community and if there's
no technical objection to the code quality and the way the implementation
is done, it should be integrated as everything else. It isn't different
from other PRs, and there's no reason why it has to receive any special
treatment: positive or negative.
Oh, and asserting that someone prevents your code from going in because of
some inferior motives, isn't exactly how you'd like to build the relations
with a community you're trying to join.
- if there's anything that blocks the graduation vote - it needs to be
brought up, unless it has been listed above.
For the sake of this project and the community, I'd suggest the PPMC takes the
control of the situation ASAP.
Cos
[1] I have to admit it was pretty cool, when I was wearing drill-sergeant badges ;)
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 03:11PM, Alexander Bezzubov wrote:
> Dear Zeppelin developers,
>
> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like to suggest
> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level project.
>
> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE thread here.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> --
> Alex
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 03:11PM, Alexander Bezzubov wrote:
> Dear Zeppelin developers,
>
> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like to suggest
> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level project.
>
> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE thread here.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> --
> Alex
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 03:11PM, Alexander Bezzubov wrote:
> Dear Zeppelin developers,
>
> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like to suggest
> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level project.
>
> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE thread here.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> --
> Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
Amos, I'm not focused on you at all unless you're very beautiful women.
So, please don't worry about that.
As i already described, since last graduation discussion, community
improved/clarify contribution guide and review process and Committers are
helping long living PR to be merged. And now resuming the discussion.
That's my understanding of what happened.
Best,
moon
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 12:42 PM Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Moon I don't think that's the question. The question is why are these
> things still being delayed, and what happened to the last attempt to
> graduate. You seem very focused on me.
>
> > On Feb 3, 2016, at 10:32 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Amos,
> >
> > I'm not sure why you taking me to want turn personal debate to you.
> > I'm sure i don't want to have personal debate to you.
> >
> > I just wanted you share you reason why you think specific features are
> > prerequisites. Can you share the reason why?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > moon
> >
> >> On 2016년 2월 4일 (목) at 오후 12:01 Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Moon please don't try to turn this into a personal debate with me.
> >> Clearly, members of the community disagree with the way you see things.
> >>
> >>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 9:45 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I shared why i specific features are not prerequisites of graduation
> and
> >>> why it's off-topic. Also alternative discussion thread that can be
> >> handled.
> >>>
> >>> Amos, if you think specific features are prerequisites of graduation,
> >>> please share the reason why.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> moon
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:01 AM Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I think the community should be able to decide for itself what it
> wants
> >> to
> >>>> talk about and I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to say that
> >> part
> >>>> of the discussion is off-limits.
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:22 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi guys,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be prerequisites of
> >>>>> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those features as a
> >>>>> graduation goal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Including specific features could be valid concern for release
> >>>> discussion,
> >>>>> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in apache way, in
> >> my
> >>>>> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a graduation
> >> vote
> >>>>> is, because of there were valid concern about contribution impasse.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution guide and
> >> review
> >>>>> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many
> >> contributions
> >>>>> that they have been as a open PR for a long time. (Especially
> Jongyoul
> >>>> and
> >>>>> Felix helped a lot)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be included' to
> >> the
> >>>>> release / roadmap discussion.
> >>>>> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an discussions, such
> as
> >>>>> evaluating
> >>
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
> >>>>> etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> moon
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <
> amos.elberg@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was not
> >>>> withdrawn
> >>>>>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some feedback
> >> from
> >>>> the
> >>>>>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And that's
> >> the
> >>>>>> last public discussion about graduation until today.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the discussion
> >>>> emails
> >>>>>> that you're referring to.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Eran,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Could you please check my previous reply about release schedulle
> and
> >>>> let
> >>>>>> us
> >>>>>>> know if that makes sense to you?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here, but
> >> after
> >>>>>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have
> >>>> pre-request
> >>>>>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal
> >>>> procedure
> >>>>>> of
> >>>>>>> graduation.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> [1]
> >>
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite for
> >>>>>> graduation
> >>>>>>>> from day one.
> >>>>>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
> >>>>>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
> >>>>>>>> Eran
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
> >>>>>> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in
> >>>>>> different
> >>>>>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate it
> >> to
> >>>>>> top
> >>>>>>>>> level.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and
> >> Authentication
> >>>>>>>> added
> >>>>>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the
> people
> >>>> are
> >>>>>>>>> eagerly waiting for.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>> Sourav
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> >>>>>>>>>> Let's start a vote.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>> moon
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <
> >> bzz@apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like
> >> to
> >>>>>>>>>> suggest
> >>>>>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level
> >>>>>>>> project.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE
> >>>>>>>> thread
> >>>>>>>>>>> here.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Alex
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by "Amos B. Elberg" <am...@gmail.com>.
Moon I don't think that's the question. The question is why are these things still being delayed, and what happened to the last attempt to graduate. You seem very focused on me.
> On Feb 3, 2016, at 10:32 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Amos,
>
> I'm not sure why you taking me to want turn personal debate to you.
> I'm sure i don't want to have personal debate to you.
>
> I just wanted you share you reason why you think specific features are
> prerequisites. Can you share the reason why?
>
> Thanks,
> moon
>
>> On 2016년 2월 4일 (목) at 오후 12:01 Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Moon please don't try to turn this into a personal debate with me.
>> Clearly, members of the community disagree with the way you see things.
>>
>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 9:45 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I shared why i specific features are not prerequisites of graduation and
>>> why it's off-topic. Also alternative discussion thread that can be
>> handled.
>>>
>>> Amos, if you think specific features are prerequisites of graduation,
>>> please share the reason why.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> moon
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:01 AM Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think the community should be able to decide for itself what it wants
>> to
>>>> talk about and I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to say that
>> part
>>>> of the discussion is off-limits.
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:22 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be prerequisites of
>>>>> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those features as a
>>>>> graduation goal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Including specific features could be valid concern for release
>>>> discussion,
>>>>> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in apache way, in
>> my
>>>>> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a graduation
>> vote
>>>>> is, because of there were valid concern about contribution impasse.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution guide and
>> review
>>>>> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many
>> contributions
>>>>> that they have been as a open PR for a long time. (Especially Jongyoul
>>>> and
>>>>> Felix helped a lot)
>>>>>
>>>>> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be included' to
>> the
>>>>> release / roadmap discussion.
>>>>> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an discussions, such as
>>>>> evaluating
>> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
>>>>> etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> moon
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was not
>>>> withdrawn
>>>>>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some feedback
>> from
>>>> the
>>>>>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And that's
>> the
>>>>>> last public discussion about graduation until today.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the discussion
>>>> emails
>>>>>> that you're referring to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Eran,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could you please check my previous reply about release schedulle and
>>>> let
>>>>>> us
>>>>>>> know if that makes sense to you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here, but
>> after
>>>>>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have
>>>> pre-request
>>>>>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal
>>>> procedure
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> graduation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [1]
>> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite for
>>>>>> graduation
>>>>>>>> from day one.
>>>>>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
>>>>>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
>>>>>>>> Eran
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
>>>>>> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in
>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate it
>> to
>>>>>> top
>>>>>>>>> level.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and
>> Authentication
>>>>>>>> added
>>>>>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the people
>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> eagerly waiting for.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> Sourav
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
>>>>>>>>>> Let's start a vote.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>> moon
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <
>> bzz@apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like
>> to
>>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level
>>>>>>>> project.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE
>>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
Amos,
I'm not sure why you taking me to want turn personal debate to you.
I'm sure i don't want to have personal debate to you.
I just wanted you share you reason why you think specific features are
prerequisites. Can you share the reason why?
Thanks,
moon
On 2016년 2월 4일 (목) at 오후 12:01 Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Moon please don't try to turn this into a personal debate with me.
> Clearly, members of the community disagree with the way you see things.
>
> > On Feb 3, 2016, at 9:45 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > I shared why i specific features are not prerequisites of graduation and
> > why it's off-topic. Also alternative discussion thread that can be
> handled.
> >
> > Amos, if you think specific features are prerequisites of graduation,
> > please share the reason why.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > moon
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:01 AM Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I think the community should be able to decide for itself what it wants
> to
> >> talk about and I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to say that
> part
> >> of the discussion is off-limits.
> >>
> >>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:22 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi guys,
> >>>
> >>> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be prerequisites of
> >>> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those features as a
> >>> graduation goal.
> >>>
> >>> Including specific features could be valid concern for release
> >> discussion,
> >>> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
> >>>
> >>> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in apache way, in
> my
> >>> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a graduation
> vote
> >>> is, because of there were valid concern about contribution impasse.
> >>>
> >>> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution guide and
> review
> >>> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many
> contributions
> >>> that they have been as a open PR for a long time. (Especially Jongyoul
> >> and
> >>> Felix helped a lot)
> >>>
> >>> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be included' to
> the
> >>> release / roadmap discussion.
> >>> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an discussions, such as
> >>> evaluating
> >>
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
> >>> etc.
> >>>
> >>> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> moon
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was not
> >> withdrawn
> >>>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some feedback
> from
> >> the
> >>>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And that's
> the
> >>>> last public discussion about graduation until today.
> >>>>
> >>>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the discussion
> >> emails
> >>>> that you're referring to.
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Eran,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Could you please check my previous reply about release schedulle and
> >> let
> >>>> us
> >>>>> know if that makes sense to you?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here, but
> after
> >>>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have
> >> pre-request
> >>>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal
> >> procedure
> >>>> of
> >>>>> graduation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1]
> >>
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite for
> >>>> graduation
> >>>>>> from day one.
> >>>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
> >>>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
> >>>>>> Eran
> >>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
> >>>> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in
> >>>> different
> >>>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate it
> to
> >>>> top
> >>>>>>> level.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and
> Authentication
> >>>>>> added
> >>>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the people
> >> are
> >>>>>>> eagerly waiting for.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>> Sourav
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> >>>>>>>> Let's start a vote.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>> moon
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <
> bzz@apache.org
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like
> to
> >>>>>>>> suggest
> >>>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level
> >>>>>> project.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE
> >>>>>> thread
> >>>>>>>>> here.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Alex
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by "Amos B. Elberg" <am...@gmail.com>.
Moon please don't try to turn this into a personal debate with me. Clearly, members of the community disagree with the way you see things.
> On Feb 3, 2016, at 9:45 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> I shared why i specific features are not prerequisites of graduation and
> why it's off-topic. Also alternative discussion thread that can be handled.
>
> Amos, if you think specific features are prerequisites of graduation,
> please share the reason why.
>
> Thanks,
> moon
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:01 AM Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think the community should be able to decide for itself what it wants to
>> talk about and I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to say that part
>> of the discussion is off-limits.
>>
>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:22 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be prerequisites of
>>> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those features as a
>>> graduation goal.
>>>
>>> Including specific features could be valid concern for release
>> discussion,
>>> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
>>>
>>> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in apache way, in my
>>> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a graduation vote
>>> is, because of there were valid concern about contribution impasse.
>>>
>>> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution guide and review
>>> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many contributions
>>> that they have been as a open PR for a long time. (Especially Jongyoul
>> and
>>> Felix helped a lot)
>>>
>>> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be included' to the
>>> release / roadmap discussion.
>>> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an discussions, such as
>>> evaluating
>> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> moon
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was not
>> withdrawn
>>>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some feedback from
>> the
>>>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And that's the
>>>> last public discussion about graduation until today.
>>>>
>>>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the discussion
>> emails
>>>> that you're referring to.
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Eran,
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you please check my previous reply about release schedulle and
>> let
>>>> us
>>>>> know if that makes sense to you?
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here, but after
>>>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have
>> pre-request
>>>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal
>> procedure
>>>> of
>>>>> graduation.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite for
>>>> graduation
>>>>>> from day one.
>>>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
>>>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
>>>>>> Eran
>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
>>>> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in
>>>> different
>>>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate it to
>>>> top
>>>>>>> level.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and Authentication
>>>>>> added
>>>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the people
>> are
>>>>>>> eagerly waiting for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Sourav
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
>>>>>>>> Let's start a vote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> moon
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <bzz@apache.org
>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like to
>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level
>>>>>> project.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE
>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
I shared why i specific features are not prerequisites of graduation and
why it's off-topic. Also alternative discussion thread that can be handled.
Amos, if you think specific features are prerequisites of graduation,
please share the reason why.
Thanks,
moon
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:01 AM Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I think the community should be able to decide for itself what it wants to
> talk about and I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to say that part
> of the discussion is off-limits.
>
> > On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:22 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be prerequisites of
> > graduation. Especially when a project never setup those features as a
> > graduation goal.
> >
> > Including specific features could be valid concern for release
> discussion,
> > but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
> >
> > Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in apache way, in my
> > understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a graduation vote
> > is, because of there were valid concern about contribution impasse.
> >
> > Since that, community improved / clarified contribution guide and review
> > process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many contributions
> > that they have been as a open PR for a long time. (Especially Jongyoul
> and
> > Felix helped a lot)
> >
> > So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be included' to the
> > release / roadmap discussion.
> > In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an discussions, such as
> > evaluating
> >
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
> > etc.
> >
> > Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > moon
> >
> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was not
> withdrawn
> >> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some feedback from
> the
> >> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And that's the
> >> last public discussion about graduation until today.
> >>
> >> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the discussion
> emails
> >> that you're referring to.
> >>
> >>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Eran,
> >>>
> >>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> >>>
> >>> Could you please check my previous reply about release schedulle and
> let
> >> us
> >>> know if that makes sense to you?
> >>>
> >>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here, but after
> >>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have
> pre-request
> >>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal
> procedure
> >> of
> >>> graduation.
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>>
> >>
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite for
> >> graduation
> >>>> from day one.
> >>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
> >>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
> >>>> Eran
> >>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
> >> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in
> >> different
> >>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate it to
> >> top
> >>>>> level.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and Authentication
> >>>> added
> >>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the people
> are
> >>>>> eagerly waiting for.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Sourav
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> >>>>>> Let's start a vote.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>> moon
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <bzz@apache.org
> >
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like to
> >>>>>> suggest
> >>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level
> >>>> project.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE
> >>>> thread
> >>>>>>> here.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What do you guys think?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Alex
> >>>>
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by "Amos B. Elberg" <am...@gmail.com>.
I think the community should be able to decide for itself what it wants to talk about and I don't think it's appropriate for anyone to say that part of the discussion is off-limits.
> On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:22 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be prerequisites of
> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those features as a
> graduation goal.
>
> Including specific features could be valid concern for release discussion,
> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
>
> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in apache way, in my
> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a graduation vote
> is, because of there were valid concern about contribution impasse.
>
> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution guide and review
> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many contributions
> that they have been as a open PR for a long time. (Especially Jongyoul and
> Felix helped a lot)
>
> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be included' to the
> release / roadmap discussion.
> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an discussions, such as
> evaluating
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
> etc.
>
> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
>
> Thanks,
> moon
>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was not withdrawn
>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some feedback from the
>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And that's the
>> last public discussion about graduation until today.
>>
>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the discussion emails
>> that you're referring to.
>>
>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Eran,
>>>
>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
>>>
>>> Could you please check my previous reply about release schedulle and let
>> us
>>> know if that makes sense to you?
>>>
>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here, but after
>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have pre-request
>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal procedure
>> of
>>> graduation.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite for
>> graduation
>>>> from day one.
>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
>>>> Eran
>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
>> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in
>> different
>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate it to
>> top
>>>>> level.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and Authentication
>>>> added
>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the people are
>>>>> eagerly waiting for.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Sourav
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
>>>>>> Let's start a vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> moon
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like to
>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level
>>>> project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE
>>>> thread
>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
Sourav,
looks like you're attempting to invent some graduation requirements at your
own wimp. I am not familiar with anything that mandates a feature-X to be
there or the graduation won't happen. Please get familiar with the incubation
and graduation semantics before making such wide-brush stokes.
Cos
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 09:11PM, Sourav Mazumder wrote:
> This does make sense Moon. Completely agree with you that features are not
> important for becoming a top level project
>
> However, in my opinion, from the practical usage standpoint, without these
> two features Zeppelin does not look to me a full fledged top level project.
> Curious whether there are any technical glitches which are impediment in
> bringing these features to the main branch. Wondering if any help can help
> to get those problems fixed.
>
> Regards,
> Sourav
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be prerequisites of
> > graduation. Especially when a project never setup those features as a
> > graduation goal.
> >
> > Including specific features could be valid concern for release discussion,
> > but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
> >
> > Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in apache way, in my
> > understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a graduation vote
> > is, because of there were valid concern about contribution impasse.
> >
> > Since that, community improved / clarified contribution guide and review
> > process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many contributions
> > that they have been as a open PR for a long time. (Especially Jongyoul and
> > Felix helped a lot)
> >
> > So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be included' to the
> > release / roadmap discussion.
> > In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an discussions, such as
> > evaluating
> > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
> > etc.
> >
> > Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > moon
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was not
> > withdrawn
> > > in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some feedback from
> > the
> > > mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And that's the
> > > last public discussion about graduation until today.
> > >
> > > Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the discussion emails
> > > that you're referring to.
> > >
> > > > On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Eran,
> > > >
> > > > thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> > > >
> > > > Could you please check my previous reply about release schedulle and
> > let
> > > us
> > > > know if that makes sense to you?
> > > >
> > > > By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here, but after
> > > > reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have
> > pre-request
> > > > regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal
> > procedure
> > > of
> > > > graduation.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> > > >
> > > >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite for
> > > graduation
> > > >> from day one.
> > > >> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
> > > >> +1 for graduation after we add both
> > > >> Eran
> > > >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
> > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in
> > > different
> > > >>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate it to
> > > top
> > > >>> level.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and Authentication
> > > >> added
> > > >>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the people
> > are
> > > >>> eagerly waiting for.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Regards,
> > > >>> Sourav
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> > > >>>> Let's start a vote.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Best,
> > > >>>> moon
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <bzz@apache.org
> > >
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like to
> > > >>>> suggest
> > > >>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level
> > > >> project.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE
> > > >> thread
> > > >>>>> here.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> What do you guys think?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> --
> > > >>>>> Alex
> > > >>
> > >
> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
Hi Greg,
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 10:34 PM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 10:50:10AM -0800, Mina Lee wrote:
> > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for graduation.
> >
> > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more diverse. Number of
> > contributors has increased more than 7 times and three new committers are
> > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling project. And release, vote
>
> I believe the more important question: has anybody been added to the
> PPMC roster? Has the Zeppelin PPMC found itself able to trust anybody
> new since its inception?
>
>
Since it's inception, 3 PPMC has been added from 3 different affiliations,
located in two different timezone.
> > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
> > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big synergy with other
> > apache projects by providing different back-end interpreters(ex spark,
> > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
>
> Technical features and project interop and whatnot are irrelevant.
> Graduation is about the community and its ability to manage itself.
> Later elements of this thread would indicate "no".
>
> >...
> > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <do...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo about the Apache
> project
> > > > maturity model. (
> > > >
> > >
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html)
>
> That document is not an official Foundation position/policy, and has
> no bearing upon graduation. The community may choose to use it for
> self reflection, but it is not the determinating factor for graduation.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
Thanks,
moon
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 10:50:10AM -0800, Mina Lee wrote:
> I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for graduation.
>
> Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more diverse. Number of
> contributors has increased more than 7 times and three new committers are
> admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling project. And release, vote
I believe the more important question: has anybody been added to the
PPMC roster? Has the Zeppelin PPMC found itself able to trust anybody
new since its inception?
> related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
> Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big synergy with other
> apache projects by providing different back-end interpreters(ex spark,
> hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
Technical features and project interop and whatnot are irrelevant.
Graduation is about the community and its ability to manage itself.
Later elements of this thread would indicate "no".
>...
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <do...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo about the Apache project
> > > maturity model. (
> > >
> > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html)
That document is not an official Foundation position/policy, and has
no bearing upon graduation. The community may choose to use it for
self reflection, but it is not the determinating factor for graduation.
Cheers,
-g
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Konstantin Boudnik <co...@apache.org>.
As a procedural point: the maturity model isn't a graduation requirement. It
is a framework put forth a some IPMC people to help to make sure right
questions are asked, not to mold all the projects the same way. No one is
obliged to stick to it, though ;)
Cos
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 10:55AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were to fill out the
> Apache Maturity Model
> checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for graduation.
> >
> > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more diverse. Number of
> > contributors has increased more than 7 times and three new committers are
> > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling project. And release, vote
> > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
> > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big synergy with other
> > apache projects by providing different back-end interpreters(ex spark,
> > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
> >
> > so +1 for graduation.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <ma...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1 for graduation
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <do...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo about the Apache project
> >> > maturity model. (
> >> >
> >> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing secure software
> >> >
> >> > It's related to security and I know that there is a commit on Shiro
> >> > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him by the way). There is
> >> also
> >> > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about Kerberos (
> >> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/640). Don't know if
> >> > there
> >> > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on the chapter of security,
> >> all
> >> > the works are being done and are on good way.
> >> >
> >> > Under the Community topic, I think all the points are covered (for
> >> example,
> >> > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly documented in
> >> CONTRIBUTING.md)
> >> > as well as consensus (point CO60).
> >> >
> >> > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every discussion related to release
> >> > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the mailing list.
> >> >
> >> > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
> >> >
> >> > Now my personal opinion as a community member is that it's high time for
> >> > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel comfortable advising
> >> > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production because of lack of
> >> security
> >> > but since security support (at least for authentication) is in the trunk
> >> > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see any blocker anymore.
> >> >
> >> > So a big +1 for me
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <ah...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think it's time to graduate and
> >> > step
> >> > > forward.
> >> > > So, ++1 !
> >> > >
> >> > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<an...@apache.org>님이 작성한
> >> 메시지:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hi,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a vote.
> >> > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any specific features (For specific
> >> > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a requirement for the first
> >> > > release
> >> > > > as TLP),
> >> > > > so for me its a big +1.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> >> > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Hi guys,
> >> > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the incubator. I think we all
> >> well
> >> > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new features that also will be
> >> > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to greatly improve the
> >> > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary for graduation.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > +1 for graduation
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov <bzz@apache.org
> >> > > > <javascript:;>>:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Jakob,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is exactly as you describe
> >> > (there
> >> > > > > were
> >> > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on graduation and get more
> >> > > > oppinions
> >> > > > > > from other participants - that would awesome!
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to help with particular
> >> > features
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > the next release here, but please feel free to fork the thread
> >> for
> >> > > > > further
> >> > > > > > discussion on technical details.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > Alex
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <jghoman@gmail.com
> >> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Hey all-
> >> > > > > > > A data point and observation from an ASF Member and
> >> Incubator
> >> > > PMC
> >> > > > > > > Member...
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for graduation is a function
> >> of
> >> > > > > > > community development and adherence to the Apache Way, rather
> >> any
> >> > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones. Since entering Incubator,
> >> > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases, has finished the
> >> > > > > > > incubation checklist
> >> > > > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html), has
> >> added
> >> > > new
> >> > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a good position to
> >> > > graduate
> >> > > > > > > from my perspective.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be handled in a speedy
> >> > matter,
> >> > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement to that - just
> >> some
> >> > > > work
> >> > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > -Jakob
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B. Elberg <
> >> > amos.elberg@gmail.com
> >> > > > <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it. The reason we didn't
> >> merge
> >> > > in
> >> > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented the tests *in* 208 from
> >> > > > > > functioning.
> >> > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now CI is broken for
> >> the
> >> > > > > project
> >> > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I would do that myself.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been proven in the field:
> >> > People
> >> > > > who
> >> > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the version of 208 in my repo
> >> > because
> >> > > it
> >> > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since August, and it's very hard to
> >> > > > > > understand
> >> > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a Meetup in September
> >> where a
> >> > > > > variant
> >> > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a demonstration of Zeppelin's
> >> > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is dealing with significant
> >> PRs
> >> > > > from
> >> > > > > > > outside the core development team. Addressing these issues
> >> for
> >> > R,
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of project maturity. These
> >> > > were
> >> > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were supposed to be included
> >> before
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > first
> >> > > > > > > non-beta release.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >> On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee <moon@apache.org
> >> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion and very
> >> > valuable
> >> > > > > > opinion.
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> I completely agree how much R and Authentication (which i
> >> > > believe
> >> > > > > > > already
> >> > > > > > > >> in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And believe me, I
> >> want
> >> > > > these
> >> > > > > > > >> features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> But at the same time we have diversity of user bases.
> >> > > > > > > >> Some people might think supporting general JDBC is more
> >> > > practical
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > > >> useful feature, the other can think multi-tenancy is the
> >> most
> >> > > > > > important,
> >> > > > > > > >> etc, etc.
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> So, i believe Apache Top Level project is defined by how
> >> > > community
> >> > > > > > > works,
> >> > > > > > > >> not defined by what feature does the software includes.
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> Regarding bringing R into main branch, I tried to make pr208
> >> > > > passes
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > CI.
> >> > > > > > > >> I could able to make it pass 1 test profile, but couldn't
> >> make
> >> > > it
> >> > > > > pass
> >> > > > > > > all
> >> > > > > > > >> other test profiles.
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> I'm suggesting split the contribution into smaller peaces
> >> and
> >> > > > merge
> >> > > > > > one
> >> > > > > > > by
> >> > > > > > > >> one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution of Shiro
> >> > security
> >> > > > > > > integration
> >> > > > > > > >> (pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208 into smaller PRs.
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> Best,
> >> > > > > > > >> moon
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav Mazumder <
> >> > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >>> This does make sense Moon. Completely agree with you that
> >> > > > features
> >> > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > > >>> important for becoming a top level project
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > >>> However, in my opinion, from the practical usage
> >> standpoint,
> >> > > > > without
> >> > > > > > > these
> >> > > > > > > >>> two features Zeppelin does not look to me a full fledged
> >> top
> >> > > > level
> >> > > > > > > project.
> >> > > > > > > >>> Curious whether there are any technical glitches which are
> >> > > > > impediment
> >> > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > >>> bringing these features to the main branch. Wondering if
> >> any
> >> > > help
> >> > > > > can
> >> > > > > > > help
> >> > > > > > > >>> to get those problems fixed.
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > >>> Regards,
> >> > > > > > > >>> Sourav
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo Lee <
> >> > moon@apache.org
> >> > > > <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Hi guys,
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be
> >> > > > prerequisites
> >> > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > >>>> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those
> >> > > features
> >> > > > > as
> >> > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > >>>> graduation goal.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Including specific features could be valid concern for
> >> > release
> >> > > > > > > >>> discussion,
> >> > > > > > > >>>> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in
> >> > apache
> >> > > > way,
> >> > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > my
> >> > > > > > > >>>> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a
> >> > > > > graduation
> >> > > > > > > vote
> >> > > > > > > >>>> is, because of there were valid concern about contribution
> >> > > > > impasse.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution
> >> > guide
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > > review
> >> > > > > > > >>>> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help
> >> many
> >> > > > > > > contributions
> >> > > > > > > >>>> that they have been as a open PR for a long time.
> >> > (Especially
> >> > > > > > Jongyoul
> >> > > > > > > >>> and
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Felix helped a lot)
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be
> >> > > > included'
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > >>>> release / roadmap discussion.
> >> > > > > > > >>>> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an
> >> > discussions,
> >> > > > > such
> >> > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > >>>> evaluating
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
> >> > > > > > > >>>> etc.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > > > >>>> moon
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <
> >> > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it
> >> > was
> >> > > > not
> >> > > > > > > >>>> withdrawn
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some
> >> > > > > feedback
> >> > > > > > > from
> >> > > > > > > >>>> the
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues.
> >> > And
> >> > > > > that's
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> last public discussion about graduation until today.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the
> >> > > > > discussion
> >> > > > > > > >>> emails
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> that you're referring to.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <
> >> > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Eran,
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Could you please check my previous reply about release
> >> > > > schedulle
> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > >>>> let
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> us
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> know if that makes sense to you?
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong
> >> > here,
> >> > > > but
> >> > > > > > > >>> after
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not
> >> > > have
> >> > > > > > > >>>> pre-request
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this
> >> > > formal
> >> > > > > > > >>>> procedure
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> of
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> graduation.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <
> >> > > eranwitkon@gmail.com
> >> > > > <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the
> >> > > pre-requisite
> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> graduation
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> from day one.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Eran
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very
> >> > > popular
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> different
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to
> >> > > > graduate
> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > >>> to
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> top
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> level.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and
> >> > > > > > > >>> Authentication
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> added
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most
> >> of
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > people
> >> > > > > > > >>>> are
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> eagerly waiting for.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Regards,
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Sourav
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <
> >> > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Let's start a vote.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Best,
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> moon
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <
> >> > > > > > > >>> bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew
> >> more
> >> > > I'd
> >> > > > > > like
> >> > > > > > > >>> to
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> suggest
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to
> >> > top
> >> > > > > level
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> project.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to
> >> > > start a
> >> > > > > > VOTE
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> thread
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> here.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> >> > > > > *Software Engeenier
> >> > > > > *
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <
> >> > > > marta.tapia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> >> > > > > * |
> >> victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> >> > > > <javascript:;>
> >> > > > > <marta.tapia@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >> Madhuka Udantha
> >> http://madhukaudantha.blogspot.com
> >>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com>.
I read again through the discussion and convinced that we can spread these
two issues.
+1 for graduation
regardless of graduation +1 for moon's suggestion for resolving the R issue.
I think we should find a way to discuss which feature we want to see in
Zeppelin and maybe even break them into small issues\pr so people from the
community can take on them. I feel that larger efforts such as multi-users
support and advance UI like Map and other might be too big for one
contributor to handle so sometime we end up with smaller contributions.
Eran
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 9:51 AM Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey all-
> A data point and observation from an ASF Member and Incubator PMC
> Member...
>
> Moon is correct that readiness for graduation is a function of
> community development and adherence to the Apache Way, rather any
> specific feature or tech milestones. Since entering Incubator,
> Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases, has finished the
> incubation checklist
> (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html), has added new
> commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a good position to graduate
> from my perspective.
>
> Resolution of specific PRs should be handled in a speedy matter,
> but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement to that - just some work
> left to be done in getting them in.
>
> -Jakob
>
>
> On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't see a point to splitting it. The reason we didn't merge in
> December is that bugs in CI prevented the tests *in* 208 from functioning.
> It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now CI is broken for the project
> anyway. If it was going to be split, I would do that myself.
> >
> > The reliability of the code has been proven in the field: People who
> don't use R have switched to the version of 208 in my repo because it
> compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> >
> > This has been outstanding since August, and it's very hard to understand
> a reason - you even participated in a Meetup in September where a variant
> of the code in the PR was used as a demonstration of Zeppelin's
> capabilities and potential.
> >
> > Part of being an Apache project is dealing with significant PRs from
> outside the core development team. Addressing these issues for R, and
> Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of project maturity. These were
> features on the roadmap which were supposed to be included before the first
> non-beta release.
> >
> >> On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion and very valuable opinion.
> >>
> >> I completely agree how much R and Authentication (which i believe
> already
> >> in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And believe me, I want these
> >> features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
> >>
> >> But at the same time we have diversity of user bases.
> >> Some people might think supporting general JDBC is more practical and
> more
> >> useful feature, the other can think multi-tenancy is the most important,
> >> etc, etc.
> >>
> >> So, i believe Apache Top Level project is defined by how community
> works,
> >> not defined by what feature does the software includes.
> >>
> >> Regarding bringing R into main branch, I tried to make pr208 passes the
> CI.
> >> I could able to make it pass 1 test profile, but couldn't make it pass
> all
> >> other test profiles.
> >>
> >> I'm suggesting split the contribution into smaller peaces and merge one
> by
> >> one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution of Shiro security
> integration
> >> (pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208 into smaller PRs.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> moon
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav Mazumder <
> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This does make sense Moon. Completely agree with you that features are
> not
> >>> important for becoming a top level project
> >>>
> >>> However, in my opinion, from the practical usage standpoint, without
> these
> >>> two features Zeppelin does not look to me a full fledged top level
> project.
> >>> Curious whether there are any technical glitches which are impediment
> in
> >>> bringing these features to the main branch. Wondering if any help can
> help
> >>> to get those problems fixed.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Sourav
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi guys,
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be prerequisites of
> >>>> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those features as a
> >>>> graduation goal.
> >>>>
> >>>> Including specific features could be valid concern for release
> >>> discussion,
> >>>> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in apache way, in
> my
> >>>> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a graduation
> vote
> >>>> is, because of there were valid concern about contribution impasse.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution guide and
> review
> >>>> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many
> contributions
> >>>> that they have been as a open PR for a long time. (Especially Jongyoul
> >>> and
> >>>> Felix helped a lot)
> >>>>
> >>>> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be included' to
> the
> >>>> release / roadmap discussion.
> >>>> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an discussions, such as
> >>>> evaluating
> >>>
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
> >>>> etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> moon
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was not
> >>>> withdrawn
> >>>>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some feedback
> from
> >>>> the
> >>>>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And that's
> the
> >>>>> last public discussion about graduation until today.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the discussion
> >>> emails
> >>>>> that you're referring to.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Eran,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Could you please check my previous reply about release schedulle and
> >>>> let
> >>>>> us
> >>>>>> know if that makes sense to you?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here, but
> >>> after
> >>>>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have
> >>>> pre-request
> >>>>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal
> >>>> procedure
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>> graduation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [1]
> >>>
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite for
> >>>>> graduation
> >>>>>>> from day one.
> >>>>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
> >>>>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
> >>>>>>> Eran
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
> >>>>> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in
> >>>>> different
> >>>>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate it
> >>> to
> >>>>> top
> >>>>>>>> level.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and
> >>> Authentication
> >>>>>>> added
> >>>>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the people
> >>>> are
> >>>>>>>> eagerly waiting for.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>> Sourav
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> >>>>>>>>> Let's start a vote.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>> moon
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <
> >>> bzz@apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like
> >>> to
> >>>>>>>>> suggest
> >>>>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level
> >>>>>>> project.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE
> >>>>>>> thread
> >>>>>>>>>> here.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Alex
> >>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Jesang Yoon <yo...@kanizsalab.com>.
I agree with @ahyoungryu93 @anthonycorbacho
Features can be upgraded constantly in time manner but project needs to be go forward for publicity.
So ++1
-----Original Message-----
From: "Ahyoung Ryu"<ahyoungryu93@gmail.com>
To: "dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org"<dev@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org>;
Cc:
Sent: 2016-02-04 (목) 23:28:29
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think it's time to graduate and step
forward.
So, ++1 !
2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<anthonycorbacho@apache.org>님이 작성한 메시지:
> Hi,
>
> I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a vote.
> unlike release, it doesnt require any specific features (For specific
> feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a requirement for the first release
> as TLP),
> so for me its a big +1.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
> > In my opinion we can graduate from the incubator. I think we all well
> > controlled procedures, regardless of new features that also will be
> > improved or adding . For example we need to greatly improve the
> > documentation, but i since is not necesary for graduation.
> >
> > +1 for graduation
> >
> > congrats for the work...!!!
> >
> > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov <bzz@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>:
> >
> > > Jakob,
> > >
> > > thank you for pointing this out, it is exactly as you describe (there
> > were
> > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> > >
> > > If we could keep this thread focused on graduation and get more
> oppinions
> > > from other participants - that would awesome!
> > >
> > > Its great to see people volonteering to help with particular features
> for
> > > the next release here, but please feel free to fork the thread for
> > further
> > > discussion on technical details.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <jghoman@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey all-
> > > > A data point and observation from an ASF Member and Incubator PMC
> > > > Member...
> > > >
> > > > Moon is correct that readiness for graduation is a function of
> > > > community development and adherence to the Apache Way, rather any
> > > > specific feature or tech milestones. Since entering Incubator,
> > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases, has finished the
> > > > incubation checklist
> > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html), has added new
> > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a good position to graduate
> > > > from my perspective.
> > > >
> > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be handled in a speedy matter,
> > > > but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement to that - just some
> work
> > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> > > >
> > > > -Jakob
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B. Elberg <amos.elberg@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it. The reason we didn't merge in
> > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented the tests *in* 208 from
> > > functioning.
> > > > It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now CI is broken for the
> > project
> > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I would do that myself.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reliability of the code has been proven in the field: People
> who
> > > > don't use R have switched to the version of 208 in my repo because it
> > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > > > >
> > > > > This has been outstanding since August, and it's very hard to
> > > understand
> > > > a reason - you even participated in a Meetup in September where a
> > variant
> > > > of the code in the PR was used as a demonstration of Zeppelin's
> > > > capabilities and potential.
> > > > >
> > > > > Part of being an Apache project is dealing with significant PRs
> from
> > > > outside the core development team. Addressing these issues for R,
> and
> > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of project maturity. These were
> > > > features on the roadmap which were supposed to be included before the
> > > first
> > > > non-beta release.
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee <moon@apache.org
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion and very valuable
> > > opinion.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I completely agree how much R and Authentication (which i believe
> > > > already
> > > > >> in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And believe me, I want
> these
> > > > >> features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But at the same time we have diversity of user bases.
> > > > >> Some people might think supporting general JDBC is more practical
> > and
> > > > more
> > > > >> useful feature, the other can think multi-tenancy is the most
> > > important,
> > > > >> etc, etc.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So, i believe Apache Top Level project is defined by how community
> > > > works,
> > > > >> not defined by what feature does the software includes.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Regarding bringing R into main branch, I tried to make pr208
> passes
> > > the
> > > > CI.
> > > > >> I could able to make it pass 1 test profile, but couldn't make it
> > pass
> > > > all
> > > > >> other test profiles.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm suggesting split the contribution into smaller peaces and
> merge
> > > one
> > > > by
> > > > >> one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution of Shiro security
> > > > integration
> > > > >> (pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208 into smaller PRs.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Best,
> > > > >> moon
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav Mazumder <
> > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> This does make sense Moon. Completely agree with you that
> features
> > > are
> > > > not
> > > > >>> important for becoming a top level project
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> However, in my opinion, from the practical usage standpoint,
> > without
> > > > these
> > > > >>> two features Zeppelin does not look to me a full fledged top
> level
> > > > project.
> > > > >>> Curious whether there are any technical glitches which are
> > impediment
> > > > in
> > > > >>> bringing these features to the main branch. Wondering if any help
> > can
> > > > help
> > > > >>> to get those problems fixed.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Regards,
> > > > >>> Sourav
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo Lee <moon@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Hi guys,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be
> prerequisites
> > of
> > > > >>>> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those features
> > as
> > > a
> > > > >>>> graduation goal.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Including specific features could be valid concern for release
> > > > >>> discussion,
> > > > >>>> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in apache
> way,
> > > in
> > > > my
> > > > >>>> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a
> > graduation
> > > > vote
> > > > >>>> is, because of there were valid concern about contribution
> > impasse.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution guide
> and
> > > > review
> > > > >>>> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many
> > > > contributions
> > > > >>>> that they have been as a open PR for a long time. (Especially
> > > Jongyoul
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>>> Felix helped a lot)
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be
> included'
> > > to
> > > > the
> > > > >>>> release / roadmap discussion.
> > > > >>>> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an discussions,
> > such
> > > as
> > > > >>>> evaluating
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
> > > > >>>> etc.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>> moon
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <
> > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was
> not
> > > > >>>> withdrawn
> > > > >>>>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some
> > feedback
> > > > from
> > > > >>>> the
> > > > >>>>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And
> > that's
> > > > the
> > > > >>>>> last public discussion about graduation until today.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the
> > discussion
> > > > >>> emails
> > > > >>>>> that you're referring to.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <
> bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hi Eran,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Could you please check my previous reply about release
> schedulle
> > > and
> > > > >>>> let
> > > > >>>>> us
> > > > >>>>>> know if that makes sense to you?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here,
> but
> > > > >>> after
> > > > >>>>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have
> > > > >>>> pre-request
> > > > >>>>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal
> > > > >>>> procedure
> > > > >>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>> graduation.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> [1]
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <eranwitkon@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite
> > for
> > > > >>>>> graduation
> > > > >>>>>>> from day one.
> > > > >>>>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
> > > > >>>>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
> > > > >>>>>>> Eran
> > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
> > > > >>>>> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular
> > in
> > > > >>>>> different
> > > > >>>>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to
> graduate
> > > it
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>>> top
> > > > >>>>>>>> level.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and
> > > > >>> Authentication
> > > > >>>>>>> added
> > > > >>>>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the
> > > people
> > > > >>>> are
> > > > >>>>>>>> eagerly waiting for.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>> Sourav
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <
> > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Let's start a vote.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > >>>>>>>>> moon
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <
> > > > >>> bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd
> > > like
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>> suggest
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top
> > level
> > > > >>>>>>> project.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a
> > > VOTE
> > > > >>>>>>> thread
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> here.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > *Software Engeenier
> > *
> >
> > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <
> marta.tapia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > * | victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> <javascript:;>
> > <marta.tapia@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> >
> >
> >
> > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> >
>
Re: Concerns about PR208 was Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
Sure,
Let me get some fresh air and think in different point of view.
Thanks Roman for call a time out and taking care of.
Best,
moon
On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 10:45 Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
> Amos, Moon, Felix,
>
> I would like to call a time out on this and the other thread. All of you
> had
> a chance to state your position and I don't think we're going to approach
> the resolution any quicker if you keep sending heated emails to the public
> mailing list.
>
> Now, this is NOT an attempt to sweep things under the rug. This is me
> asking
> for a favor to give all of us here (including your mentors) some space to
> think
> about how to move forward.
>
> I can promise you that I'm going to come up with something over the weekend
> to see if a more permanent solution to this problem is possible.
>
> Can you please do me this favor and not send any emails for the next 72
> hours?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Please don't be ridiculous.
> >> You also emailed me privately at that time and I said i can not judge
> who
> >> is laying, because of i'm not a judge and not capable of. Instead I made
> >> you and Felix say sorry and thanks each other and move forward.
> >
> > Actually no, that isn't what happened.
> >
> > I did agree to give Felix another chance.
> >
> > But then Moon appointed Felix to "oversee" or "manage" the PR, whatever
> that was supposed to mean. Except instead of helping, Felix tried to
> pass-off the work as his own---at a presentation where Moon participated.
> When people who saw the presentation contacted Felix to use the code, he
> either ignored them or referred them to my repo, saying it was his work.
> >
> > Moon then ignored my emails about it until he began hearing from users
> who complained why the PR, which had obtained a userbase, was ignored for
> four months.
> >
> > Then the message to me was "don't rock the boat."
> >
> > If anyone has doubts about who's telling the truth here, I have the
> email records.
> >
> >> On Feb 5, 2016, at 4:07 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Please don't be ridiculous.
> >>
> >> You also emailed me privately at that time and I said i can not judge
> who
> >> is laying, because of i'm not a judge and not capable of. Instead I made
> >> you and Felix say sorry and thanks each other and move forward.
>
Re: Concerns about PR208 was Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>.
Guys,
if somebody could help with first issues from the list in [PR208](
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/208#issuecomment-181624753)
I'll be happy to help with CI issues over the coming weekend.
Please let me know what you guys think - we need to move on all together
and enable R in Zeppelin as users a waiting for it.
--
Alex
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roman - I'm only seeing this after the last email I sent. I would not
> have sent it if I'd seen this.
>
> I agree to your call for a "time out."
>
> Thank you for your involvement.
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Amos, Moon, Felix,
> >
> > I would like to call a time out on this and the other thread. All of you
> > had
> > a chance to state your position and I don't think we're going to approach
> > the resolution any quicker if you keep sending heated emails to the
> public
> > mailing list.
> >
> > Now, this is NOT an attempt to sweep things under the rug. This is me
> > asking
> > for a favor to give all of us here (including your mentors) some space to
> > think
> > about how to move forward.
> >
> > I can promise you that I'm going to come up with something over the
> weekend
> > to see if a more permanent solution to this problem is possible.
> >
> > Can you please do me this favor and not send any emails for the next 72
> > hours?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roman.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >> Please don't be ridiculous.
> > >> You also emailed me privately at that time and I said i can not judge
> > who
> > >> is laying, because of i'm not a judge and not capable of. Instead I
> made
> > >> you and Felix say sorry and thanks each other and move forward.
> > >
> > > Actually no, that isn't what happened.
> > >
> > > I did agree to give Felix another chance.
> > >
> > > But then Moon appointed Felix to "oversee" or "manage" the PR, whatever
> > that was supposed to mean. Except instead of helping, Felix tried to
> > pass-off the work as his own---at a presentation where Moon participated.
> > When people who saw the presentation contacted Felix to use the code, he
> > either ignored them or referred them to my repo, saying it was his work.
> > >
> > > Moon then ignored my emails about it until he began hearing from users
> > who complained why the PR, which had obtained a userbase, was ignored for
> > four months.
> > >
> > > Then the message to me was "don't rock the boat."
> > >
> > > If anyone has doubts about who's telling the truth here, I have the
> > email records.
> > >
> > >> On Feb 5, 2016, at 4:07 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Please don't be ridiculous.
> > >>
> > >> You also emailed me privately at that time and I said i can not judge
> > who
> > >> is laying, because of i'm not a judge and not capable of. Instead I
> made
> > >> you and Felix say sorry and thanks each other and move forward.
> >
>
Re: Concerns about PR208 was Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>.
Roman - I'm only seeing this after the last email I sent. I would not
have sent it if I'd seen this.
I agree to your call for a "time out."
Thank you for your involvement.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
> Amos, Moon, Felix,
>
> I would like to call a time out on this and the other thread. All of you
> had
> a chance to state your position and I don't think we're going to approach
> the resolution any quicker if you keep sending heated emails to the public
> mailing list.
>
> Now, this is NOT an attempt to sweep things under the rug. This is me
> asking
> for a favor to give all of us here (including your mentors) some space to
> think
> about how to move forward.
>
> I can promise you that I'm going to come up with something over the weekend
> to see if a more permanent solution to this problem is possible.
>
> Can you please do me this favor and not send any emails for the next 72
> hours?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Please don't be ridiculous.
> >> You also emailed me privately at that time and I said i can not judge
> who
> >> is laying, because of i'm not a judge and not capable of. Instead I made
> >> you and Felix say sorry and thanks each other and move forward.
> >
> > Actually no, that isn't what happened.
> >
> > I did agree to give Felix another chance.
> >
> > But then Moon appointed Felix to "oversee" or "manage" the PR, whatever
> that was supposed to mean. Except instead of helping, Felix tried to
> pass-off the work as his own---at a presentation where Moon participated.
> When people who saw the presentation contacted Felix to use the code, he
> either ignored them or referred them to my repo, saying it was his work.
> >
> > Moon then ignored my emails about it until he began hearing from users
> who complained why the PR, which had obtained a userbase, was ignored for
> four months.
> >
> > Then the message to me was "don't rock the boat."
> >
> > If anyone has doubts about who's telling the truth here, I have the
> email records.
> >
> >> On Feb 5, 2016, at 4:07 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Please don't be ridiculous.
> >>
> >> You also emailed me privately at that time and I said i can not judge
> who
> >> is laying, because of i'm not a judge and not capable of. Instead I made
> >> you and Felix say sorry and thanks each other and move forward.
>
Re: Concerns about PR208 was Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
Amos, Moon, Felix,
I would like to call a time out on this and the other thread. All of you had
a chance to state your position and I don't think we're going to approach
the resolution any quicker if you keep sending heated emails to the public
mailing list.
Now, this is NOT an attempt to sweep things under the rug. This is me asking
for a favor to give all of us here (including your mentors) some space to think
about how to move forward.
I can promise you that I'm going to come up with something over the weekend
to see if a more permanent solution to this problem is possible.
Can you please do me this favor and not send any emails for the next 72 hours?
Thanks,
Roman.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Please don't be ridiculous.
>> You also emailed me privately at that time and I said i can not judge who
>> is laying, because of i'm not a judge and not capable of. Instead I made
>> you and Felix say sorry and thanks each other and move forward.
>
> Actually no, that isn't what happened.
>
> I did agree to give Felix another chance.
>
> But then Moon appointed Felix to "oversee" or "manage" the PR, whatever that was supposed to mean. Except instead of helping, Felix tried to pass-off the work as his own---at a presentation where Moon participated. When people who saw the presentation contacted Felix to use the code, he either ignored them or referred them to my repo, saying it was his work.
>
> Moon then ignored my emails about it until he began hearing from users who complained why the PR, which had obtained a userbase, was ignored for four months.
>
> Then the message to me was "don't rock the boat."
>
> If anyone has doubts about who's telling the truth here, I have the email records.
>
>> On Feb 5, 2016, at 4:07 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Please don't be ridiculous.
>>
>> You also emailed me privately at that time and I said i can not judge who
>> is laying, because of i'm not a judge and not capable of. Instead I made
>> you and Felix say sorry and thanks each other and move forward.
Re: Concerns about PR208 was Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by "Amos B. Elberg" <am...@gmail.com>.
> Please don't be ridiculous.
> You also emailed me privately at that time and I said i can not judge who
> is laying, because of i'm not a judge and not capable of. Instead I made
> you and Felix say sorry and thanks each other and move forward.
Actually no, that isn't what happened.
I did agree to give Felix another chance.
But then Moon appointed Felix to "oversee" or "manage" the PR, whatever that was supposed to mean. Except instead of helping, Felix tried to pass-off the work as his own---at a presentation where Moon participated. When people who saw the presentation contacted Felix to use the code, he either ignored them or referred them to my repo, saying it was his work.
Moon then ignored my emails about it until he began hearing from users who complained why the PR, which had obtained a userbase, was ignored for four months.
Then the message to me was "don't rock the boat."
If anyone has doubts about who's telling the truth here, I have the email records.
> On Feb 5, 2016, at 4:07 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Please don't be ridiculous.
>
> You also emailed me privately at that time and I said i can not judge who
> is laying, because of i'm not a judge and not capable of. Instead I made
> you and Felix say sorry and thanks each other and move forward.
Concerns about PR208 was Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:37 AM Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since subtlety has not worked, I will now be blunter.
>
> The reason PR 208 has been delayed since August is that Felix Cheung
> demanded that I credit him as a co-author even though he hadn't done
> any work.
>
> When I refused, Felix privately contacted Moon, who is his friend, and
> claimed the PR contained Felix' intellectual property. Moon then held
> the PR at Felix' request.
>
I found out what happened after I pursued Moon to ask why the PR had
> been ignored. When he told me what happened, I had to offer e-mail
> chains and commit logs to prove that Felix was lying.
>
> Since then, its been one bogus, junk reason for delay after another.
> For a while, this seems to be because Moon wanted to give Felix time to
> produce a competing implementation. Except, Felix wasn't able to do
> it. I caught him trying to pass-off code he'd stolen as his own, with
> Moon (who should have known) present.
>
> When I confronted Moon he told me, basically, "don't rock our boat."
>
> If anyone has any doubt about whether what I've said is true, I have the
> email chains, the commit logs, the chat records...
>
Please don't be ridiculous.
You also emailed me privately at that time and I said i can not judge who
is laying, because of i'm not a judge and not capable of. Instead I made
you and Felix say sorry and thanks each other and move forward.
And you and felix both agreed on the email.
You can complain and blame someone for next 10 years,
Or you can move forward.
Up to you.
> I believe the reason PRs have been delayed is that they conflicted with
> other goals of either NFLabs, or friends of committers. Such as security
> PRs, when NFlabs offers multi-user functionality commercially and outside
> the project.
>
>
>
I work in NFLabs so i can answer.
NFLabs multi-user functionality (
https://github.com/NFLabs/z-manager/tree/master/multitenancy), NFLabs is
not selling / supporting it commercially.
I'm not sure why you think NFLabs benefit by not doing security in
Zeppelin. Actually, NFLabs business benefit a lot when Zeppelin features
security and become enterprise ready. Because of NFLabs business is based
on adoption of Zeppelin. Not a feature of Zeppelin.
Best,
moon
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Corneau Damien <co...@gmail.com>.
I just reviewed the checklist and it looks good!
I also made a few corrections to the sentences.
It seems the only NO we have on that checklist is for:
*QU30 **The project provides a well-documented channel to report security
issues, along with a documented way of responding to them.*
What I saw from some other projects is that they have a special security
mailing list (cf. hadoop <https://hadoop.apache.org/mailing_lists.html> ,
tomcat <http://tomcat.apache.org/security.html>)
However, I didn't see any sign of channel for security for Apache Spark for
exemple.
However we can create a Ticket on Infra
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-1279?jql=text%20~%20%22security%20mailing%22>
to open one
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Corneau Damien <co...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Since subtlety has not worked, I will now be blunter.
>>
>> The reason PR 208 has been delayed since August is that Felix Cheung
>> demanded that I credit him as a co-author even though he hadn't done
>> any work.
>>
>> When I refused, Felix privately contacted Moon, who is his friend, and
>> claimed the PR contained Felix' intellectual property. Moon then held
>> the PR at Felix' request.
>>
>> I found out what happened after I pursued Moon to ask why the PR had
>> been ignored. When he told me what happened, I had to offer e-mail
>> chains and commit logs to prove that Felix was lying.
>>
>> Since then, its been one bogus, junk reason for delay after another.
>> For a while, this seems to be because Moon wanted to give Felix time to
>> produce a competing implementation. Except, Felix wasn't able to do
>> it. I caught him trying to pass-off code he'd stolen as his own, with
>> Moon (who should have known) present.
>>
>> When I confronted Moon he told me, basically, "don't rock our boat."
>>
>> If anyone has any doubt about whether what I've said is true, I have the
>> email chains, the commit logs, the chat records...
>>
>> I believe the reason PRs have been delayed is that they conflicted with
>> other goals of either NFLabs, or friends of committers. Such as security
>> PRs, when NFlabs offers multi-user functionality commercially and outside
>> the project.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Here are my comments on the draft checklist:
>>
>> > QU10The project is open and honest about the quality of its code.
>> > Various levels of quality and maturity for various modules are
>> > natural and acceptable as long as they are clearly communicated.
>> > Yes
>>
>> The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality, and
>> everything else really. As just one example, when the CI issues were
>> first reported, the response for some three months was "there can't be
>> anything wrong so we won't bother looking." Now its acknowledged that
>> CI is basically broken for the whole project.
>>
>> There are many such examples.
>>
>> > QU20The project puts a very high priority on producing secure
>> > software.
>> > Yes
>>
>> The evidence is otherwise.
>>
>> While many people ask about security features, the response has always
>> been from the PMC "some day," with no progress made. When community
>> members tried to contribute the code --- the Shiro PR was inexplicably
>> delayed by 4+ months; and the reaction to the new multi-user PR already
>> seems unusual, etc.
>>
>> Maybe the project intends to make security a priority in the future.
>> But so far it has not.
>>
>> > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards compatibility and
>> > aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools and
>> > documentation to help users transition to new features.
>> > Yes
>>
>> There is no such documentation. There have been changes to, e.g., the
>> way Zeppelin has to be configured, the way Spark integrates with
>> Zeppelin, etc., that broke code and broke installations, but were never
>> documented.
>>
>> I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so there's
>> nothing to document." But that is not the case.
>>
>> > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in a
>> > timely manner.Yes
>>
>> 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted in
>> *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple people and
>> the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
>>
>> This is just one example.
>>
>> > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor Agreement (the
>> > "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed to commit
>> > and how they need to identify code that is not their own.
>> > Yes
>>
>> There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent with the
>> iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't do anything
>> about it.
>>
>> > CO20
>> > The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts in good
>> > faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the project.
>> > Yes
>>
>> See above.
>>
>> > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to give more
>> > rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value to the
>> > project.
>> > Yes
>>
>> Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer who isn't
>> an affiliate of NFLabs.
>>
>> That person is not a programmer and has made no contribution to the
>> Zeppelin codebase.
>>
>> > CO50
>> > The way in which contributors can be granted more rights such as
>> > commit access or decision power is clearly documented and is the same
>> > for all contributors.
>> > Yes
>>
>> See above.
>>
>> > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in written form
>> > on the project's main communications channel. Offline, face-to-face
>> > or private discussions that affect the project are also documented on
>> > that channel.
>> > Yes
>>
>> Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.
>>
>> > IN10The project is independent from any corporate or organizational
>> > influence.
>> > Yes
>>
>> I'm not so sure...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 23:50 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
>> > I have filled out all checklists and commented as much as i can.
>> >
>> > Please review
>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Zeppelin+
>> > Project+Maturity+Model
>> > .
>> >
>> > Did i filled out correctly? Any feedback would be really appreciated.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > moon
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:03 AM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I have created
>> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Zeppeli
>> > > n+Project+Maturity+Model and
>> > > trying to fill out Apache Maturity Model checklist.
>> > >
>> > > Let me notify this thread when everything is filled out.
>> > > And any comment, help would be appreciated.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > moon
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
>> > > roman@shaposhnik.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were to fill
>> > > > out the
>> > > > Apache Maturity Model
>> > > > checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > > Roman.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <mi...@apache.org>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for graduation.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more diverse.
>> > > > > Number of
>> > > > > contributors has increased more than 7 times and three new
>> > > > > committers
>> > > > are
>> > > > > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling project. And
>> > > > > release, vote
>> > > > > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
>> > > > > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big synergy
>> > > > > with other
>> > > > > apache projects by providing different back-end interpreters(ex
>> > > > > spark,
>> > > > > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > so +1 for graduation.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <
>> > > > madhukaudantha@gmail.com>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > +1 for graduation
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <
>> > > > > > doanduyhai@gmail.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo about the
>> > > > > > > Apache
>> > > > project
>> > > > > > > maturity model. (
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-mo
>> > > > del.html
>> > > > )
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing
>> > > > > > > > secure
>> > > > software
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > It's related to security and I know that there is a commit
>> > > > > > > on Shiro
>> > > > > > > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him by the
>> > > > > > > way). There is
>> > > > > > also
>> > > > > > > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about Kerberos (
>> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/640).
>> > > > > > > Don't know
>> > > > if
>> > > > > > > there
>> > > > > > > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on the chapter
>> > > > > > > of
>> > > > security,
>> > > > > > all
>> > > > > > > the works are being done and are on good way.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Under the Community topic, I think all the points are
>> > > > > > > covered (for
>> > > > > > example,
>> > > > > > > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly documented in
>> > > > > > CONTRIBUTING.md)
>> > > > > > > as well as consensus (point CO60).
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every discussion
>> > > > > > > related to
>> > > > release
>> > > > > > > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the mailing
>> > > > > > > list.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Now my personal opinion as a community member is that it's
>> > > > > > > high
>> > > > time for
>> > > > > > > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel
>> > > > > > > comfortable
>> > > > advising
>> > > > > > > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production because of
>> > > > > > > lack of
>> > > > > > security
>> > > > > > > but since security support (at least for authentication) is
>> > > > > > > in the
>> > > > trunk
>> > > > > > > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see any
>> > > > > > > blocker anymore.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > So a big +1 for me
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <
>> > > > > > > ahyoungryu93@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think it's time to
>> > > > > > > > graduate
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > step
>> > > > > > > > forward.
>> > > > > > > > So, ++1 !
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<
>> > > > > > > > anthonycorbacho@apache.org>님이
>> > > > 작성한
>> > > > > > 메시지:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Hi,
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a vote.
>> > > > > > > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any specific features
>> > > > > > > > > (For
>> > > > specific
>> > > > > > > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a requirement
>> > > > > > > > > for the
>> > > > first
>> > > > > > > > release
>> > > > > > > > > as TLP),
>> > > > > > > > > so for me its a big +1.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
>> > > > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
>> > > > > > > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the incubator. I
>> > > > > > > > > > think we
>> > > > all
>> > > > > > well
>> > > > > > > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new features
>> > > > > > > > > > that also
>> > > > will be
>> > > > > > > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to greatly
>> > > > > > > > > > improve the
>> > > > > > > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary for
>> > > > > > > > > > graduation.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov <
>> > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Jakob,
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is exactly as
>> > > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > describe
>> > > > > > > (there
>> > > > > > > > > > were
>> > > > > > > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on graduation
>> > > > > > > > > > > and get
>> > > > more
>> > > > > > > > > oppinions
>> > > > > > > > > > > from other participants - that would awesome!
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to help with
>> > > > > > > > > > > particular
>> > > > > > > features
>> > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > the next release here, but please feel free to fork
>> > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > thread
>> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > further
>> > > > > > > > > > > discussion on technical details.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > Alex
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <
>> > > > > > > > > > > jghoman@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Hey all-
>> > > > > > > > > > > > A data point and observation from an ASF
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Member and
>> > > > > > Incubator
>> > > > > > > > PMC
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Member...
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for graduation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > is a
>> > > > function
>> > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > community development and adherence to the Apache
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Way,
>> > > > rather
>> > > > > > any
>> > > > > > > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones. Since
>> > > > > > > > > > > > entering
>> > > > Incubator,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases, has
>> > > > > > > > > > > > finished
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > incubation checklist
>> > > > > > > > > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.ht
>> > > > > > > > > > > > ml), has
>> > > > > > added
>> > > > > > > > new
>> > > > > > > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a good
>> > > > > > > > > > > > position to
>> > > > > > > > graduate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > from my perspective.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be handled
>> > > > > > > > > > > > in a speedy
>> > > > > > > matter,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > that -
>> > > > just
>> > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > > work
>> > > > > > > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > -Jakob
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B. Elberg <
>> > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it. The reason
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > we didn't
>> > > > > > merge
>> > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented the tests
>> > > > > > > > > > > > *in* 208
>> > > > from
>> > > > > > > > > > > functioning.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now CI
>> > > > > > > > > > > > is broken
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > project
>> > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I would do
>> > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > myself.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been proven in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > the field:
>> > > > > > > People
>> > > > > > > > > who
>> > > > > > > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the version of 208
>> > > > > > > > > > > > in my repo
>> > > > > > > because
>> > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since August, and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > it's very
>> > > > hard to
>> > > > > > > > > > > understand
>> > > > > > > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a Meetup in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > September
>> > > > > > where a
>> > > > > > > > > > variant
>> > > > > > > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a demonstration
>> > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > Zeppelin's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is dealing with
>> > > > significant
>> > > > > > PRs
>> > > > > > > > > from
>> > > > > > > > > > > > outside the core development team. Addressing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > these issues
>> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > R,
>> > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of project
>> > > > > > > > > > > > maturity.
>> > > > These
>> > > > > > > > were
>> > > > > > > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were supposed to be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > included
>> > > > > > before
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > first
>> > > > > > > > > > > > non-beta release.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee <
>> > > > moon@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and very
>> > > > > > > valuable
>> > > > > > > > > > > opinion.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree how much R and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication (which
>> > > > i
>> > > > > > > > believe
>> > > > > > > > > > > > already
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > believe me, I
>> > > > > > want
>> > > > > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But at the same time we have diversity of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > user bases.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people might think supporting general
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > JDBC is more
>> > > > > > > > practical
>> > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > more
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful feature, the other can think multi
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -tenancy is the
>> > > > > > most
>> > > > > > > > > > > important,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc, etc.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, i believe Apache Top Level project is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > defined by how
>> > > > > > > > community
>> > > > > > > > > > > > works,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not defined by what feature does the software
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > includes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding bringing R into main branch, I
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tried to make
>> > > > pr208
>> > > > > > > > > passes
>> > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > CI.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could able to make it pass 1 test profile,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > couldn't
>> > > > > > make
>> > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > pass
>> > > > > > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other test profiles.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm suggesting split the contribution into
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > smaller
>> > > > peaces
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > merge
>> > > > > > > > > > > one
>> > > > > > > > > > > > by
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Shiro
>> > > > > > > security
>> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > into smaller
>> > > > PRs.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This does make sense Moon. Completely agree
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with you
>> > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > features
>> > > > > > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important for becoming a top level project
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my opinion, from the practical
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage
>> > > > > > standpoint,
>> > > > > > > > > > without
>> > > > > > > > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two features Zeppelin does not look to me a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full
>> > > > fledged
>> > > > > > top
>> > > > > > > > > level
>> > > > > > > > > > > > project.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious whether there are any technical
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glitches which
>> > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > impediment
>> > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bringing these features to the main branch.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wondering
>> > > > if
>> > > > > > any
>> > > > > > > > help
>> > > > > > > > > > can
>> > > > > > > > > > > > help
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to get those problems fixed.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee <
>> > > > > > > moon@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think any feature (R or whatever)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
>> > > > > > > > > prerequisites
>> > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation. Especially when a project
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never setup
>> > > > those
>> > > > > > > > features
>> > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation goal.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Including specific features could be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valid concern for
>> > > > > > > release
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but i don't think it's related to a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graduation is much more like if project
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is doing it in
>> > > > > > > apache
>> > > > > > > > > way,
>> > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > my
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding. Last time the reason why i
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't go
>> > > > for a
>> > > > > > > > > > graduation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > vote
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is, because of there were valid concern
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
>> > > > contribution
>> > > > > > > > > > impasse.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since that, community improved /
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarified
>> > > > contribution
>> > > > > > > guide
>> > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > review
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to help
>> > > > > > many
>> > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that they have been as a open PR for a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long time.
>> > > > > > > (Especially
>> > > > > > > > > > > Jongyoul
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Felix helped a lot)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, let's move discussions like 'which
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature should
>> > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > included'
>> > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release / roadmap discussion.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the graduation discussion, i'd like to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have an
>> > > > > > > discussions,
>> > > > > > > > > > such
>> > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evaluating
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-mo
>> > > > del.html
>> > > > ,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense for you guys? Amos,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran, Sourav?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
>> > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No Eran is right. The last vote for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
>> > > > passed-it
>> > > > > > > was
>> > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > withdrawn
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there was
>> > > > some
>> > > > > > > > > > feedback
>> > > > > > > > > > > > from
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors concerning graduation, R, and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some other
>> > > > issues.
>> > > > > > > And
>> > > > > > > > > > that's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > last public discussion about graduation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > until today.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex if you disagree with that do you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have links to
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > discussion
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > emails
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you're referring to.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
>> > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eran,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for sharing your oppinion!
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please check my previous
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reply about
>> > > > release
>> > > > > > > > > schedulle
>> > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know if that makes sense to you?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, please our mentors
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct me if I'm
>> > > > wrong
>> > > > > > > here,
>> > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reading [1] I was under impression
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that project
>> > > > does not
>> > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pre-request
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding its code or features in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > order to undergo
>> > > > this
>> > > > > > > > formal
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > procedure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Gra
>> > > > duating+from+the+Incubator
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Witkon <
>> > > > > > > > eranwitkon@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I recall correctly R support was
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one of the
>> > > > > > > > pre-requisite
>> > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from day one.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Authentication should
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be added as
>> > > > well.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation after we add both
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Surely I vote for the same.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin is already
>> > > > very
>> > > > > > > > popular
>> > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quarts of the Spark/Big Data user
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group. High
>> > > > time to
>> > > > > > > > > graduate
>> > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I shall suggest to have
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the support for
>> > > > R and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > added
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to Zeppelin before that. These
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are the supports
>> > > > most
>> > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > people
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eagerly waiting for.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon soo Lee <
>> > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Alexander for resuming
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the discussion.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's start a vote.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PM Alexander
>> > > > Bezzubov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Zeppelin developers,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now, after number of releases
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and committers
>> > > > grew
>> > > > > > more
>> > > > > > > > I'd
>> > > > > > > > > > > like
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggest
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the re-new the discussion of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduating
>> > > > Zeppelin to
>> > > > > > > top
>> > > > > > > > > > level
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there are on objections -
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next step would be
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > > > start a
>> > > > > > > > > > > VOTE
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you guys think?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
>> > > > > > > > > > *Software Engeenier
>> > > > > > > > > > *
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript
>> > > > > > > > > > :;> <
>> > > > > > > > > marta.tapia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
>> > > > > > > > > > * |
>> > > > > > victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
>> > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>
>> > > > > > > > > > <marta.tapia@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > Cheers,
>> > > > > > Madhuka Udantha
>> > > > > > http://madhukaudantha.blogspot.com
>> > > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Corneau Damien <co...@gmail.com>.
[image: Inline image 1]
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since subtlety has not worked, I will now be blunter.
>
> The reason PR 208 has been delayed since August is that Felix Cheung
> demanded that I credit him as a co-author even though he hadn't done
> any work.
>
> When I refused, Felix privately contacted Moon, who is his friend, and
> claimed the PR contained Felix' intellectual property. Moon then held
> the PR at Felix' request.
>
> I found out what happened after I pursued Moon to ask why the PR had
> been ignored. When he told me what happened, I had to offer e-mail
> chains and commit logs to prove that Felix was lying.
>
> Since then, its been one bogus, junk reason for delay after another.
> For a while, this seems to be because Moon wanted to give Felix time to
> produce a competing implementation. Except, Felix wasn't able to do
> it. I caught him trying to pass-off code he'd stolen as his own, with
> Moon (who should have known) present.
>
> When I confronted Moon he told me, basically, "don't rock our boat."
>
> If anyone has any doubt about whether what I've said is true, I have the
> email chains, the commit logs, the chat records...
>
> I believe the reason PRs have been delayed is that they conflicted with
> other goals of either NFLabs, or friends of committers. Such as security
> PRs, when NFlabs offers multi-user functionality commercially and outside
> the project.
>
>
>
>
>
> Here are my comments on the draft checklist:
>
> > QU10The project is open and honest about the quality of its code.
> > Various levels of quality and maturity for various modules are
> > natural and acceptable as long as they are clearly communicated.
> > Yes
>
> The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality, and
> everything else really. As just one example, when the CI issues were
> first reported, the response for some three months was "there can't be
> anything wrong so we won't bother looking." Now its acknowledged that
> CI is basically broken for the whole project.
>
> There are many such examples.
>
> > QU20The project puts a very high priority on producing secure
> > software.
> > Yes
>
> The evidence is otherwise.
>
> While many people ask about security features, the response has always
> been from the PMC "some day," with no progress made. When community
> members tried to contribute the code --- the Shiro PR was inexplicably
> delayed by 4+ months; and the reaction to the new multi-user PR already
> seems unusual, etc.
>
> Maybe the project intends to make security a priority in the future.
> But so far it has not.
>
> > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards compatibility and
> > aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools and
> > documentation to help users transition to new features.
> > Yes
>
> There is no such documentation. There have been changes to, e.g., the
> way Zeppelin has to be configured, the way Spark integrates with
> Zeppelin, etc., that broke code and broke installations, but were never
> documented.
>
> I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so there's
> nothing to document." But that is not the case.
>
> > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in a
> > timely manner.Yes
>
> 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted in
> *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple people and
> the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
>
> This is just one example.
>
> > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor Agreement (the
> > "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed to commit
> > and how they need to identify code that is not their own.
> > Yes
>
> There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent with the
> iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't do anything
> about it.
>
> > CO20
> > The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts in good
> > faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the project.
> > Yes
>
> See above.
>
> > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to give more
> > rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value to the
> > project.
> > Yes
>
> Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer who isn't
> an affiliate of NFLabs.
>
> That person is not a programmer and has made no contribution to the
> Zeppelin codebase.
>
> > CO50
> > The way in which contributors can be granted more rights such as
> > commit access or decision power is clearly documented and is the same
> > for all contributors.
> > Yes
>
> See above.
>
> > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in written form
> > on the project's main communications channel. Offline, face-to-face
> > or private discussions that affect the project are also documented on
> > that channel.
> > Yes
>
> Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.
>
> > IN10The project is independent from any corporate or organizational
> > influence.
> > Yes
>
> I'm not so sure...
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 23:50 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > I have filled out all checklists and commented as much as i can.
> >
> > Please review
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Zeppelin+
> > Project+Maturity+Model
> > .
> >
> > Did i filled out correctly? Any feedback would be really appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > moon
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:03 AM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I have created
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Zeppeli
> > > n+Project+Maturity+Model and
> > > trying to fill out Apache Maturity Model checklist.
> > >
> > > Let me notify this thread when everything is filled out.
> > > And any comment, help would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > moon
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were to fill
> > > > out the
> > > > Apache Maturity Model
> > > > checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Roman.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <mi...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for graduation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more diverse.
> > > > > Number of
> > > > > contributors has increased more than 7 times and three new
> > > > > committers
> > > > are
> > > > > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling project. And
> > > > > release, vote
> > > > > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
> > > > > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big synergy
> > > > > with other
> > > > > apache projects by providing different back-end interpreters(ex
> > > > > spark,
> > > > > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
> > > > >
> > > > > so +1 for graduation.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <
> > > > madhukaudantha@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <
> > > > > > doanduyhai@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo about the
> > > > > > > Apache
> > > > project
> > > > > > > maturity model. (
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-mo
> > > > del.html
> > > > )
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing
> > > > > > > > secure
> > > > software
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's related to security and I know that there is a commit
> > > > > > > on Shiro
> > > > > > > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him by the
> > > > > > > way). There is
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about Kerberos (
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/640).
> > > > > > > Don't know
> > > > if
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on the chapter
> > > > > > > of
> > > > security,
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > the works are being done and are on good way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Under the Community topic, I think all the points are
> > > > > > > covered (for
> > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly documented in
> > > > > > CONTRIBUTING.md)
> > > > > > > as well as consensus (point CO60).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every discussion
> > > > > > > related to
> > > > release
> > > > > > > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the mailing
> > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now my personal opinion as a community member is that it's
> > > > > > > high
> > > > time for
> > > > > > > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel
> > > > > > > comfortable
> > > > advising
> > > > > > > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production because of
> > > > > > > lack of
> > > > > > security
> > > > > > > but since security support (at least for authentication) is
> > > > > > > in the
> > > > trunk
> > > > > > > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see any
> > > > > > > blocker anymore.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So a big +1 for me
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <
> > > > > > > ahyoungryu93@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think it's time to
> > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > and
> > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > > So, ++1 !
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<
> > > > > > > > anthonycorbacho@apache.org>님이
> > > > 작성한
> > > > > > 메시지:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a vote.
> > > > > > > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any specific features
> > > > > > > > > (For
> > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a requirement
> > > > > > > > > for the
> > > > first
> > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > as TLP),
> > > > > > > > > so for me its a big +1.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> > > > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the incubator. I
> > > > > > > > > > think we
> > > > all
> > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new features
> > > > > > > > > > that also
> > > > will be
> > > > > > > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to greatly
> > > > > > > > > > improve the
> > > > > > > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary for
> > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Jakob,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is exactly as
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > describe
> > > > > > > (there
> > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > and get
> > > > more
> > > > > > > > > oppinions
> > > > > > > > > > > from other participants - that would awesome!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to help with
> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > the next release here, but please feel free to fork
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > thread
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > discussion on technical details.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <
> > > > > > > > > > > jghoman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hey all-
> > > > > > > > > > > > A data point and observation from an ASF
> > > > > > > > > > > > Member and
> > > > > > Incubator
> > > > > > > > PMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > Member...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > function
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > community development and adherence to the Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > Way,
> > > > rather
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones. Since
> > > > > > > > > > > > entering
> > > > Incubator,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases, has
> > > > > > > > > > > > finished
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > incubation checklist
> > > > > > > > > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.ht
> > > > > > > > > > > > ml), has
> > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a good
> > > > > > > > > > > > position to
> > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > from my perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be handled
> > > > > > > > > > > > in a speedy
> > > > > > > matter,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement to
> > > > > > > > > > > > that -
> > > > just
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -Jakob
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B. Elberg <
> > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it. The reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we didn't
> > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented the tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > *in* 208
> > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > functioning.
> > > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > is broken
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I would do
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > myself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been proven in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the field:
> > > > > > > People
> > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the version of 208
> > > > > > > > > > > > in my repo
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since August, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it's very
> > > > hard to
> > > > > > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a Meetup in
> > > > > > > > > > > > September
> > > > > > where a
> > > > > > > > > > variant
> > > > > > > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a demonstration
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is dealing with
> > > > significant
> > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > outside the core development team. Addressing
> > > > > > > > > > > > these issues
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > R,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of project
> > > > > > > > > > > > maturity.
> > > > These
> > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were supposed to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > included
> > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > non-beta release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee <
> > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and very
> > > > > > > valuable
> > > > > > > > > > > opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree how much R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication (which
> > > > i
> > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > believe me, I
> > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But at the same time we have diversity of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > user bases.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people might think supporting general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > JDBC is more
> > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful feature, the other can think multi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -tenancy is the
> > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > important,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, i believe Apache Top Level project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > defined by how
> > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > works,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not defined by what feature does the software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > includes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding bringing R into main branch, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tried to make
> > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > passes
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could able to make it pass 1 test profile,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > couldn't
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other test profiles.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm suggesting split the contribution into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > smaller
> > > > peaces
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Shiro
> > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > into smaller
> > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This does make sense Moon. Completely agree
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with you
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important for becoming a top level project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my opinion, from the practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > standpoint,
> > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two features Zeppelin does not look to me a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > fledged
> > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious whether there are any technical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glitches which
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > impediment
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bringing these features to the main branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wondering
> > > > if
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to get those problems fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee <
> > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think any feature (R or whatever)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > > prerequisites
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation. Especially when a project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never setup
> > > > those
> > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation goal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Including specific features could be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valid concern for
> > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but i don't think it's related to a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graduation is much more like if project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is doing it in
> > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding. Last time the reason why i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't go
> > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is, because of there were valid concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > impasse.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since that, community improved /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarified
> > > > contribution
> > > > > > > guide
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to help
> > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that they have been as a open PR for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long time.
> > > > > > > (Especially
> > > > > > > > > > > Jongyoul
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Felix helped a lot)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, let's move discussions like 'which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > included'
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release / roadmap discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the graduation discussion, i'd like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have an
> > > > > > > discussions,
> > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evaluating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-mo
> > > > del.html
> > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense for you guys? Amos,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran, Sourav?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No Eran is right. The last vote for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > passed-it
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > withdrawn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there was
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors concerning graduation, R, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some other
> > > > issues.
> > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > last public discussion about graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > until today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex if you disagree with that do you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have links to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > emails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you're referring to.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eran,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please check my previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reply about
> > > > release
> > > > > > > > > schedulle
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know if that makes sense to you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, please our mentors
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct me if I'm
> > > > wrong
> > > > > > > here,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reading [1] I was under impression
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that project
> > > > does not
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pre-request
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding its code or features in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > order to undergo
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > formal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Gra
> > > > duating+from+the+Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Witkon <
> > > > > > > > eranwitkon@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I recall correctly R support was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one of the
> > > > > > > > pre-requisite
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from day one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Authentication should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be added as
> > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation after we add both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Surely I vote for the same.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin is already
> > > > very
> > > > > > > > popular
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quarts of the Spark/Big Data user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group. High
> > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I shall suggest to have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the support for
> > > > R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to Zeppelin before that. These
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are the supports
> > > > most
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eagerly waiting for.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon soo Lee <
> > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Alexander for resuming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's start a vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PM Alexander
> > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Zeppelin developers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now, after number of releases
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and committers
> > > > grew
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the re-new the discussion of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduating
> > > > Zeppelin to
> > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there are on objections -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next step would be
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > start a
> > > > > > > > > > > VOTE
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you guys think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > > > > > > > > > *Software Engeenier
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript
> > > > > > > > > > :;> <
> > > > > > > > > marta.tapia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > > * |
> > > > > > victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > <marta.tapia@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Madhuka Udantha
> > > > > > http://madhukaudantha.blogspot.com
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
Right, there're some risk of loosing some talent pool by one company's
decision who invest their people.
Number of commits are not really a reflection of amount of contribution,
but if i use it to generally say, 'who is active in code contribution',
Since July/2015, total 327 commits has been made and 180(55%) from 8 people
in the same affiliation. [1]
Meanwhile number of total contributors has been grown from 43 (1st
July/2015) to 98 (227%).
Considering proportion of code contribution activity and growth of
contributors, it may impact project a lot project when all people from the
same affiliation decide stop working on Zeppelin, but it may not able to
prevent project stay and recover.
Project management side, project will always have at least 3 PPMC from 3
different affiliation in case of leaving all people from the any single
affiliation. So project can still able to recruit PPMC and make decisions.
For this reason, i would like to say, the risk is manageable.
And definitely, we always wanted reduce the risk.
Thanks,
moon
(And thanks for considering help out the project!)
[1]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/graphs/contributors?from=2015-07-01&to=2016-02-13&type=c
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:21 PM Tom Barber <to...@meteorite.bi> wrote:
> I think Amos was probably coming from a risk assessment point of view. If
> the company who invests in zeppelin folds or decides to reassign developers
> then there is a real risk that the talent pool for Zeppelin would drop
> dramatically.
>
> As Roman said, it's not a blocker to graduation and it's not necessarily a
> bad thing in terms of vision or project management, but it does add more
> risk to the longevity of the project (which I think is great by the way
> and I'll try and free up some time in the near future to help out)
>
> Tom
> On 12 Feb 2016 5:31 am, "moon soo Lee" <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Correction
> >
> > from
> >
> > And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> >
> > to
> >
> > And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> >
> > Thanks,
> > moon
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
> > >
> > > If i add more answer,
> > >
> > > So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different affiliations. And 5 of
> them
> > > is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3 different affiliation
> > invited
> > > since it's incubation.
> > >
> > > I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it may depends on how
> > > you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > >
> > > In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still have at least 3
> > > different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the case of all PPMC
> > > disappearing from any particular affiliation. Project still able to
> make
> > > any decisions.
> > >
> > > Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement of graduation
> > according
> > > to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that Roman mention).
> > >
> > > I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to affiliation.
> 'Diversity'
> > > can be location, language, nationality, gender, background, experience,
> > and
> > > so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC are quite diverse.
> > >
> > > One person could have more commits than others.
> > > But that doesn't give more votes because of that. All people has the
> same
> > > single vote, that's effective particularly making decision in Apache
> way.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regarding diversity of view points,
> > >
> > > To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on comment of PR/issue
> > (most
> > > discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether they're strong or not,
> and
> > > most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see it 'mature' than
> 'no
> > > disagreement'.
> > >
> > > And many different of features and improvements has been discussed and
> > > contributed from various people/organizations, most of them actually
> not
> > on
> > > the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can see from Zeppelin
> > > community.
> > >
> > > Although no one blocks post email or leave comment on any discussion,
> If
> > > we feel we need more diversity of view point, we can always improve it
> by
> > > explicitly encourage participating discussion from Zeppelin's
> > contribution
> > > guide, or by any other way.
> > >
> > > [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> > > [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> > > <
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > moon
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the diversity of the
> PMC,
> > >> and
> > >> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project still is largely
> > >> centered
> > >> > around one individual and company.
> > >>
> > >> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company affiliation have been,
> > >> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a concern in the past
> > few
> > >> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that subject.
> > >>
> > >> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of diversity of view
> > >> points
> > >> is quite real in my opinion.
> > >>
> > >> > As another example, I don't think we ever discussed what to do about
> > >> having
> > >> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how to get to meet
> > our
> > >> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> > >>
> > >> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem. Interest in projects
> > >> waxes and wanes
> > >> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity -- we're a bunch of
> > >> volunteers and
> > >> lulls are to be excepted.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Roman.
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Tom Barber <to...@meteorite.bi>.
Also FWIW the open source OLAP tool I work on outside of the ASF struggles
for commits from outside our company as well even though there are plenty
of github forks. Maybe it's just how it is with data vis tools! :)
On 12 Feb 2016 8:21 am, "Tom Barber" <to...@meteorite.bi> wrote:
> I think Amos was probably coming from a risk assessment point of view. If
> the company who invests in zeppelin folds or decides to reassign developers
> then there is a real risk that the talent pool for Zeppelin would drop
> dramatically.
>
> As Roman said, it's not a blocker to graduation and it's not necessarily a
> bad thing in terms of vision or project management, but it does add more
> risk to the longevity of the project (which I think is great by the way
> and I'll try and free up some time in the near future to help out)
>
> Tom
> On 12 Feb 2016 5:31 am, "moon soo Lee" <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Correction
>>
>> from
>>
>> And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
>>
>> to
>>
>> And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
>>
>> Thanks,
>> moon
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
>> >
>> > If i add more answer,
>> >
>> > So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different affiliations. And 5 of them
>> > is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3 different affiliation
>> invited
>> > since it's incubation.
>> >
>> > I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it may depends on how
>> > you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
>> >
>> > In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still have at least 3
>> > different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the case of all PPMC
>> > disappearing from any particular affiliation. Project still able to make
>> > any decisions.
>> >
>> > Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement of graduation
>> according
>> > to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that Roman mention).
>> >
>> > I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to affiliation.
>> 'Diversity'
>> > can be location, language, nationality, gender, background, experience,
>> and
>> > so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC are quite diverse.
>> >
>> > One person could have more commits than others.
>> > But that doesn't give more votes because of that. All people has the
>> same
>> > single vote, that's effective particularly making decision in Apache
>> way.
>> >
>> >
>> > Regarding diversity of view points,
>> >
>> > To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on comment of PR/issue
>> (most
>> > discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether they're strong or not,
>> and
>> > most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see it 'mature' than 'no
>> > disagreement'.
>> >
>> > And many different of features and improvements has been discussed and
>> > contributed from various people/organizations, most of them actually
>> not on
>> > the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can see from Zeppelin
>> > community.
>> >
>> > Although no one blocks post email or leave comment on any discussion, If
>> > we feel we need more diversity of view point, we can always improve it
>> by
>> > explicitly encourage participating discussion from Zeppelin's
>> contribution
>> > guide, or by any other way.
>> >
>> > [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
>> > [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
>> > <
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > moon
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the diversity of the
>> PMC,
>> >> and
>> >> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project still is largely
>> >> centered
>> >> > around one individual and company.
>> >>
>> >> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company affiliation have been,
>> >> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a concern in the past
>> few
>> >> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that subject.
>> >>
>> >> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of diversity of view
>> >> points
>> >> is quite real in my opinion.
>> >>
>> >> > As another example, I don't think we ever discussed what to do about
>> >> having
>> >> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how to get to meet
>> our
>> >> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
>> >>
>> >> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem. Interest in projects
>> >> waxes and wanes
>> >> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity -- we're a bunch of
>> >> volunteers and
>> >> lulls are to be excepted.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Roman.
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Tom Barber <to...@meteorite.bi>.
I think Amos was probably coming from a risk assessment point of view. If
the company who invests in zeppelin folds or decides to reassign developers
then there is a real risk that the talent pool for Zeppelin would drop
dramatically.
As Roman said, it's not a blocker to graduation and it's not necessarily a
bad thing in terms of vision or project management, but it does add more
risk to the longevity of the project (which I think is great by the way
and I'll try and free up some time in the near future to help out)
Tom
On 12 Feb 2016 5:31 am, "moon soo Lee" <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Correction
>
> from
>
> And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
>
> to
>
> And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
>
> Thanks,
> moon
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
> >
> > If i add more answer,
> >
> > So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different affiliations. And 5 of them
> > is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3 different affiliation
> invited
> > since it's incubation.
> >
> > I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it may depends on how
> > you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> >
> > In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still have at least 3
> > different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the case of all PPMC
> > disappearing from any particular affiliation. Project still able to make
> > any decisions.
> >
> > Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement of graduation
> according
> > to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that Roman mention).
> >
> > I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to affiliation. 'Diversity'
> > can be location, language, nationality, gender, background, experience,
> and
> > so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC are quite diverse.
> >
> > One person could have more commits than others.
> > But that doesn't give more votes because of that. All people has the same
> > single vote, that's effective particularly making decision in Apache way.
> >
> >
> > Regarding diversity of view points,
> >
> > To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on comment of PR/issue
> (most
> > discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether they're strong or not, and
> > most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see it 'mature' than 'no
> > disagreement'.
> >
> > And many different of features and improvements has been discussed and
> > contributed from various people/organizations, most of them actually not
> on
> > the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can see from Zeppelin
> > community.
> >
> > Although no one blocks post email or leave comment on any discussion, If
> > we feel we need more diversity of view point, we can always improve it by
> > explicitly encourage participating discussion from Zeppelin's
> contribution
> > guide, or by any other way.
> >
> > [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> > [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> > <
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > moon
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the diversity of the PMC,
> >> and
> >> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project still is largely
> >> centered
> >> > around one individual and company.
> >>
> >> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company affiliation have been,
> >> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a concern in the past
> few
> >> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that subject.
> >>
> >> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of diversity of view
> >> points
> >> is quite real in my opinion.
> >>
> >> > As another example, I don't think we ever discussed what to do about
> >> having
> >> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how to get to meet
> our
> >> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> >>
> >> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem. Interest in projects
> >> waxes and wanes
> >> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity -- we're a bunch of
> >> volunteers and
> >> lulls are to be excepted.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Roman.
> >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>.
Thank you Henry! A community vote thread is in progress [1].
--
Alex
1. https://s.apache.org/Fhl0
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Oh wait, this is just DISCUSS thread =P
> Sorry.
>
> I am glad the community has grown and following the Apache way. Looking
> forward to the VOTE thread.
>
> - Henry
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > +1 (binding) for graduation
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:24 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Since last answer from Damien, there hasn't been much discussions for
> >> graduation.
> >> If all concerns are answered and explained well enough, then shell we
> move
> >> on to the vote?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> moon
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM Corneau Damien <co...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hi Jeff,
> >> >
> >> > You can find the list of PPMC here [1], although it doesn't include
> the
> >> > affiliations.
> >> > We do not currently have commiters only status in the project.
> >> >
> >> > Informations about how to become a Committer is inside the
> Contributing
> >> > document of the project [2]
> >> >
> >> > For the selection, we follow the usual Apache Process:
> >> >
> >> > * Discussion on inviting a new member is created on the @private
> mailing
> >> > list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
> >> > * PPMCs are voting on that thread
> >> > * If the vote is a success, an invite will be sent to that person, and
> >> the
> >> > result is published on the mailing list if the invite is accepted.
> >> >
> >> > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
> >> > [2]
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
> >> > On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <
> jeffrey.steinmetz@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a summary) -
> >> > > Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we could reply here) that
> >> > > outlines:
> >> > >
> >> > > What's the process within the zeppelin project to add additional
> >> > > Committers and/or PMC members?
> >> > > Who selects the people for these roles, and is there diversity
> beyond
> >> one
> >> > > affiliation/company in terms of who is selecting additional
> >> committers or
> >> > > PMC members?
> >> > > Who are all the current PMC members and affiliations?
> >> > > Who are all the committers and affiliations?
> >> > > How would we know if you desire more members?
> >> > >
> >> > > I found this:
> >> > > http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
> >> > > Although - it's one large list with several incubator projects vs
> >> > > zeppelin alone.
> >> > >
> >> > > Best,
> >> > > Jeff Steinmetz
> >> > > Principal Architect
> >> > > Akili Interactive Labs
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >Correction
> >> > > >
> >> > > >from
> >> > > >
> >> > > >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> >> > > >
> >> > > >to
> >> > > >
> >> > > >And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Thanks,
> >> > > >moon
> >> > > >
> >> > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> If i add more answer,
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different affiliations. And 5
> of
> >> > them
> >> > > >> is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3 different
> affiliation
> >> > > invited
> >> > > >> since it's incubation.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it may depends
> on
> >> > how
> >> > > >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a requirement of
> (P)PMC
> >> > [1].
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still have at least 3
> >> > > >> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the case of all
> >> PPMC
> >> > > >> disappearing from any particular affiliation. Project still able
> to
> >> > make
> >> > > >> any decisions.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement of graduation
> >> > > according
> >> > > >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that Roman
> mention).
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to affiliation.
> >> > > 'Diversity'
> >> > > >> can be location, language, nationality, gender, background,
> >> > experience,
> >> > > and
> >> > > >> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC are quite
> >> diverse.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> One person could have more commits than others.
> >> > > >> But that doesn't give more votes because of that. All people has
> >> the
> >> > > same
> >> > > >> single vote, that's effective particularly making decision in
> >> Apache
> >> > > way.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Regarding diversity of view points,
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on comment of
> >> PR/issue
> >> > > (most
> >> > > >> discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether they're strong or
> >> not,
> >> > > and
> >> > > >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see it 'mature'
> >> than
> >> > 'no
> >> > > >> disagreement'.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> And many different of features and improvements has been
> discussed
> >> and
> >> > > >> contributed from various people/organizations, most of them
> >> actually
> >> > > not on
> >> > > >> the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can see from
> >> Zeppelin
> >> > > >> community.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Although no one blocks post email or leave comment on any
> >> discussion,
> >> > If
> >> > > >> we feel we need more diversity of view point, we can always
> >> improve it
> >> > > by
> >> > > >> explicitly encourage participating discussion from Zeppelin's
> >> > > contribution
> >> > > >> guide, or by any other way.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> >> > > >> [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> >> > > >> <
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> >> > > >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Thanks,
> >> > > >> moon
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> >> > roman@shaposhnik.org
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <
> >> amos.elberg@gmail.com>
> >> > > >>> wrote:
> >> > > >>> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the diversity of
> >> the
> >> > > PMC,
> >> > > >>> and
> >> > > >>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project still is
> >> largely
> >> > > >>> centered
> >> > > >>> > around one individual and company.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company affiliation have
> >> > been,
> >> > > >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a concern in the
> >> past
> >> > > few
> >> > > >>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that subject.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of diversity of
> >> view
> >> > > >>> points
> >> > > >>> is quite real in my opinion.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> > As another example, I don't think we ever discussed what to do
> >> > about
> >> > > >>> having
> >> > > >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how to get
> to
> >> > meet
> >> > > our
> >> > > >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem. Interest in
> >> projects
> >> > > >>> waxes and wanes
> >> > > >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity -- we're a bunch of
> >> > > >>> volunteers and
> >> > > >>> lulls are to be excepted.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Thanks,
> >> > > >>> Roman.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
Oh wait, this is just DISCUSS thread =P
Sorry.
I am glad the community has grown and following the Apache way. Looking
forward to the VOTE thread.
- Henry
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1 (binding) for graduation
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:24 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Since last answer from Damien, there hasn't been much discussions for
>> graduation.
>> If all concerns are answered and explained well enough, then shell we move
>> on to the vote?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> moon
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM Corneau Damien <co...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Jeff,
>> >
>> > You can find the list of PPMC here [1], although it doesn't include the
>> > affiliations.
>> > We do not currently have commiters only status in the project.
>> >
>> > Informations about how to become a Committer is inside the Contributing
>> > document of the project [2]
>> >
>> > For the selection, we follow the usual Apache Process:
>> >
>> > * Discussion on inviting a new member is created on the @private mailing
>> > list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
>> > * PPMCs are voting on that thread
>> > * If the vote is a success, an invite will be sent to that person, and
>> the
>> > result is published on the mailing list if the invite is accepted.
>> >
>> > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
>> > [2]
>> >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
>> > On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <je...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a summary) -
>> > > Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we could reply here) that
>> > > outlines:
>> > >
>> > > What's the process within the zeppelin project to add additional
>> > > Committers and/or PMC members?
>> > > Who selects the people for these roles, and is there diversity beyond
>> one
>> > > affiliation/company in terms of who is selecting additional
>> committers or
>> > > PMC members?
>> > > Who are all the current PMC members and affiliations?
>> > > Who are all the committers and affiliations?
>> > > How would we know if you desire more members?
>> > >
>> > > I found this:
>> > > http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
>> > > Although - it's one large list with several incubator projects vs
>> > > zeppelin alone.
>> > >
>> > > Best,
>> > > Jeff Steinmetz
>> > > Principal Architect
>> > > Akili Interactive Labs
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >Correction
>> > > >
>> > > >from
>> > > >
>> > > >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
>> > > >
>> > > >to
>> > > >
>> > > >And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
>> > > >
>> > > >Thanks,
>> > > >moon
>> > > >
>> > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> If i add more answer,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different affiliations. And 5 of
>> > them
>> > > >> is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3 different affiliation
>> > > invited
>> > > >> since it's incubation.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it may depends on
>> > how
>> > > >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC
>> > [1].
>> > > >>
>> > > >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still have at least 3
>> > > >> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the case of all
>> PPMC
>> > > >> disappearing from any particular affiliation. Project still able to
>> > make
>> > > >> any decisions.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement of graduation
>> > > according
>> > > >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that Roman mention).
>> > > >>
>> > > >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to affiliation.
>> > > 'Diversity'
>> > > >> can be location, language, nationality, gender, background,
>> > experience,
>> > > and
>> > > >> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC are quite
>> diverse.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> One person could have more commits than others.
>> > > >> But that doesn't give more votes because of that. All people has
>> the
>> > > same
>> > > >> single vote, that's effective particularly making decision in
>> Apache
>> > > way.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Regarding diversity of view points,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on comment of
>> PR/issue
>> > > (most
>> > > >> discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether they're strong or
>> not,
>> > > and
>> > > >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see it 'mature'
>> than
>> > 'no
>> > > >> disagreement'.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> And many different of features and improvements has been discussed
>> and
>> > > >> contributed from various people/organizations, most of them
>> actually
>> > > not on
>> > > >> the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can see from
>> Zeppelin
>> > > >> community.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Although no one blocks post email or leave comment on any
>> discussion,
>> > If
>> > > >> we feel we need more diversity of view point, we can always
>> improve it
>> > > by
>> > > >> explicitly encourage participating discussion from Zeppelin's
>> > > contribution
>> > > >> guide, or by any other way.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
>> > > >> [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
>> > > >> <
>> > >
>> >
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
>> > > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Thanks,
>> > > >> moon
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
>> > roman@shaposhnik.org
>> > > >
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <
>> amos.elberg@gmail.com>
>> > > >>> wrote:
>> > > >>> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the diversity of
>> the
>> > > PMC,
>> > > >>> and
>> > > >>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project still is
>> largely
>> > > >>> centered
>> > > >>> > around one individual and company.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company affiliation have
>> > been,
>> > > >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a concern in the
>> past
>> > > few
>> > > >>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that subject.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of diversity of
>> view
>> > > >>> points
>> > > >>> is quite real in my opinion.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> > As another example, I don't think we ever discussed what to do
>> > about
>> > > >>> having
>> > > >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how to get to
>> > meet
>> > > our
>> > > >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem. Interest in
>> projects
>> > > >>> waxes and wanes
>> > > >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity -- we're a bunch of
>> > > >>> volunteers and
>> > > >>> lulls are to be excepted.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Thanks,
>> > > >>> Roman.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Henry Saputra <he...@gmail.com>.
+1 (binding) for graduation
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:24 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since last answer from Damien, there hasn't been much discussions for
> graduation.
> If all concerns are answered and explained well enough, then shell we move
> on to the vote?
>
> Thanks,
> moon
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM Corneau Damien <co...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > You can find the list of PPMC here [1], although it doesn't include the
> > affiliations.
> > We do not currently have commiters only status in the project.
> >
> > Informations about how to become a Committer is inside the Contributing
> > document of the project [2]
> >
> > For the selection, we follow the usual Apache Process:
> >
> > * Discussion on inviting a new member is created on the @private mailing
> > list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
> > * PPMCs are voting on that thread
> > * If the vote is a success, an invite will be sent to that person, and
> the
> > result is published on the mailing list if the invite is accepted.
> >
> > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
> > [2]
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
> > On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <je...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a summary) -
> > > Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we could reply here) that
> > > outlines:
> > >
> > > What's the process within the zeppelin project to add additional
> > > Committers and/or PMC members?
> > > Who selects the people for these roles, and is there diversity beyond
> one
> > > affiliation/company in terms of who is selecting additional committers
> or
> > > PMC members?
> > > Who are all the current PMC members and affiliations?
> > > Who are all the committers and affiliations?
> > > How would we know if you desire more members?
> > >
> > > I found this:
> > > http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
> > > Although - it's one large list with several incubator projects vs
> > > zeppelin alone.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Jeff Steinmetz
> > > Principal Architect
> > > Akili Interactive Labs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Correction
> > > >
> > > >from
> > > >
> > > >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > >And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > >
> > > >Thanks,
> > > >moon
> > > >
> > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
> > > >>
> > > >> If i add more answer,
> > > >>
> > > >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different affiliations. And 5 of
> > them
> > > >> is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3 different affiliation
> > > invited
> > > >> since it's incubation.
> > > >>
> > > >> I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it may depends on
> > how
> > > >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC
> > [1].
> > > >>
> > > >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still have at least 3
> > > >> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the case of all PPMC
> > > >> disappearing from any particular affiliation. Project still able to
> > make
> > > >> any decisions.
> > > >>
> > > >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement of graduation
> > > according
> > > >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that Roman mention).
> > > >>
> > > >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to affiliation.
> > > 'Diversity'
> > > >> can be location, language, nationality, gender, background,
> > experience,
> > > and
> > > >> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC are quite diverse.
> > > >>
> > > >> One person could have more commits than others.
> > > >> But that doesn't give more votes because of that. All people has the
> > > same
> > > >> single vote, that's effective particularly making decision in Apache
> > > way.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Regarding diversity of view points,
> > > >>
> > > >> To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on comment of PR/issue
> > > (most
> > > >> discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether they're strong or
> not,
> > > and
> > > >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see it 'mature' than
> > 'no
> > > >> disagreement'.
> > > >>
> > > >> And many different of features and improvements has been discussed
> and
> > > >> contributed from various people/organizations, most of them actually
> > > not on
> > > >> the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can see from Zeppelin
> > > >> community.
> > > >>
> > > >> Although no one blocks post email or leave comment on any
> discussion,
> > If
> > > >> we feel we need more diversity of view point, we can always improve
> it
> > > by
> > > >> explicitly encourage participating discussion from Zeppelin's
> > > contribution
> > > >> guide, or by any other way.
> > > >>
> > > >> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> > > >> [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> > > >> <
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> moon
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > roman@shaposhnik.org
> > > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <
> amos.elberg@gmail.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the diversity of the
> > > PMC,
> > > >>> and
> > > >>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project still is largely
> > > >>> centered
> > > >>> > around one individual and company.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company affiliation have
> > been,
> > > >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a concern in the
> past
> > > few
> > > >>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that subject.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of diversity of
> view
> > > >>> points
> > > >>> is quite real in my opinion.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > As another example, I don't think we ever discussed what to do
> > about
> > > >>> having
> > > >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how to get to
> > meet
> > > our
> > > >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem. Interest in
> projects
> > > >>> waxes and wanes
> > > >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity -- we're a bunch of
> > > >>> volunteers and
> > > >>> lulls are to be excepted.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Roman.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 at 18:46 DuyHai Doan <do...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> victor.garcia@beeva.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > 2016-04-04 17:37 GMT+02:00 Ahyoung Ryu <ah...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > BIG +1 for graduating Zeppelin.
> > > There is no more reason to delay this.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Ahyoung
> > >
> > > 2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 12:08, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
> > >
> > > > +1 on graduating Zeppelin
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:24 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Since last answer from Damien, there hasn't been much discussions
> for
> > > > > graduation.
> > > > > If all concerns are answered and explained well enough, then shell
> we
> > > > move
> > > > > on to the vote?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > moon
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM Corneau Damien <
> > corneadoug@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Jeff,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can find the list of PPMC here [1], although it doesn't
> include
> > > the
> > > > > > affiliations.
> > > > > > We do not currently have commiters only status in the project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Informations about how to become a Committer is inside the
> > > Contributing
> > > > > > document of the project [2]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the selection, we follow the usual Apache Process:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Discussion on inviting a new member is created on the @private
> > > > mailing
> > > > > > list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
> > > > > > * PPMCs are voting on that thread
> > > > > > * If the vote is a success, an invite will be sent to that
> person,
> > > and
> > > > > the
> > > > > > result is published on the mailing list if the invite is
> accepted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
> > > > > > [2]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
> > > > > > On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <
> > > jeffrey.steinmetz@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a summary) -
> > > > > > > Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we could reply here)
> > > that
> > > > > > > outlines:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What's the process within the zeppelin project to add
> additional
> > > > > > > Committers and/or PMC members?
> > > > > > > Who selects the people for these roles, and is there diversity
> > > beyond
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > affiliation/company in terms of who is selecting additional
> > > > committers
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > PMC members?
> > > > > > > Who are all the current PMC members and affiliations?
> > > > > > > Who are all the committers and affiliations?
> > > > > > > How would we know if you desire more members?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I found this:
> > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
> > > > > > > Although - it's one large list with several incubator projects
> > vs
> > > > > > > zeppelin alone.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Jeff Steinmetz
> > > > > > > Principal Architect
> > > > > > > Akili Interactive Labs
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Correction
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >from
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > > > >moon
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <moon@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> If i add more answer,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different affiliations.
> > And 5
> > > > of
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > >> is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3 different
> > > > affiliation
> > > > > > > invited
> > > > > > > >> since it's incubation.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it may
> > depends
> > > > on
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a requirement of
> > > (P)PMC
> > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still have at
> > least
> > > 3
> > > > > > > >> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the case of
> > all
> > > > PPMC
> > > > > > > >> disappearing from any particular affiliation. Project still
> > able
> > > > to
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > > >> any decisions.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement of
> > graduation
> > > > > > > according
> > > > > > > >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that Roman
> > > mention).
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to
> affiliation.
> > > > > > > 'Diversity'
> > > > > > > >> can be location, language, nationality, gender, background,
> > > > > > experience,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC are quite
> > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> One person could have more commits than others.
> > > > > > > >> But that doesn't give more votes because of that. All people
> > has
> > > > the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > >> single vote, that's effective particularly making decision
> in
> > > > Apache
> > > > > > > way.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Regarding diversity of view points,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on comment of
> > > > PR/issue
> > > > > > > (most
> > > > > > > >> discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether they're
> strong
> > or
> > > > > not,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see it
> > 'mature'
> > > > than
> > > > > > 'no
> > > > > > > >> disagreement'.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> And many different of features and improvements has been
> > > discussed
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> contributed from various people/organizations, most of them
> > > > actually
> > > > > > > not on
> > > > > > > >> the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can see from
> > > > Zeppelin
> > > > > > > >> community.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Although no one blocks post email or leave comment on any
> > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > > >> we feel we need more diversity of view point, we can always
> > > > improve
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > >> explicitly encourage participating discussion from
> Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > >> guide, or by any other way.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> > > > > > > >> [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> moon
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <
> > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the
> diversity
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > PMC,
> > > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > > >>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project still is
> > > > largely
> > > > > > > >>> centered
> > > > > > > >>> > around one individual and company.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company affiliation
> > > have
> > > > > > been,
> > > > > > > >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a concern
> in
> > > the
> > > > > past
> > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > >>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that subject.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of
> diversity
> > > of
> > > > > view
> > > > > > > >>> points
> > > > > > > >>> is quite real in my opinion.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> > As another example, I don't think we ever discussed what
> to
> > > do
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > >>> having
> > > > > > > >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how to
> > get
> > > to
> > > > > > meet
> > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem. Interest in
> > > > > projects
> > > > > > > >>> waxes and wanes
> > > > > > > >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity -- we're a
> bunch
> > > of
> > > > > > > >>> volunteers and
> > > > > > > >>> lulls are to be excepted.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>> Roman.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Luciano Resende
> > > > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > *Software Engeenier
> > *
> >
> > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <vi...@beeva.com>*
> > * | victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> > <vi...@bbva.com>*
> >
> >
> >
> > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Khalid Huseynov <kh...@nflabs.com>.
definitely +1
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Estail7s - CloverHearts <estail7s@gmail.com
> wrote:
> +1
> I look forward to good results.
>
>
>
>
> [DATE], "[NAME]" <mi...@apache.org> 작성:
>
> >+1
> >
> >On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:55 AM Hyung Sung Shim <hs...@nflabs.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> sincerely +1
> >>
> >> 2016-04-05 9:39 GMT+09:00 Anthony Corbacho <anthonycorbacho@apache.org
> >:
> >>
> >> > +1
> >> >
> >> > On Tuesday, 5 April 2016, Kevin (Sangwoo) Kim <ke...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > We've got great commubity and great developers,
> >> > > +1 for graduation!
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > 2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 9:10, Alexander Bezzubov <abezzubov@nflabs.com
> >> > > <javascript:;>>님이 작성:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Enthusiastic +1 for moving on to a community vote
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Jongyoul Lee <jongyoul@gmail.com
> >> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > +1
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Luciano Resende <
> >> > luckbr1975@gmail.com
> >> > > <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Note that Graduation has nothing to do with code readiness
> (e.g
> >> > > > > enterprise
> >> > > > > > readiness) as you can see also in the DISCLAIMER.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Its all about community and The Apache Way of community over
> >> code.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Monday, April 4, 2016, Prabhjyot Singh <
> >> > prabhjyotsingh@gmail.com
> >> > > <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > I was expecting this (
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/702#issuecomment-203680677
> >> > > > > > > ) to get merged, that or one of R/sparkR interpreter.
> >> > > > > > > With that a definite +1.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > We do need to work more on enterprise readiness like making
> it
> >> > more
> >> > > > > > secure,
> >> > > > > > > have better authorization.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On 4 April 2016 at 22:04, 강민우 <minwoo.kang@outlook.com
> >> > > <javascript:;>
> >> > > > <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > +1
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Sent from Outlook Mobile
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:54 AM -0700, "Bruno Bonnin" <
> >> > > > > > bbonnin@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> >> > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > +1
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > 2016-04-04 17:45 GMT+02:00 DuyHai Doan <
> doanduyhai@gmail.com
> >> > > <javascript:;>
> >> > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > +1
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> >> > > > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > +1
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > 2016-04-04 17:37 GMT+02:00 Ahyoung Ryu <
> >> > > ahyoungryu93@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> >> > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > BIG +1 for graduating Zeppelin.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > There is no more reason to delay this.
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Ahyoung
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > 2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 12:08, Luciano Resende <
> >> > > > > luckbr1975@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> >> > > > > > > <javascript:;>>님이
> >> > > > > > > > 작성:
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 on graduating Zeppelin
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:24 AM, moon soo Lee <
> >> > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>
> >> > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Since last answer from Damien, there hasn't been
> >> much
> >> > > > > > > discussions
> >> > > > > > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > If all concerns are answered and explained well
> >> > enough,
> >> > > > > then
> >> > > > > > > > shell
> >> > > > > > > > > we
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > move
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > on to the vote?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM Corneau Damien
> <
> >> > > > > > > > > > corneadoug@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jeff,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can find the list of PPMC here [1],
> although
> >> it
> >> > > > > doesn't
> >> > > > > > > > > include
> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > affiliations.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We do not currently have commiters only
> status in
> >> > the
> >> > > > > > > project.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Informations about how to become a Committer
> is
> >> > > inside
> >> > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > Contributing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > document of the project [2]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the selection, we follow the usual Apache
> >> > > Process:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Discussion on inviting a new member is
> created
> >> on
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > > @private
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > mailing
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > * PPMCs are voting on that thread
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > * If the vote is a success, an invite will be
> >> sent
> >> > to
> >> > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > person,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > result is published on the mailing list if the
> >> > invite
> >> > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > accepted.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> >> > > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > jeffrey.steinmetz@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> >> > <javascript:;>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed
> such a
> >> > > > > summary)
> >> > > > > > -
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps
> we
> >> > could
> >> > > > > reply
> >> > > > > > > > here)
> >> > > > > > > > > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > outlines:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the process within the zeppelin
> project
> >> to
> >> > > add
> >> > > > > > > > > additional
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Committers and/or PMC members?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who selects the people for these roles, and
> is
> >> > > there
> >> > > > > > > > diversity
> >> > > > > > > > > > > beyond
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > affiliation/company in terms of who is
> >> selecting
> >> > > > > > additional
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > committers
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PMC members?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who are all the current PMC members and
> >> > > affiliations?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who are all the committers and affiliations?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How would we know if you desire more
> members?
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I found this:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although - it's one large list with several
> >> > > > incubator
> >> > > > > > > > projects
> >> > > > > > > > > > vs
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > zeppelin alone.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Steinmetz
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Principal Architect
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Akili Interactive Labs
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <
> >> > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>
> >> > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Correction
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >from
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC
> [1].
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >And programmer is not a requirement of
> (P)PMC
> >> > [1].
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >moon
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo
> Lee <
> >> > > > > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful
> >> > > concerns.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> If i add more answer,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4
> different
> >> > > > > > > affiliations.
> >> > > > > > > > > > And 5
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> is work in the same company. 3 of them
> from
> >> 3
> >> > > > > > different
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > affiliation
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > invited
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> since it's incubation.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I personally think all 3 are good
> >> programmer,
> >> > > but
> >> > > > it
> >> > > > > > may
> >> > > > > > > > > > depends
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > how
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer
> is a
> >> > > > > > requirement
> >> > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > (P)PMC
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1].
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin
> will
> >> > > still
> >> > > > > have
> >> > > > > > > at
> >> > > > > > > > > > least
> >> > > > > > > > > > > 3
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> different PPMC from 3 different
> affiliation,
> >> > in
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > case
> >> > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > all
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > PPMC
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> disappearing from any particular
> >> affiliation.
> >> > > > > Project
> >> > > > > > > > still
> >> > > > > > > > > > able
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> any decisions.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a
> >> > > requirement
> >> > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > graduation
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > according
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the
> >> email
> >> > > that
> >> > > > > > Roman
> >> > > > > > > > > > > mention).
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not
> >> limited
> >> > to
> >> > > > > > > > > affiliation.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Diversity'
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> can be location, language, nationality,
> >> > gender,
> >> > > > > > > > background,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > experience,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> so on. In this perspective, I think
> Zeppelin
> >> > > PPMC
> >> > > > > are
> >> > > > > > > > quite
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > diverse.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> One person could have more commits than
> >> > others.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> But that doesn't give more votes because
> of
> >> > > that.
> >> > > > > All
> >> > > > > > > > people
> >> > > > > > > > > > has
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single vote, that's effective
> particularly
> >> > > making
> >> > > > > > > decision
> >> > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > way.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Regarding diversity of view points,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> To me, I always see different opinions,
> >> ideas
> >> > on
> >> > > > > > comment
> >> > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > PR/issue
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (most
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> discussions are happening on PR/issue)
> >> whether
> >> > > > > they're
> >> > > > > > > > > strong
> >> > > > > > > > > > or
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > not,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd
> like
> >> > to
> >> > > > see
> >> > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > 'mature'
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > than
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'no
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> disagreement'.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> And many different of features and
> >> > improvements
> >> > > > has
> >> > > > > > been
> >> > > > > > > > > > > discussed
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> contributed from various
> >> people/organizations,
> >> > > > most
> >> > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > them
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > actually
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not on
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the roadmap. Thats another form of
> >> diversity I
> >> > > can
> >> > > > > see
> >> > > > > > > > from
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> community.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Although no one blocks post email or
> leave
> >> > > comment
> >> > > > > on
> >> > > > > > > any
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> we feel we need more diversity of view
> >> point,
> >> > we
> >> > > > can
> >> > > > > > > > always
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > improve
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> explicitly encourage participating
> >> discussion
> >> > > from
> >> > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> guide, or by any other way.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> [1]
> >> > > > > > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> [2]
> >> > > http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> moon
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman
> >> > > Shaposhnik
> >> > > > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org <javascript:;>
> >> <javascript:;>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos
> >> Elberg
> >> > <
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> >> <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > The one that is a graduation issue,
> >> > concerns
> >> > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > diversity
> >> > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PMC,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > whether graduation is being rushed.
> The
> >> > > > project
> >> > > > > > > still
> >> > > > > > > > is
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > largely
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> centered
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > around one individual and company.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around
> >> > company
> >> > > > > > > > affiliation
> >> > > > > > > > > > > have
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > been,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least
> >> less
> >> > > of a
> >> > > > > > > concern
> >> > > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > past
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > few
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> years. Search for emails from Roy
> Fielding
> >> on
> >> > > > that
> >> > > > > > > > subject.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Another concern that you are raising --
> the
> >> > > lack
> >> > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > diversity
> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > view
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> points
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is quite real in my opinion.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > As another example, I don't think we
> ever
> >> > > > > discussed
> >> > > > > > > > what
> >> > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > do
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> having
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of
> >> > > looking
> >> > > > at
> >> > > > > > how
> >> > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > get
> >> > > > > > > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > meet
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > our
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a
> >> > problem.
> >> > > > > > > Interest
> >> > > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > projects
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> waxes and wanes
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial
> >> entity
> >> > --
> >> > > > > > we're a
> >> > > > > > > > > bunch
> >> > > > > > > > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> volunteers and
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> lulls are to be excepted.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Roman.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Luciano Resende
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> >> > > > > > > > > > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> >> > > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> >> > > > > > > > > > *Software Engeenier
> >> > > > > > > > > > *
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com
> <javascript:;>
> >> > > <javascript:;> <
> >> > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>*
> >> > > > > > > > > > * |
> >> > > > > > victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com <javascript:;>
> >> > > > > > > <javascript:;>
> >> > > > > > > > > > <victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com <javascript:;>
> >> > > <javascript:;>>*
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> >> > > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > > Thankx and Regards,
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Prabhjyot Singh
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > Sent from my Mobile device
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > > 이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈
> >> > > > > http://madeng.net
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > Kind regards,
> >> > > > Alexander.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Estail7s - CloverHearts <es...@gmail.com>.
+1
I look forward to good results.
[DATE], "[NAME]" <mi...@apache.org> 작성:
>+1
>
>On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:55 AM Hyung Sung Shim <hs...@nflabs.com> wrote:
>
>> sincerely +1
>>
>> 2016-04-05 9:39 GMT+09:00 Anthony Corbacho <an...@apache.org>:
>>
>> > +1
>> >
>> > On Tuesday, 5 April 2016, Kevin (Sangwoo) Kim <ke...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > We've got great commubity and great developers,
>> > > +1 for graduation!
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 9:10, Alexander Bezzubov <abezzubov@nflabs.com
>> > > <javascript:;>>님이 작성:
>> > >
>> > > > Enthusiastic +1 for moving on to a community vote
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Jongyoul Lee <jongyoul@gmail.com
>> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > +1
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Luciano Resende <
>> > luckbr1975@gmail.com
>> > > <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Note that Graduation has nothing to do with code readiness (e.g
>> > > > > enterprise
>> > > > > > readiness) as you can see also in the DISCLAIMER.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Its all about community and The Apache Way of community over
>> code.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Monday, April 4, 2016, Prabhjyot Singh <
>> > prabhjyotsingh@gmail.com
>> > > <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I was expecting this (
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/702#issuecomment-203680677
>> > > > > > > ) to get merged, that or one of R/sparkR interpreter.
>> > > > > > > With that a definite +1.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > We do need to work more on enterprise readiness like making it
>> > more
>> > > > > > secure,
>> > > > > > > have better authorization.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On 4 April 2016 at 22:04, 강민우 <minwoo.kang@outlook.com
>> > > <javascript:;>
>> > > > <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > +1
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Sent from Outlook Mobile
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:54 AM -0700, "Bruno Bonnin" <
>> > > > > > bbonnin@gmail.com <javascript:;>
>> > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > +1
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > 2016-04-04 17:45 GMT+02:00 DuyHai Doan <doanduyhai@gmail.com
>> > > <javascript:;>
>> > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > +1
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
>> > > > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
>> > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > +1
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > 2016-04-04 17:37 GMT+02:00 Ahyoung Ryu <
>> > > ahyoungryu93@gmail.com <javascript:;>
>> > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > BIG +1 for graduating Zeppelin.
>> > > > > > > > > > > There is no more reason to delay this.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Best,
>> > > > > > > > > > > Ahyoung
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > 2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 12:08, Luciano Resende <
>> > > > > luckbr1975@gmail.com <javascript:;>
>> > > > > > > <javascript:;>>님이
>> > > > > > > > 작성:
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 on graduating Zeppelin
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:24 AM, moon soo Lee <
>> > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>
>> > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Since last answer from Damien, there hasn't been
>> much
>> > > > > > > discussions
>> > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > If all concerns are answered and explained well
>> > enough,
>> > > > > then
>> > > > > > > > shell
>> > > > > > > > > we
>> > > > > > > > > > > > move
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > on to the vote?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM Corneau Damien <
>> > > > > > > > > > corneadoug@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jeff,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can find the list of PPMC here [1], although
>> it
>> > > > > doesn't
>> > > > > > > > > include
>> > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > affiliations.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We do not currently have commiters only status in
>> > the
>> > > > > > > project.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Informations about how to become a Committer is
>> > > inside
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > Contributing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > document of the project [2]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the selection, we follow the usual Apache
>> > > Process:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Discussion on inviting a new member is created
>> on
>> > > the
>> > > > > > > > @private
>> > > > > > > > > > > > mailing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > * PPMCs are voting on that thread
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > * If the vote is a success, an invite will be
>> sent
>> > to
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > person,
>> > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > result is published on the mailing list if the
>> > invite
>> > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > accepted.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <
>> > > > > > > > > > > jeffrey.steinmetz@gmail.com <javascript:;>
>> > <javascript:;>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a
>> > > > > summary)
>> > > > > > -
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we
>> > could
>> > > > > reply
>> > > > > > > > here)
>> > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > outlines:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the process within the zeppelin project
>> to
>> > > add
>> > > > > > > > > additional
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Committers and/or PMC members?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who selects the people for these roles, and is
>> > > there
>> > > > > > > > diversity
>> > > > > > > > > > > beyond
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > one
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > affiliation/company in terms of who is
>> selecting
>> > > > > > additional
>> > > > > > > > > > > > committers
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PMC members?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who are all the current PMC members and
>> > > affiliations?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who are all the committers and affiliations?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How would we know if you desire more members?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I found this:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although - it's one large list with several
>> > > > incubator
>> > > > > > > > projects
>> > > > > > > > > > vs
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > zeppelin alone.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Steinmetz
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Principal Architect
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Akili Interactive Labs
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <
>> > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>
>> > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Correction
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >from
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC
>> > [1].
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >moon
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <
>> > > > > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful
>> > > concerns.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> If i add more answer,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different
>> > > > > > > affiliations.
>> > > > > > > > > > And 5
>> > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> is work in the same company. 3 of them from
>> 3
>> > > > > > different
>> > > > > > > > > > > > affiliation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > invited
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> since it's incubation.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I personally think all 3 are good
>> programmer,
>> > > but
>> > > > it
>> > > > > > may
>> > > > > > > > > > depends
>> > > > > > > > > > > > on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > how
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a
>> > > > > > requirement
>> > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > (P)PMC
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1].
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will
>> > > still
>> > > > > have
>> > > > > > > at
>> > > > > > > > > > least
>> > > > > > > > > > > 3
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation,
>> > in
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > case
>> > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > > > > > > > PPMC
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> disappearing from any particular
>> affiliation.
>> > > > > Project
>> > > > > > > > still
>> > > > > > > > > > able
>> > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> any decisions.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a
>> > > requirement
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > graduation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > according
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the
>> email
>> > > that
>> > > > > > Roman
>> > > > > > > > > > > mention).
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not
>> limited
>> > to
>> > > > > > > > > affiliation.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Diversity'
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> can be location, language, nationality,
>> > gender,
>> > > > > > > > background,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > experience,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin
>> > > PPMC
>> > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > quite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > diverse.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> One person could have more commits than
>> > others.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> But that doesn't give more votes because of
>> > > that.
>> > > > > All
>> > > > > > > > people
>> > > > > > > > > > has
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single vote, that's effective particularly
>> > > making
>> > > > > > > decision
>> > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > way.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Regarding diversity of view points,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> To me, I always see different opinions,
>> ideas
>> > on
>> > > > > > comment
>> > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > PR/issue
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (most
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> discussions are happening on PR/issue)
>> whether
>> > > > > they're
>> > > > > > > > > strong
>> > > > > > > > > > or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > not,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like
>> > to
>> > > > see
>> > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > 'mature'
>> > > > > > > > > > > > than
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'no
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> disagreement'.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> And many different of features and
>> > improvements
>> > > > has
>> > > > > > been
>> > > > > > > > > > > discussed
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> contributed from various
>> people/organizations,
>> > > > most
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > them
>> > > > > > > > > > > > actually
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the roadmap. Thats another form of
>> diversity I
>> > > can
>> > > > > see
>> > > > > > > > from
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> community.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Although no one blocks post email or leave
>> > > comment
>> > > > > on
>> > > > > > > any
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> we feel we need more diversity of view
>> point,
>> > we
>> > > > can
>> > > > > > > > always
>> > > > > > > > > > > > improve
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> explicitly encourage participating
>> discussion
>> > > from
>> > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> guide, or by any other way.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> [1]
>> > > > > > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> [2]
>> > > http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> moon
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman
>> > > Shaposhnik
>> > > > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org <javascript:;>
>> <javascript:;>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos
>> Elberg
>> > <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>
>> <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > The one that is a graduation issue,
>> > concerns
>> > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > diversity
>> > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PMC,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The
>> > > > project
>> > > > > > > still
>> > > > > > > > is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > largely
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> centered
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > around one individual and company.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around
>> > company
>> > > > > > > > affiliation
>> > > > > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > been,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least
>> less
>> > > of a
>> > > > > > > concern
>> > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > past
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > few
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding
>> on
>> > > > that
>> > > > > > > > subject.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Another concern that you are raising -- the
>> > > lack
>> > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > diversity
>> > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > view
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> points
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is quite real in my opinion.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > As another example, I don't think we ever
>> > > > > discussed
>> > > > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > do
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> having
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of
>> > > looking
>> > > > at
>> > > > > > how
>> > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > get
>> > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > meet
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > our
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a
>> > problem.
>> > > > > > > Interest
>> > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > projects
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> waxes and wanes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial
>> entity
>> > --
>> > > > > > we're a
>> > > > > > > > > bunch
>> > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> volunteers and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> lulls are to be excepted.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Roman.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Luciano Resende
>> > > > > > > > > > > > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
>> > > > > > > > > > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
>> > > > > > > > > > *Software Engeenier
>> > > > > > > > > > *
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>
>> > > <javascript:;> <
>> > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>*
>> > > > > > > > > > * |
>> > > > > > victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com <javascript:;>
>> > > > > > > <javascript:;>
>> > > > > > > > > > <victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com <javascript:;>
>> > > <javascript:;>>*
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > Thankx and Regards,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Prabhjyot Singh
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > Sent from my Mobile device
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > 이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈
>> > > > > http://madeng.net
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > --
>> > > > Kind regards,
>> > > > Alexander.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by mina lee <mi...@apache.org>.
+1
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:55 AM Hyung Sung Shim <hs...@nflabs.com> wrote:
> sincerely +1
>
> 2016-04-05 9:39 GMT+09:00 Anthony Corbacho <an...@apache.org>:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Tuesday, 5 April 2016, Kevin (Sangwoo) Kim <ke...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > We've got great commubity and great developers,
> > > +1 for graduation!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 9:10, Alexander Bezzubov <abezzubov@nflabs.com
> > > <javascript:;>>님이 작성:
> > >
> > > > Enthusiastic +1 for moving on to a community vote
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Jongyoul Lee <jongyoul@gmail.com
> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Luciano Resende <
> > luckbr1975@gmail.com
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Note that Graduation has nothing to do with code readiness (e.g
> > > > > enterprise
> > > > > > readiness) as you can see also in the DISCLAIMER.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Its all about community and The Apache Way of community over
> code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Monday, April 4, 2016, Prabhjyot Singh <
> > prabhjyotsingh@gmail.com
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was expecting this (
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/702#issuecomment-203680677
> > > > > > > ) to get merged, that or one of R/sparkR interpreter.
> > > > > > > With that a definite +1.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We do need to work more on enterprise readiness like making it
> > more
> > > > > > secure,
> > > > > > > have better authorization.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 4 April 2016 at 22:04, 강민우 <minwoo.kang@outlook.com
> > > <javascript:;>
> > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sent from Outlook Mobile
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:54 AM -0700, "Bruno Bonnin" <
> > > > > > bbonnin@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2016-04-04 17:45 GMT+02:00 DuyHai Doan <doanduyhai@gmail.com
> > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> > > > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2016-04-04 17:37 GMT+02:00 Ahyoung Ryu <
> > > ahyoungryu93@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > BIG +1 for graduating Zeppelin.
> > > > > > > > > > > There is no more reason to delay this.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > Ahyoung
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 12:08, Luciano Resende <
> > > > > luckbr1975@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > <javascript:;>>님이
> > > > > > > > 작성:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 on graduating Zeppelin
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:24 AM, moon soo Lee <
> > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Since last answer from Damien, there hasn't been
> much
> > > > > > > discussions
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If all concerns are answered and explained well
> > enough,
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > > shell
> > > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > > move
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on to the vote?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM Corneau Damien <
> > > > > > > > > > corneadoug@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jeff,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can find the list of PPMC here [1], although
> it
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > > include
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > affiliations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > We do not currently have commiters only status in
> > the
> > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Informations about how to become a Committer is
> > > inside
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > Contributing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > document of the project [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the selection, we follow the usual Apache
> > > Process:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > * Discussion on inviting a new member is created
> on
> > > the
> > > > > > > > @private
> > > > > > > > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > * PPMCs are voting on that thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > * If the vote is a success, an invite will be
> sent
> > to
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > person,
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > result is published on the mailing list if the
> > invite
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > > accepted.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <
> > > > > > > > > > > jeffrey.steinmetz@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a
> > > > > summary)
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we
> > could
> > > > > reply
> > > > > > > > here)
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > outlines:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the process within the zeppelin project
> to
> > > add
> > > > > > > > > additional
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Committers and/or PMC members?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who selects the people for these roles, and is
> > > there
> > > > > > > > diversity
> > > > > > > > > > > beyond
> > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > affiliation/company in terms of who is
> selecting
> > > > > > additional
> > > > > > > > > > > > committers
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PMC members?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who are all the current PMC members and
> > > affiliations?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who are all the committers and affiliations?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How would we know if you desire more members?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I found this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although - it's one large list with several
> > > > incubator
> > > > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > > vs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > zeppelin alone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Steinmetz
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Principal Architect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Akili Interactive Labs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <
> > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Correction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC
> > [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <
> > > > > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful
> > > concerns.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> If i add more answer,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different
> > > > > > > affiliations.
> > > > > > > > > > And 5
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> is work in the same company. 3 of them from
> 3
> > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > affiliation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > invited
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> since it's incubation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I personally think all 3 are good
> programmer,
> > > but
> > > > it
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a
> > > > > > requirement
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > (P)PMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will
> > > still
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > least
> > > > > > > > > > > 3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation,
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > case
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > PPMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> disappearing from any particular
> affiliation.
> > > > > Project
> > > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> any decisions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a
> > > requirement
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > according
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the
> email
> > > that
> > > > > > Roman
> > > > > > > > > > > mention).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not
> limited
> > to
> > > > > > > > > affiliation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Diversity'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> can be location, language, nationality,
> > gender,
> > > > > > > > background,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > experience,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin
> > > PPMC
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> One person could have more commits than
> > others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> But that doesn't give more votes because of
> > > that.
> > > > > All
> > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single vote, that's effective particularly
> > > making
> > > > > > > decision
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > way.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Regarding diversity of view points,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> To me, I always see different opinions,
> ideas
> > on
> > > > > > comment
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > PR/issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> discussions are happening on PR/issue)
> whether
> > > > > they're
> > > > > > > > > strong
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like
> > to
> > > > see
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > 'mature'
> > > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> disagreement'.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> And many different of features and
> > improvements
> > > > has
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > > discussed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> contributed from various
> people/organizations,
> > > > most
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the roadmap. Thats another form of
> diversity I
> > > can
> > > > > see
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Although no one blocks post email or leave
> > > comment
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> we feel we need more diversity of view
> point,
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > > > > always
> > > > > > > > > > > > improve
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> explicitly encourage participating
> discussion
> > > from
> > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> guide, or by any other way.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> [2]
> > > http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman
> > > Shaposhnik
> > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos
> Elberg
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > The one that is a graduation issue,
> > concerns
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > diversity
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PMC,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The
> > > > project
> > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > largely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> centered
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > around one individual and company.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around
> > company
> > > > > > > > affiliation
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > been,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least
> less
> > > of a
> > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > past
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding
> on
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > subject.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Another concern that you are raising -- the
> > > lack
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > diversity
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > view
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> points
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is quite real in my opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > As another example, I don't think we ever
> > > > > discussed
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> having
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of
> > > looking
> > > > at
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > meet
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a
> > problem.
> > > > > > > Interest
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> waxes and wanes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial
> entity
> > --
> > > > > > we're a
> > > > > > > > > bunch
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> volunteers and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> lulls are to be excepted.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Roman.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Luciano Resende
> > > > > > > > > > > > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> > > > > > > > > > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > > > > > > > > > *Software Engeenier
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;> <
> > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > > * |
> > > > > > victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > <victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Thankx and Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Prabhjyot Singh
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Sent from my Mobile device
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > 이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈
> > > > > http://madeng.net
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > --
> > > > Kind regards,
> > > > Alexander.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Hyung Sung Shim <hs...@nflabs.com>.
sincerely +1
2016-04-05 9:39 GMT+09:00 Anthony Corbacho <an...@apache.org>:
> +1
>
> On Tuesday, 5 April 2016, Kevin (Sangwoo) Kim <ke...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > We've got great commubity and great developers,
> > +1 for graduation!
> >
> >
> >
> > 2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 9:10, Alexander Bezzubov <abezzubov@nflabs.com
> > <javascript:;>>님이 작성:
> >
> > > Enthusiastic +1 for moving on to a community vote
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Jongyoul Lee <jongyoul@gmail.com
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Luciano Resende <
> luckbr1975@gmail.com
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Note that Graduation has nothing to do with code readiness (e.g
> > > > enterprise
> > > > > readiness) as you can see also in the DISCLAIMER.
> > > > >
> > > > > Its all about community and The Apache Way of community over code.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday, April 4, 2016, Prabhjyot Singh <
> prabhjyotsingh@gmail.com
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I was expecting this (
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/702#issuecomment-203680677
> > > > > > ) to get merged, that or one of R/sparkR interpreter.
> > > > > > With that a definite +1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We do need to work more on enterprise readiness like making it
> more
> > > > > secure,
> > > > > > have better authorization.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 4 April 2016 at 22:04, 강민우 <minwoo.kang@outlook.com
> > <javascript:;>
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sent from Outlook Mobile
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:54 AM -0700, "Bruno Bonnin" <
> > > > > bbonnin@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2016-04-04 17:45 GMT+02:00 DuyHai Doan <doanduyhai@gmail.com
> > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> > > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2016-04-04 17:37 GMT+02:00 Ahyoung Ryu <
> > ahyoungryu93@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > BIG +1 for graduating Zeppelin.
> > > > > > > > > > There is no more reason to delay this.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > Ahyoung
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 12:08, Luciano Resende <
> > > > luckbr1975@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > > > > > <javascript:;>>님이
> > > > > > > 작성:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > +1 on graduating Zeppelin
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:24 AM, moon soo Lee <
> > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Since last answer from Damien, there hasn't been much
> > > > > > discussions
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > If all concerns are answered and explained well
> enough,
> > > > then
> > > > > > > shell
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > > move
> > > > > > > > > > > > on to the vote?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM Corneau Damien <
> > > > > > > > > corneadoug@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jeff,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You can find the list of PPMC here [1], although it
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > include
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > affiliations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > We do not currently have commiters only status in
> the
> > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Informations about how to become a Committer is
> > inside
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > Contributing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > document of the project [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > For the selection, we follow the usual Apache
> > Process:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * Discussion on inviting a new member is created on
> > the
> > > > > > > @private
> > > > > > > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * PPMCs are voting on that thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * If the vote is a success, an invite will be sent
> to
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > person,
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > result is published on the mailing list if the
> invite
> > > is
> > > > > > > > accepted.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <
> > > > > > > > > > jeffrey.steinmetz@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a
> > > > summary)
> > > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we
> could
> > > > reply
> > > > > > > here)
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > outlines:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the process within the zeppelin project to
> > add
> > > > > > > > additional
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Committers and/or PMC members?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who selects the people for these roles, and is
> > there
> > > > > > > diversity
> > > > > > > > > > beyond
> > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > affiliation/company in terms of who is selecting
> > > > > additional
> > > > > > > > > > > committers
> > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > PMC members?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who are all the current PMC members and
> > affiliations?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who are all the committers and affiliations?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > How would we know if you desire more members?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I found this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although - it's one large list with several
> > > incubator
> > > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > vs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > zeppelin alone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Steinmetz
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Principal Architect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Akili Interactive Labs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <
> > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Correction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC
> [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <
> > > > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful
> > concerns.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> If i add more answer,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different
> > > > > > affiliations.
> > > > > > > > > And 5
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > affiliation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > invited
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> since it's incubation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I personally think all 3 are good programmer,
> > but
> > > it
> > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a
> > > > > requirement
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > (P)PMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will
> > still
> > > > have
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > least
> > > > > > > > > > 3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation,
> in
> > > the
> > > > > case
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > PPMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> disappearing from any particular affiliation.
> > > > Project
> > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> any decisions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a
> > requirement
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > according
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email
> > that
> > > > > Roman
> > > > > > > > > > mention).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited
> to
> > > > > > > > affiliation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Diversity'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> can be location, language, nationality,
> gender,
> > > > > > > background,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > experience,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin
> > PPMC
> > > > are
> > > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> One person could have more commits than
> others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> But that doesn't give more votes because of
> > that.
> > > > All
> > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single vote, that's effective particularly
> > making
> > > > > > decision
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Regarding diversity of view points,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> To me, I always see different opinions, ideas
> on
> > > > > comment
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > PR/issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether
> > > > they're
> > > > > > > > strong
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like
> to
> > > see
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > > 'mature'
> > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 'no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> disagreement'.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> And many different of features and
> improvements
> > > has
> > > > > been
> > > > > > > > > > discussed
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> contributed from various people/organizations,
> > > most
> > > > of
> > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I
> > can
> > > > see
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Although no one blocks post email or leave
> > comment
> > > > on
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> we feel we need more diversity of view point,
> we
> > > can
> > > > > > > always
> > > > > > > > > > > improve
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> explicitly encourage participating discussion
> > from
> > > > > > > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> guide, or by any other way.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> [2]
> > http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman
> > Shaposhnik
> > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > The one that is a graduation issue,
> concerns
> > > the
> > > > > > > > diversity
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > PMC,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The
> > > project
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > largely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> centered
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > around one individual and company.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around
> company
> > > > > > > affiliation
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > been,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less
> > of a
> > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > past
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on
> > > that
> > > > > > > subject.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Another concern that you are raising -- the
> > lack
> > > of
> > > > > > > > diversity
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > view
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> points
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is quite real in my opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > As another example, I don't think we ever
> > > > discussed
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> having
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of
> > looking
> > > at
> > > > > how
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > meet
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a
> problem.
> > > > > > Interest
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> waxes and wanes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity
> --
> > > > > we're a
> > > > > > > > bunch
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> volunteers and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> lulls are to be excepted.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Roman.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Luciano Resende
> > > > > > > > > > > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> > > > > > > > > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > > > > > > > > *Software Engeenier
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>
> > <javascript:;> <
> > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > * |
> > > > > victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com <javascript:;>
> > > > > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > <victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com <javascript:;>
> > <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Thankx and Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Prabhjyot Singh
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Sent from my Mobile device
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈
> > > > http://madeng.net
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > --
> > > Kind regards,
> > > Alexander.
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Anthony Corbacho <an...@apache.org>.
+1
On Tuesday, 5 April 2016, Kevin (Sangwoo) Kim <ke...@apache.org> wrote:
> We've got great commubity and great developers,
> +1 for graduation!
>
>
>
> 2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 9:10, Alexander Bezzubov <abezzubov@nflabs.com
> <javascript:;>>님이 작성:
>
> > Enthusiastic +1 for moving on to a community vote
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Jongyoul Lee <jongyoul@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Luciano Resende <luckbr1975@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Note that Graduation has nothing to do with code readiness (e.g
> > > enterprise
> > > > readiness) as you can see also in the DISCLAIMER.
> > > >
> > > > Its all about community and The Apache Way of community over code.
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, April 4, 2016, Prabhjyot Singh <prabhjyotsingh@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I was expecting this (
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/702#issuecomment-203680677
> > > > > ) to get merged, that or one of R/sparkR interpreter.
> > > > > With that a definite +1.
> > > > >
> > > > > We do need to work more on enterprise readiness like making it more
> > > > secure,
> > > > > have better authorization.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 4 April 2016 at 22:04, 강민우 <minwoo.kang@outlook.com
> <javascript:;>
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from Outlook Mobile
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:54 AM -0700, "Bruno Bonnin" <
> > > > bbonnin@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2016-04-04 17:45 GMT+02:00 DuyHai Doan <doanduyhai@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>
> > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2016-04-04 17:37 GMT+02:00 Ahyoung Ryu <
> ahyoungryu93@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > BIG +1 for graduating Zeppelin.
> > > > > > > > > There is no more reason to delay this.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > Ahyoung
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 12:08, Luciano Resende <
> > > luckbr1975@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > > > > <javascript:;>>님이
> > > > > > 작성:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +1 on graduating Zeppelin
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:24 AM, moon soo Lee <
> > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Since last answer from Damien, there hasn't been much
> > > > > discussions
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > If all concerns are answered and explained well enough,
> > > then
> > > > > > shell
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > move
> > > > > > > > > > > on to the vote?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM Corneau Damien <
> > > > > > > > corneadoug@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jeff,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You can find the list of PPMC here [1], although it
> > > doesn't
> > > > > > > include
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > affiliations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > We do not currently have commiters only status in the
> > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Informations about how to become a Committer is
> inside
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > Contributing
> > > > > > > > > > > > document of the project [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > For the selection, we follow the usual Apache
> Process:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Discussion on inviting a new member is created on
> the
> > > > > > @private
> > > > > > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > > > > list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
> > > > > > > > > > > > * PPMCs are voting on that thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > * If the vote is a success, an invite will be sent to
> > > that
> > > > > > > person,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > result is published on the mailing list if the invite
> > is
> > > > > > > accepted.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
> > > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <
> > > > > > > > > jeffrey.steinmetz@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a
> > > summary)
> > > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we could
> > > reply
> > > > > > here)
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > outlines:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What's the process within the zeppelin project to
> add
> > > > > > > additional
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Committers and/or PMC members?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Who selects the people for these roles, and is
> there
> > > > > > diversity
> > > > > > > > > beyond
> > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > affiliation/company in terms of who is selecting
> > > > additional
> > > > > > > > > > committers
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PMC members?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Who are all the current PMC members and
> affiliations?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Who are all the committers and affiliations?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > How would we know if you desire more members?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I found this:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Although - it's one large list with several
> > incubator
> > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > vs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > zeppelin alone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Steinmetz
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Principal Architect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Akili Interactive Labs
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <
> moon@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >Correction
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <
> > > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful
> concerns.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> If i add more answer,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different
> > > > > affiliations.
> > > > > > > > And 5
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3
> > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > affiliation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > invited
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> since it's incubation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I personally think all 3 are good programmer,
> but
> > it
> > > > may
> > > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a
> > > > requirement
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > (P)PMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will
> still
> > > have
> > > > > at
> > > > > > > > least
> > > > > > > > > 3
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in
> > the
> > > > case
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > PPMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> disappearing from any particular affiliation.
> > > Project
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> any decisions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a
> requirement
> > > of
> > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > according
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email
> that
> > > > Roman
> > > > > > > > > mention).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to
> > > > > > > affiliation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Diversity'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> can be location, language, nationality, gender,
> > > > > > background,
> > > > > > > > > > > > experience,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin
> PPMC
> > > are
> > > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> One person could have more commits than others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> But that doesn't give more votes because of
> that.
> > > All
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> single vote, that's effective particularly
> making
> > > > > decision
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > way.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Regarding diversity of view points,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on
> > > > comment
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > PR/issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether
> > > they're
> > > > > > > strong
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to
> > see
> > > it
> > > > > > > > 'mature'
> > > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > > 'no
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> disagreement'.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> And many different of features and improvements
> > has
> > > > been
> > > > > > > > > discussed
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> contributed from various people/organizations,
> > most
> > > of
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I
> can
> > > see
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Although no one blocks post email or leave
> comment
> > > on
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> we feel we need more diversity of view point, we
> > can
> > > > > > always
> > > > > > > > > > improve
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> explicitly encourage participating discussion
> from
> > > > > > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> guide, or by any other way.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> [2]
> http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman
> Shaposhnik
> > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org <javascript:;> <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns
> > the
> > > > > > > diversity
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PMC,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The
> > project
> > > > > still
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > largely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> centered
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > around one individual and company.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company
> > > > > > affiliation
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > been,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less
> of a
> > > > > concern
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > past
> > > > > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on
> > that
> > > > > > subject.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Another concern that you are raising -- the
> lack
> > of
> > > > > > > diversity
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > view
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> points
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is quite real in my opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > As another example, I don't think we ever
> > > discussed
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> having
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of
> looking
> > at
> > > > how
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > meet
> > > > > > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem.
> > > > > Interest
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> waxes and wanes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity --
> > > > we're a
> > > > > > > bunch
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> volunteers and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> lulls are to be excepted.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Roman.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Luciano Resende
> > > > > > > > > > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> > > > > > > > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > > > > > > > *Software Engeenier
> > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;> <
> > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > * |
> > > > victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com <javascript:;>
> > > > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > <victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com <javascript:;>
> <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thankx and Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Prabhjyot Singh
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sent from my Mobile device
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈
> > > http://madeng.net
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Kind regards,
> > Alexander.
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by "Kevin (Sangwoo) Kim" <ke...@apache.org>.
We've got great commubity and great developers,
+1 for graduation!
2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 9:10, Alexander Bezzubov <ab...@nflabs.com>님이 작성:
> Enthusiastic +1 for moving on to a community vote
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Jongyoul Lee <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Note that Graduation has nothing to do with code readiness (e.g
> > enterprise
> > > readiness) as you can see also in the DISCLAIMER.
> > >
> > > Its all about community and The Apache Way of community over code.
> > >
> > > On Monday, April 4, 2016, Prabhjyot Singh <pr...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I was expecting this (
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/702#issuecomment-203680677
> > > > ) to get merged, that or one of R/sparkR interpreter.
> > > > With that a definite +1.
> > > >
> > > > We do need to work more on enterprise readiness like making it more
> > > secure,
> > > > have better authorization.
> > > >
> > > > On 4 April 2016 at 22:04, 강민우 <minwoo.kang@outlook.com
> <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from Outlook Mobile
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:54 AM -0700, "Bruno Bonnin" <
> > > bbonnin@gmail.com
> > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > 2016-04-04 17:45 GMT+02:00 DuyHai Doan <doanduyhai@gmail.com
> > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2016-04-04 17:37 GMT+02:00 Ahyoung Ryu <ahyoungryu93@gmail.com
> > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > BIG +1 for graduating Zeppelin.
> > > > > > > > There is no more reason to delay this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > Ahyoung
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 12:08, Luciano Resende <
> > luckbr1975@gmail.com
> > > > <javascript:;>>님이
> > > > > 작성:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1 on graduating Zeppelin
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:24 AM, moon soo Lee <
> > moon@apache.org
> > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Since last answer from Damien, there hasn't been much
> > > > discussions
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > If all concerns are answered and explained well enough,
> > then
> > > > > shell
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > move
> > > > > > > > > > on to the vote?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM Corneau Damien <
> > > > > > > corneadoug@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jeff,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You can find the list of PPMC here [1], although it
> > doesn't
> > > > > > include
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > affiliations.
> > > > > > > > > > > We do not currently have commiters only status in the
> > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Informations about how to become a Committer is inside
> > the
> > > > > > > > Contributing
> > > > > > > > > > > document of the project [2]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > For the selection, we follow the usual Apache Process:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > * Discussion on inviting a new member is created on the
> > > > > @private
> > > > > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > > > list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
> > > > > > > > > > > * PPMCs are voting on that thread
> > > > > > > > > > > * If the vote is a success, an invite will be sent to
> > that
> > > > > > person,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > result is published on the mailing list if the invite
> is
> > > > > > accepted.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
> > > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
> > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <
> > > > > > > > jeffrey.steinmetz@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a
> > summary)
> > > -
> > > > > > > > > > > > Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we could
> > reply
> > > > > here)
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > outlines:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What's the process within the zeppelin project to add
> > > > > > additional
> > > > > > > > > > > > Committers and/or PMC members?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Who selects the people for these roles, and is there
> > > > > diversity
> > > > > > > > beyond
> > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > affiliation/company in terms of who is selecting
> > > additional
> > > > > > > > > committers
> > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > PMC members?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Who are all the current PMC members and affiliations?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Who are all the committers and affiliations?
> > > > > > > > > > > > How would we know if you desire more members?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I found this:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > Although - it's one large list with several
> incubator
> > > > > projects
> > > > > > > vs
> > > > > > > > > > > > zeppelin alone.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Steinmetz
> > > > > > > > > > > > Principal Architect
> > > > > > > > > > > > Akili Interactive Labs
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <moon@apache.org
> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >Correction
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >from
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <
> > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> If i add more answer,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different
> > > > affiliations.
> > > > > > > And 5
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3
> > > different
> > > > > > > > > affiliation
> > > > > > > > > > > > invited
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> since it's incubation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but
> it
> > > may
> > > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a
> > > requirement
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > (P)PMC
> > > > > > > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still
> > have
> > > > at
> > > > > > > least
> > > > > > > > 3
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in
> the
> > > case
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > PPMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> disappearing from any particular affiliation.
> > Project
> > > > > still
> > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> any decisions.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement
> > of
> > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > according
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that
> > > Roman
> > > > > > > > mention).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to
> > > > > > affiliation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > 'Diversity'
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> can be location, language, nationality, gender,
> > > > > background,
> > > > > > > > > > > experience,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC
> > are
> > > > > quite
> > > > > > > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> One person could have more commits than others.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> But that doesn't give more votes because of that.
> > All
> > > > > people
> > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> single vote, that's effective particularly making
> > > > decision
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > way.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Regarding diversity of view points,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on
> > > comment
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > PR/issue
> > > > > > > > > > > > (most
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether
> > they're
> > > > > > strong
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to
> see
> > it
> > > > > > > 'mature'
> > > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > > 'no
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> disagreement'.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> And many different of features and improvements
> has
> > > been
> > > > > > > > discussed
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> contributed from various people/organizations,
> most
> > of
> > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > > > > not on
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can
> > see
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > Zeppelin
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> community.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Although no one blocks post email or leave comment
> > on
> > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> we feel we need more diversity of view point, we
> can
> > > > > always
> > > > > > > > > improve
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> explicitly encourage participating discussion from
> > > > > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> guide, or by any other way.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik
> <
> > > > > > > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns
> the
> > > > > > diversity
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > PMC,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The
> project
> > > > still
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > largely
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> centered
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > around one individual and company.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company
> > > > > affiliation
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > been,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a
> > > > concern
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > past
> > > > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on
> that
> > > > > subject.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack
> of
> > > > > > diversity
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > view
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> points
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> is quite real in my opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > As another example, I don't think we ever
> > discussed
> > > > > what
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> having
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking
> at
> > > how
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > meet
> > > > > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem.
> > > > Interest
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> waxes and wanes
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity --
> > > we're a
> > > > > > bunch
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> volunteers and
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> lulls are to be excepted.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Roman.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Luciano Resende
> > > > > > > > > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> > > > > > > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > > > > > > *Software Engeenier
> > > > > > > *
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <
> > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > * |
> > > victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> > > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > <victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Thankx and Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Prabhjyot Singh
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sent from my Mobile device
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈
> > http://madeng.net
> >
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Kind regards,
> Alexander.
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Alexander Bezzubov <ab...@nflabs.com>.
Enthusiastic +1 for moving on to a community vote
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Jongyoul Lee <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Note that Graduation has nothing to do with code readiness (e.g
> enterprise
> > readiness) as you can see also in the DISCLAIMER.
> >
> > Its all about community and The Apache Way of community over code.
> >
> > On Monday, April 4, 2016, Prabhjyot Singh <pr...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I was expecting this (
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/702#issuecomment-203680677
> > > ) to get merged, that or one of R/sparkR interpreter.
> > > With that a definite +1.
> > >
> > > We do need to work more on enterprise readiness like making it more
> > secure,
> > > have better authorization.
> > >
> > > On 4 April 2016 at 22:04, 강민우 <minwoo.kang@outlook.com <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > Sent from Outlook Mobile
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:54 AM -0700, "Bruno Bonnin" <
> > bbonnin@gmail.com
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > 2016-04-04 17:45 GMT+02:00 DuyHai Doan <doanduyhai@gmail.com
> > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2016-04-04 17:37 GMT+02:00 Ahyoung Ryu <ahyoungryu93@gmail.com
> > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > BIG +1 for graduating Zeppelin.
> > > > > > > There is no more reason to delay this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Ahyoung
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 12:08, Luciano Resende <
> luckbr1975@gmail.com
> > > <javascript:;>>님이
> > > > 작성:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1 on graduating Zeppelin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:24 AM, moon soo Lee <
> moon@apache.org
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Since last answer from Damien, there hasn't been much
> > > discussions
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > If all concerns are answered and explained well enough,
> then
> > > > shell
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > > move
> > > > > > > > > on to the vote?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM Corneau Damien <
> > > > > > corneadoug@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi Jeff,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You can find the list of PPMC here [1], although it
> doesn't
> > > > > include
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > affiliations.
> > > > > > > > > > We do not currently have commiters only status in the
> > > project.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Informations about how to become a Committer is inside
> the
> > > > > > > Contributing
> > > > > > > > > > document of the project [2]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > For the selection, we follow the usual Apache Process:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > * Discussion on inviting a new member is created on the
> > > > @private
> > > > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > > list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
> > > > > > > > > > * PPMCs are voting on that thread
> > > > > > > > > > * If the vote is a success, an invite will be sent to
> that
> > > > > person,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > result is published on the mailing list if the invite is
> > > > > accepted.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
> > > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <
> > > > > > > jeffrey.steinmetz@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a
> summary)
> > -
> > > > > > > > > > > Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we could
> reply
> > > > here)
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > outlines:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What's the process within the zeppelin project to add
> > > > > additional
> > > > > > > > > > > Committers and/or PMC members?
> > > > > > > > > > > Who selects the people for these roles, and is there
> > > > diversity
> > > > > > > beyond
> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > affiliation/company in terms of who is selecting
> > additional
> > > > > > > > committers
> > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > PMC members?
> > > > > > > > > > > Who are all the current PMC members and affiliations?
> > > > > > > > > > > Who are all the committers and affiliations?
> > > > > > > > > > > How would we know if you desire more members?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I found this:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > Although - it's one large list with several incubator
> > > > projects
> > > > > > vs
> > > > > > > > > > > zeppelin alone.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > Jeff Steinmetz
> > > > > > > > > > > Principal Architect
> > > > > > > > > > > Akili Interactive Labs
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <moon@apache.org
> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >Correction
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >from
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >to
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > >moon
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <
> > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> If i add more answer,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different
> > > affiliations.
> > > > > > And 5
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > > >> is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3
> > different
> > > > > > > > affiliation
> > > > > > > > > > > invited
> > > > > > > > > > > >> since it's incubation.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it
> > may
> > > > > > depends
> > > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a
> > requirement
> > > > of
> > > > > > > (P)PMC
> > > > > > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still
> have
> > > at
> > > > > > least
> > > > > > > 3
> > > > > > > > > > > >> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the
> > case
> > > > of
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > PPMC
> > > > > > > > > > > >> disappearing from any particular affiliation.
> Project
> > > > still
> > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > >> any decisions.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement
> of
> > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > according
> > > > > > > > > > > >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that
> > Roman
> > > > > > > mention).
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to
> > > > > affiliation.
> > > > > > > > > > > 'Diversity'
> > > > > > > > > > > >> can be location, language, nationality, gender,
> > > > background,
> > > > > > > > > > experience,
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC
> are
> > > > quite
> > > > > > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> One person could have more commits than others.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> But that doesn't give more votes because of that.
> All
> > > > people
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > > >> single vote, that's effective particularly making
> > > decision
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > way.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Regarding diversity of view points,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on
> > comment
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > PR/issue
> > > > > > > > > > > (most
> > > > > > > > > > > >> discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether
> they're
> > > > > strong
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > not,
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see
> it
> > > > > > 'mature'
> > > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > > 'no
> > > > > > > > > > > >> disagreement'.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> And many different of features and improvements has
> > been
> > > > > > > discussed
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >> contributed from various people/organizations, most
> of
> > > > them
> > > > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > > > not on
> > > > > > > > > > > >> the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can
> see
> > > > from
> > > > > > > > Zeppelin
> > > > > > > > > > > >> community.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Although no one blocks post email or leave comment
> on
> > > any
> > > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > > >> we feel we need more diversity of view point, we can
> > > > always
> > > > > > > > improve
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > >> explicitly encourage participating discussion from
> > > > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > >> guide, or by any other way.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> [1]
> > > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> > > > > > > > > > > >> [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> > > > > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> moon
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > > > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the
> > > > > diversity
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > PMC,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project
> > > still
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > largely
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> centered
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > around one individual and company.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company
> > > > affiliation
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > been,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a
> > > concern
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > past
> > > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that
> > > > subject.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of
> > > > > diversity
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > view
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> points
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> is quite real in my opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > As another example, I don't think we ever
> discussed
> > > > what
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> having
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at
> > how
> > > > to
> > > > > > get
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > meet
> > > > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem.
> > > Interest
> > > > in
> > > > > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> waxes and wanes
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity --
> > we're a
> > > > > bunch
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> volunteers and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> lulls are to be excepted.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Roman.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Luciano Resende
> > > > > > > > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> > > > > > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > > > > > *Software Engeenier
> > > > > > *
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <
> > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > * |
> > victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > <victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thankx and Regards,
> > >
> > > Prabhjyot Singh
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent from my Mobile device
> >
>
>
>
> --
> 이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈
> http://madeng.net
>
--
--
Kind regards,
Alexander.
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Jongyoul Lee <jo...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Note that Graduation has nothing to do with code readiness (e.g enterprise
> readiness) as you can see also in the DISCLAIMER.
>
> Its all about community and The Apache Way of community over code.
>
> On Monday, April 4, 2016, Prabhjyot Singh <pr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I was expecting this (
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/702#issuecomment-203680677
> > ) to get merged, that or one of R/sparkR interpreter.
> > With that a definite +1.
> >
> > We do need to work more on enterprise readiness like making it more
> secure,
> > have better authorization.
> >
> > On 4 April 2016 at 22:04, 강민우 <minwoo.kang@outlook.com <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > Sent from Outlook Mobile
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:54 AM -0700, "Bruno Bonnin" <
> bbonnin@gmail.com
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > 2016-04-04 17:45 GMT+02:00 DuyHai Doan <doanduyhai@gmail.com
> > <javascript:;>>:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1
> > > > >
> > > > > 2016-04-04 17:37 GMT+02:00 Ahyoung Ryu <ahyoungryu93@gmail.com
> > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > BIG +1 for graduating Zeppelin.
> > > > > > There is no more reason to delay this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Ahyoung
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 12:08, Luciano Resende <luckbr1975@gmail.com
> > <javascript:;>>님이
> > > 작성:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 on graduating Zeppelin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:24 AM, moon soo Lee <moon@apache.org
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since last answer from Damien, there hasn't been much
> > discussions
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > If all concerns are answered and explained well enough, then
> > > shell
> > > > we
> > > > > > > move
> > > > > > > > on to the vote?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM Corneau Damien <
> > > > > corneadoug@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Jeff,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You can find the list of PPMC here [1], although it doesn't
> > > > include
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > affiliations.
> > > > > > > > > We do not currently have commiters only status in the
> > project.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Informations about how to become a Committer is inside the
> > > > > > Contributing
> > > > > > > > > document of the project [2]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For the selection, we follow the usual Apache Process:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > * Discussion on inviting a new member is created on the
> > > @private
> > > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
> > > > > > > > > * PPMCs are voting on that thread
> > > > > > > > > * If the vote is a success, an invite will be sent to that
> > > > person,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > result is published on the mailing list if the invite is
> > > > accepted.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
> > > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <
> > > > > > jeffrey.steinmetz@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a summary)
> -
> > > > > > > > > > Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we could reply
> > > here)
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > outlines:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What's the process within the zeppelin project to add
> > > > additional
> > > > > > > > > > Committers and/or PMC members?
> > > > > > > > > > Who selects the people for these roles, and is there
> > > diversity
> > > > > > beyond
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > affiliation/company in terms of who is selecting
> additional
> > > > > > > committers
> > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > PMC members?
> > > > > > > > > > Who are all the current PMC members and affiliations?
> > > > > > > > > > Who are all the committers and affiliations?
> > > > > > > > > > How would we know if you desire more members?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I found this:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
> > > > > > > > > > Although - it's one large list with several incubator
> > > projects
> > > > > vs
> > > > > > > > > > zeppelin alone.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > Jeff Steinmetz
> > > > > > > > > > Principal Architect
> > > > > > > > > > Akili Interactive Labs
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <moon@apache.org
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >Correction
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >from
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >to
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >moon
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <
> > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> If i add more answer,
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different
> > affiliations.
> > > > > And 5
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > > >> is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3
> different
> > > > > > > affiliation
> > > > > > > > > > invited
> > > > > > > > > > >> since it's incubation.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it
> may
> > > > > depends
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a
> requirement
> > > of
> > > > > > (P)PMC
> > > > > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still have
> > at
> > > > > least
> > > > > > 3
> > > > > > > > > > >> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the
> case
> > > of
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > PPMC
> > > > > > > > > > >> disappearing from any particular affiliation. Project
> > > still
> > > > > able
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > >> any decisions.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement of
> > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > according
> > > > > > > > > > >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that
> Roman
> > > > > > mention).
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to
> > > > affiliation.
> > > > > > > > > > 'Diversity'
> > > > > > > > > > >> can be location, language, nationality, gender,
> > > background,
> > > > > > > > > experience,
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC are
> > > quite
> > > > > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> One person could have more commits than others.
> > > > > > > > > > >> But that doesn't give more votes because of that. All
> > > people
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > > >> single vote, that's effective particularly making
> > decision
> > > > in
> > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > way.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Regarding diversity of view points,
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on
> comment
> > > of
> > > > > > > PR/issue
> > > > > > > > > > (most
> > > > > > > > > > >> discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether they're
> > > > strong
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > > not,
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see it
> > > > > 'mature'
> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > 'no
> > > > > > > > > > >> disagreement'.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> And many different of features and improvements has
> been
> > > > > > discussed
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > >> contributed from various people/organizations, most of
> > > them
> > > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > > not on
> > > > > > > > > > >> the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can see
> > > from
> > > > > > > Zeppelin
> > > > > > > > > > >> community.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Although no one blocks post email or leave comment on
> > any
> > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > > >> we feel we need more diversity of view point, we can
> > > always
> > > > > > > improve
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > >> explicitly encourage participating discussion from
> > > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > >> guide, or by any other way.
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> [1]
> > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> > > > > > > > > > >> [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> > > > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >> moon
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <
> > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the
> > > > diversity
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > PMC,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project
> > still
> > > is
> > > > > > > largely
> > > > > > > > > > >>> centered
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > around one individual and company.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company
> > > affiliation
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > been,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a
> > concern
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > past
> > > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > > >>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that
> > > subject.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of
> > > > diversity
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > view
> > > > > > > > > > >>> points
> > > > > > > > > > >>> is quite real in my opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > As another example, I don't think we ever discussed
> > > what
> > > > to
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > >>> having
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at
> how
> > > to
> > > > > get
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > meet
> > > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem.
> > Interest
> > > in
> > > > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > > >>> waxes and wanes
> > > > > > > > > > >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity --
> we're a
> > > > bunch
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > >>> volunteers and
> > > > > > > > > > >>> lulls are to be excepted.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > >>> Roman.
> > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Luciano Resende
> > > > > > > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> > > > > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > > > > *Software Engeenier
> > > > > *
> > > > >
> > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <
> > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > * |
> victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> > <javascript:;>
> > > > > <victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thankx and Regards,
> >
> > Prabhjyot Singh
> >
>
>
> --
> Sent from my Mobile device
>
--
이종열, Jongyoul Lee, 李宗烈
http://madeng.net
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
Note that Graduation has nothing to do with code readiness (e.g enterprise
readiness) as you can see also in the DISCLAIMER.
Its all about community and The Apache Way of community over code.
On Monday, April 4, 2016, Prabhjyot Singh <pr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was expecting this (
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/702#issuecomment-203680677
> ) to get merged, that or one of R/sparkR interpreter.
> With that a definite +1.
>
> We do need to work more on enterprise readiness like making it more secure,
> have better authorization.
>
> On 4 April 2016 at 22:04, 강민우 <minwoo.kang@outlook.com <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > Sent from Outlook Mobile
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:54 AM -0700, "Bruno Bonnin" <bbonnin@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > +1
> >
> > 2016-04-04 17:45 GMT+02:00 DuyHai Doan <doanduyhai@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > 2016-04-04 17:37 GMT+02:00 Ahyoung Ryu <ahyoungryu93@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>:
> > > >
> > > > > BIG +1 for graduating Zeppelin.
> > > > > There is no more reason to delay this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Ahyoung
> > > > >
> > > > > 2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 12:08, Luciano Resende <luckbr1975@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>님이
> > 작성:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 on graduating Zeppelin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:24 AM, moon soo Lee <moon@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since last answer from Damien, there hasn't been much
> discussions
> > > for
> > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > If all concerns are answered and explained well enough, then
> > shell
> > > we
> > > > > > move
> > > > > > > on to the vote?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM Corneau Damien <
> > > > corneadoug@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Jeff,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You can find the list of PPMC here [1], although it doesn't
> > > include
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > affiliations.
> > > > > > > > We do not currently have commiters only status in the
> project.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Informations about how to become a Committer is inside the
> > > > > Contributing
> > > > > > > > document of the project [2]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > For the selection, we follow the usual Apache Process:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * Discussion on inviting a new member is created on the
> > @private
> > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
> > > > > > > > * PPMCs are voting on that thread
> > > > > > > > * If the vote is a success, an invite will be sent to that
> > > person,
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > result is published on the mailing list if the invite is
> > > accepted.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
> > > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
> > > > > > > > On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <
> > > > > jeffrey.steinmetz@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a summary) -
> > > > > > > > > Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we could reply
> > here)
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > outlines:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What's the process within the zeppelin project to add
> > > additional
> > > > > > > > > Committers and/or PMC members?
> > > > > > > > > Who selects the people for these roles, and is there
> > diversity
> > > > > beyond
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > affiliation/company in terms of who is selecting additional
> > > > > > committers
> > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > PMC members?
> > > > > > > > > Who are all the current PMC members and affiliations?
> > > > > > > > > Who are all the committers and affiliations?
> > > > > > > > > How would we know if you desire more members?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I found this:
> > > > > > > > >
> > http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
> > > > > > > > > Although - it's one large list with several incubator
> > projects
> > > > vs
> > > > > > > > > zeppelin alone.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > Jeff Steinmetz
> > > > > > > > > Principal Architect
> > > > > > > > > Akili Interactive Labs
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <moon@apache.org
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Correction
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >from
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >to
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >moon
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <
> > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> If i add more answer,
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different
> affiliations.
> > > > And 5
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > > >> is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3 different
> > > > > > affiliation
> > > > > > > > > invited
> > > > > > > > > >> since it's incubation.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it may
> > > > depends
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a requirement
> > of
> > > > > (P)PMC
> > > > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still have
> at
> > > > least
> > > > > 3
> > > > > > > > > >> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the case
> > of
> > > > all
> > > > > > PPMC
> > > > > > > > > >> disappearing from any particular affiliation. Project
> > still
> > > > able
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > >> any decisions.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement of
> > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > according
> > > > > > > > > >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that Roman
> > > > > mention).
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to
> > > affiliation.
> > > > > > > > > 'Diversity'
> > > > > > > > > >> can be location, language, nationality, gender,
> > background,
> > > > > > > > experience,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC are
> > quite
> > > > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> One person could have more commits than others.
> > > > > > > > > >> But that doesn't give more votes because of that. All
> > people
> > > > has
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > >> single vote, that's effective particularly making
> decision
> > > in
> > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > way.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Regarding diversity of view points,
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on comment
> > of
> > > > > > PR/issue
> > > > > > > > > (most
> > > > > > > > > >> discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether they're
> > > strong
> > > > or
> > > > > > > not,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see it
> > > > 'mature'
> > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > 'no
> > > > > > > > > >> disagreement'.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> And many different of features and improvements has been
> > > > > discussed
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > >> contributed from various people/organizations, most of
> > them
> > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > not on
> > > > > > > > > >> the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can see
> > from
> > > > > > Zeppelin
> > > > > > > > > >> community.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Although no one blocks post email or leave comment on
> any
> > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > > >> we feel we need more diversity of view point, we can
> > always
> > > > > > improve
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > >> explicitly encourage participating discussion from
> > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > >> guide, or by any other way.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> [1]
> > http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> > > > > > > > > >> [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> > > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >> moon
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <
> > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the
> > > diversity
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > PMC,
> > > > > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > > > > >>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project
> still
> > is
> > > > > > largely
> > > > > > > > > >>> centered
> > > > > > > > > >>> > around one individual and company.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company
> > affiliation
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > been,
> > > > > > > > > >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a
> concern
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > past
> > > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > > >>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that
> > subject.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of
> > > diversity
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > view
> > > > > > > > > >>> points
> > > > > > > > > >>> is quite real in my opinion.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> > As another example, I don't think we ever discussed
> > what
> > > to
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > >>> having
> > > > > > > > > >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how
> > to
> > > > get
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > meet
> > > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem.
> Interest
> > in
> > > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > > >>> waxes and wanes
> > > > > > > > > >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity -- we're a
> > > bunch
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > >>> volunteers and
> > > > > > > > > >>> lulls are to be excepted.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > >>> Roman.
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Luciano Resende
> > > > > > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> > > > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > > > *Software Engeenier
> > > > *
> > > >
> > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <
> victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > * | victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> <javascript:;>
> > > > <victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thankx and Regards,
>
> Prabhjyot Singh
>
--
Sent from my Mobile device
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Prabhjyot Singh <pr...@gmail.com>.
I was expecting this (
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/702#issuecomment-203680677
) to get merged, that or one of R/sparkR interpreter.
With that a definite +1.
We do need to work more on enterprise readiness like making it more secure,
have better authorization.
On 4 April 2016 at 22:04, 강민우 <mi...@outlook.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> Sent from Outlook Mobile
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:54 AM -0700, "Bruno Bonnin" <bb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> +1
>
> 2016-04-04 17:45 GMT+02:00 DuyHai Doan <do...@gmail.com>:
>
> > +1
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> > victor.garcia@beeva.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > 2016-04-04 17:37 GMT+02:00 Ahyoung Ryu <ah...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > > > BIG +1 for graduating Zeppelin.
> > > > There is no more reason to delay this.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Ahyoung
> > > >
> > > > 2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 12:08, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>님이
> 작성:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 on graduating Zeppelin
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:24 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since last answer from Damien, there hasn't been much discussions
> > for
> > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > If all concerns are answered and explained well enough, then
> shell
> > we
> > > > > move
> > > > > > on to the vote?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > moon
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM Corneau Damien <
> > > corneadoug@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Jeff,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can find the list of PPMC here [1], although it doesn't
> > include
> > > > the
> > > > > > > affiliations.
> > > > > > > We do not currently have commiters only status in the project.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Informations about how to become a Committer is inside the
> > > > Contributing
> > > > > > > document of the project [2]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For the selection, we follow the usual Apache Process:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * Discussion on inviting a new member is created on the
> @private
> > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
> > > > > > > * PPMCs are voting on that thread
> > > > > > > * If the vote is a success, an invite will be sent to that
> > person,
> > > > and
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > result is published on the mailing list if the invite is
> > accepted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
> > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
> > > > > > > On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <
> > > > jeffrey.steinmetz@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a summary) -
> > > > > > > > Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we could reply
> here)
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > outlines:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What's the process within the zeppelin project to add
> > additional
> > > > > > > > Committers and/or PMC members?
> > > > > > > > Who selects the people for these roles, and is there
> diversity
> > > > beyond
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > affiliation/company in terms of who is selecting additional
> > > > > committers
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > PMC members?
> > > > > > > > Who are all the current PMC members and affiliations?
> > > > > > > > Who are all the committers and affiliations?
> > > > > > > > How would we know if you desire more members?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I found this:
> > > > > > > >
> http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
> > > > > > > > Although - it's one large list with several incubator
> projects
> > > vs
> > > > > > > > zeppelin alone.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > Jeff Steinmetz
> > > > > > > > Principal Architect
> > > > > > > > Akili Interactive Labs
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Correction
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >from
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >to
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >moon
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <
> moon@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> If i add more answer,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different affiliations.
> > > And 5
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > >> is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3 different
> > > > > affiliation
> > > > > > > > invited
> > > > > > > > >> since it's incubation.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it may
> > > depends
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a requirement
> of
> > > > (P)PMC
> > > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still have at
> > > least
> > > > 3
> > > > > > > > >> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the case
> of
> > > all
> > > > > PPMC
> > > > > > > > >> disappearing from any particular affiliation. Project
> still
> > > able
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > >> any decisions.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement of
> > > graduation
> > > > > > > > according
> > > > > > > > >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that Roman
> > > > mention).
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to
> > affiliation.
> > > > > > > > 'Diversity'
> > > > > > > > >> can be location, language, nationality, gender,
> background,
> > > > > > > experience,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC are
> quite
> > > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> One person could have more commits than others.
> > > > > > > > >> But that doesn't give more votes because of that. All
> people
> > > has
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > >> single vote, that's effective particularly making decision
> > in
> > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > way.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Regarding diversity of view points,
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on comment
> of
> > > > > PR/issue
> > > > > > > > (most
> > > > > > > > >> discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether they're
> > strong
> > > or
> > > > > > not,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see it
> > > 'mature'
> > > > > than
> > > > > > > 'no
> > > > > > > > >> disagreement'.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> And many different of features and improvements has been
> > > > discussed
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > >> contributed from various people/organizations, most of
> them
> > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > not on
> > > > > > > > >> the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can see
> from
> > > > > Zeppelin
> > > > > > > > >> community.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Although no one blocks post email or leave comment on any
> > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > If
> > > > > > > > >> we feel we need more diversity of view point, we can
> always
> > > > > improve
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > >> explicitly encourage participating discussion from
> > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > >> guide, or by any other way.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> [1]
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> > > > > > > > >> [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> > > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >> moon
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <
> > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the
> > diversity
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > PMC,
> > > > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > > > >>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project still
> is
> > > > > largely
> > > > > > > > >>> centered
> > > > > > > > >>> > around one individual and company.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company
> affiliation
> > > > have
> > > > > > > been,
> > > > > > > > >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a concern
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > past
> > > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > > >>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that
> subject.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of
> > diversity
> > > > of
> > > > > > view
> > > > > > > > >>> points
> > > > > > > > >>> is quite real in my opinion.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> > As another example, I don't think we ever discussed
> what
> > to
> > > > do
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > >>> having
> > > > > > > > >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how
> to
> > > get
> > > > to
> > > > > > > meet
> > > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem. Interest
> in
> > > > > > projects
> > > > > > > > >>> waxes and wanes
> > > > > > > > >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity -- we're a
> > bunch
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > >>> volunteers and
> > > > > > > > >>> lulls are to be excepted.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >>> Roman.
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Luciano Resende
> > > > > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> > > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > > *Software Engeenier
> > > *
> > >
> > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <vi...@beeva.com>*
> > > * | victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> > > <vi...@bbva.com>*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> > >
> >
>
--
Thankx and Regards,
Prabhjyot Singh
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by 강민우 <mi...@outlook.com>.
+1
Sent from Outlook Mobile
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 8:54 AM -0700, "Bruno Bonnin" <bb...@gmail.com> wrote:
+1
2016-04-04 17:45 GMT+02:00 DuyHai Doan <do...@gmail.com>:
> +1
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> victor.garcia@beeva.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > 2016-04-04 17:37 GMT+02:00 Ahyoung Ryu <ah...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > BIG +1 for graduating Zeppelin.
> > > There is no more reason to delay this.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Ahyoung
> > >
> > > 2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 12:08, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
> > >
> > > > +1 on graduating Zeppelin
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:24 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Since last answer from Damien, there hasn't been much discussions
> for
> > > > > graduation.
> > > > > If all concerns are answered and explained well enough, then shell
> we
> > > > move
> > > > > on to the vote?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > moon
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM Corneau Damien <
> > corneadoug@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Jeff,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can find the list of PPMC here [1], although it doesn't
> include
> > > the
> > > > > > affiliations.
> > > > > > We do not currently have commiters only status in the project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Informations about how to become a Committer is inside the
> > > Contributing
> > > > > > document of the project [2]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the selection, we follow the usual Apache Process:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Discussion on inviting a new member is created on the @private
> > > > mailing
> > > > > > list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
> > > > > > * PPMCs are voting on that thread
> > > > > > * If the vote is a success, an invite will be sent to that
> person,
> > > and
> > > > > the
> > > > > > result is published on the mailing list if the invite is
> accepted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
> > > > > > [2]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
> > > > > > On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <
> > > jeffrey.steinmetz@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a summary) -
> > > > > > > Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we could reply here)
> > > that
> > > > > > > outlines:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What's the process within the zeppelin project to add
> additional
> > > > > > > Committers and/or PMC members?
> > > > > > > Who selects the people for these roles, and is there diversity
> > > beyond
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > affiliation/company in terms of who is selecting additional
> > > > committers
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > PMC members?
> > > > > > > Who are all the current PMC members and affiliations?
> > > > > > > Who are all the committers and affiliations?
> > > > > > > How would we know if you desire more members?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I found this:
> > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
> > > > > > > Although - it's one large list with several incubator projects
> > vs
> > > > > > > zeppelin alone.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Jeff Steinmetz
> > > > > > > Principal Architect
> > > > > > > Akili Interactive Labs
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Correction
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >from
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > > > >moon
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <moon@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> If i add more answer,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different affiliations.
> > And 5
> > > > of
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > >> is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3 different
> > > > affiliation
> > > > > > > invited
> > > > > > > >> since it's incubation.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it may
> > depends
> > > > on
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a requirement of
> > > (P)PMC
> > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still have at
> > least
> > > 3
> > > > > > > >> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the case of
> > all
> > > > PPMC
> > > > > > > >> disappearing from any particular affiliation. Project still
> > able
> > > > to
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > > >> any decisions.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement of
> > graduation
> > > > > > > according
> > > > > > > >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that Roman
> > > mention).
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to
> affiliation.
> > > > > > > 'Diversity'
> > > > > > > >> can be location, language, nationality, gender, background,
> > > > > > experience,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC are quite
> > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> One person could have more commits than others.
> > > > > > > >> But that doesn't give more votes because of that. All people
> > has
> > > > the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > >> single vote, that's effective particularly making decision
> in
> > > > Apache
> > > > > > > way.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Regarding diversity of view points,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on comment of
> > > > PR/issue
> > > > > > > (most
> > > > > > > >> discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether they're
> strong
> > or
> > > > > not,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see it
> > 'mature'
> > > > than
> > > > > > 'no
> > > > > > > >> disagreement'.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> And many different of features and improvements has been
> > > discussed
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> contributed from various people/organizations, most of them
> > > > actually
> > > > > > > not on
> > > > > > > >> the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can see from
> > > > Zeppelin
> > > > > > > >> community.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Although no one blocks post email or leave comment on any
> > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > > >> we feel we need more diversity of view point, we can always
> > > > improve
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > >> explicitly encourage participating discussion from
> Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > >> guide, or by any other way.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> > > > > > > >> [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> moon
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <
> > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the
> diversity
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > PMC,
> > > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > > >>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project still is
> > > > largely
> > > > > > > >>> centered
> > > > > > > >>> > around one individual and company.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company affiliation
> > > have
> > > > > > been,
> > > > > > > >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a concern
> in
> > > the
> > > > > past
> > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > >>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that subject.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of
> diversity
> > > of
> > > > > view
> > > > > > > >>> points
> > > > > > > >>> is quite real in my opinion.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> > As another example, I don't think we ever discussed what
> to
> > > do
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > >>> having
> > > > > > > >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how to
> > get
> > > to
> > > > > > meet
> > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem. Interest in
> > > > > projects
> > > > > > > >>> waxes and wanes
> > > > > > > >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity -- we're a
> bunch
> > > of
> > > > > > > >>> volunteers and
> > > > > > > >>> lulls are to be excepted.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>> Roman.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Luciano Resende
> > > > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > *Software Engeenier
> > *
> >
> > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <vi...@beeva.com>*
> > * | victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> > <vi...@bbva.com>*
> >
> >
> >
> > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Bruno Bonnin <bb...@gmail.com>.
+1
2016-04-04 17:45 GMT+02:00 DuyHai Doan <do...@gmail.com>:
> +1
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> victor.garcia@beeva.com> wrote:
>
> > +1
> >
> > 2016-04-04 17:37 GMT+02:00 Ahyoung Ryu <ah...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > BIG +1 for graduating Zeppelin.
> > > There is no more reason to delay this.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Ahyoung
> > >
> > > 2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 12:08, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
> > >
> > > > +1 on graduating Zeppelin
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:24 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Since last answer from Damien, there hasn't been much discussions
> for
> > > > > graduation.
> > > > > If all concerns are answered and explained well enough, then shell
> we
> > > > move
> > > > > on to the vote?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > moon
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM Corneau Damien <
> > corneadoug@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Jeff,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can find the list of PPMC here [1], although it doesn't
> include
> > > the
> > > > > > affiliations.
> > > > > > We do not currently have commiters only status in the project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Informations about how to become a Committer is inside the
> > > Contributing
> > > > > > document of the project [2]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the selection, we follow the usual Apache Process:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Discussion on inviting a new member is created on the @private
> > > > mailing
> > > > > > list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
> > > > > > * PPMCs are voting on that thread
> > > > > > * If the vote is a success, an invite will be sent to that
> person,
> > > and
> > > > > the
> > > > > > result is published on the mailing list if the invite is
> accepted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
> > > > > > [2]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
> > > > > > On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <
> > > jeffrey.steinmetz@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a summary) -
> > > > > > > Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we could reply here)
> > > that
> > > > > > > outlines:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What's the process within the zeppelin project to add
> additional
> > > > > > > Committers and/or PMC members?
> > > > > > > Who selects the people for these roles, and is there diversity
> > > beyond
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > affiliation/company in terms of who is selecting additional
> > > > committers
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > PMC members?
> > > > > > > Who are all the current PMC members and affiliations?
> > > > > > > Who are all the committers and affiliations?
> > > > > > > How would we know if you desire more members?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I found this:
> > > > > > > http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
> > > > > > > Although - it's one large list with several incubator projects
> > vs
> > > > > > > zeppelin alone.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > Jeff Steinmetz
> > > > > > > Principal Architect
> > > > > > > Akili Interactive Labs
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Correction
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >from
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >to
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > > > >moon
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <moon@apache.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> If i add more answer,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different affiliations.
> > And 5
> > > > of
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > >> is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3 different
> > > > affiliation
> > > > > > > invited
> > > > > > > >> since it's incubation.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it may
> > depends
> > > > on
> > > > > > how
> > > > > > > >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a requirement of
> > > (P)PMC
> > > > > > [1].
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still have at
> > least
> > > 3
> > > > > > > >> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the case of
> > all
> > > > PPMC
> > > > > > > >> disappearing from any particular affiliation. Project still
> > able
> > > > to
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > > >> any decisions.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement of
> > graduation
> > > > > > > according
> > > > > > > >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that Roman
> > > mention).
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to
> affiliation.
> > > > > > > 'Diversity'
> > > > > > > >> can be location, language, nationality, gender, background,
> > > > > > experience,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC are quite
> > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> One person could have more commits than others.
> > > > > > > >> But that doesn't give more votes because of that. All people
> > has
> > > > the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > >> single vote, that's effective particularly making decision
> in
> > > > Apache
> > > > > > > way.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Regarding diversity of view points,
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on comment of
> > > > PR/issue
> > > > > > > (most
> > > > > > > >> discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether they're
> strong
> > or
> > > > > not,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see it
> > 'mature'
> > > > than
> > > > > > 'no
> > > > > > > >> disagreement'.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> And many different of features and improvements has been
> > > discussed
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > >> contributed from various people/organizations, most of them
> > > > actually
> > > > > > > not on
> > > > > > > >> the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can see from
> > > > Zeppelin
> > > > > > > >> community.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Although no one blocks post email or leave comment on any
> > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > If
> > > > > > > >> we feel we need more diversity of view point, we can always
> > > > improve
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > >> explicitly encourage participating discussion from
> Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > >> guide, or by any other way.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> > > > > > > >> [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> > > > > > > >> <
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >> moon
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <
> > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the
> diversity
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > PMC,
> > > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > > >>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project still is
> > > > largely
> > > > > > > >>> centered
> > > > > > > >>> > around one individual and company.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company affiliation
> > > have
> > > > > > been,
> > > > > > > >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a concern
> in
> > > the
> > > > > past
> > > > > > > few
> > > > > > > >>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that subject.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of
> diversity
> > > of
> > > > > view
> > > > > > > >>> points
> > > > > > > >>> is quite real in my opinion.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> > As another example, I don't think we ever discussed what
> to
> > > do
> > > > > > about
> > > > > > > >>> having
> > > > > > > >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how to
> > get
> > > to
> > > > > > meet
> > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem. Interest in
> > > > > projects
> > > > > > > >>> waxes and wanes
> > > > > > > >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity -- we're a
> bunch
> > > of
> > > > > > > >>> volunteers and
> > > > > > > >>> lulls are to be excepted.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>> Roman.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Luciano Resende
> > > > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> > > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > *Software Engeenier
> > *
> >
> > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <vi...@beeva.com>*
> > * | victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> > <vi...@bbva.com>*
> >
> >
> >
> > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by DuyHai Doan <do...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
victor.garcia@beeva.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> 2016-04-04 17:37 GMT+02:00 Ahyoung Ryu <ah...@gmail.com>:
>
> > BIG +1 for graduating Zeppelin.
> > There is no more reason to delay this.
> >
> > Best,
> > Ahyoung
> >
> > 2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 12:08, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
> >
> > > +1 on graduating Zeppelin
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:24 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Since last answer from Damien, there hasn't been much discussions for
> > > > graduation.
> > > > If all concerns are answered and explained well enough, then shell we
> > > move
> > > > on to the vote?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > moon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM Corneau Damien <
> corneadoug@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Jeff,
> > > > >
> > > > > You can find the list of PPMC here [1], although it doesn't include
> > the
> > > > > affiliations.
> > > > > We do not currently have commiters only status in the project.
> > > > >
> > > > > Informations about how to become a Committer is inside the
> > Contributing
> > > > > document of the project [2]
> > > > >
> > > > > For the selection, we follow the usual Apache Process:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Discussion on inviting a new member is created on the @private
> > > mailing
> > > > > list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
> > > > > * PPMCs are voting on that thread
> > > > > * If the vote is a success, an invite will be sent to that person,
> > and
> > > > the
> > > > > result is published on the mailing list if the invite is accepted.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
> > > > > [2]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
> > > > > On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <
> > jeffrey.steinmetz@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a summary) -
> > > > > > Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we could reply here)
> > that
> > > > > > outlines:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What's the process within the zeppelin project to add additional
> > > > > > Committers and/or PMC members?
> > > > > > Who selects the people for these roles, and is there diversity
> > beyond
> > > > one
> > > > > > affiliation/company in terms of who is selecting additional
> > > committers
> > > > or
> > > > > > PMC members?
> > > > > > Who are all the current PMC members and affiliations?
> > > > > > Who are all the committers and affiliations?
> > > > > > How would we know if you desire more members?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I found this:
> > > > > > http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
> > > > > > Although - it's one large list with several incubator projects
> vs
> > > > > > zeppelin alone.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Jeff Steinmetz
> > > > > > Principal Architect
> > > > > > Akili Interactive Labs
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >Correction
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >from
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > > >moon
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> If i add more answer,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different affiliations.
> And 5
> > > of
> > > > > them
> > > > > > >> is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3 different
> > > affiliation
> > > > > > invited
> > > > > > >> since it's incubation.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it may
> depends
> > > on
> > > > > how
> > > > > > >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a requirement of
> > (P)PMC
> > > > > [1].
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still have at
> least
> > 3
> > > > > > >> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the case of
> all
> > > PPMC
> > > > > > >> disappearing from any particular affiliation. Project still
> able
> > > to
> > > > > make
> > > > > > >> any decisions.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement of
> graduation
> > > > > > according
> > > > > > >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that Roman
> > mention).
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to affiliation.
> > > > > > 'Diversity'
> > > > > > >> can be location, language, nationality, gender, background,
> > > > > experience,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC are quite
> > > diverse.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> One person could have more commits than others.
> > > > > > >> But that doesn't give more votes because of that. All people
> has
> > > the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > >> single vote, that's effective particularly making decision in
> > > Apache
> > > > > > way.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Regarding diversity of view points,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on comment of
> > > PR/issue
> > > > > > (most
> > > > > > >> discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether they're strong
> or
> > > > not,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see it
> 'mature'
> > > than
> > > > > 'no
> > > > > > >> disagreement'.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> And many different of features and improvements has been
> > discussed
> > > > and
> > > > > > >> contributed from various people/organizations, most of them
> > > actually
> > > > > > not on
> > > > > > >> the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can see from
> > > Zeppelin
> > > > > > >> community.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Although no one blocks post email or leave comment on any
> > > > discussion,
> > > > > If
> > > > > > >> we feel we need more diversity of view point, we can always
> > > improve
> > > > it
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > >> explicitly encourage participating discussion from Zeppelin's
> > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > >> guide, or by any other way.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> > > > > > >> [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> > > > > > >> <
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > >> moon
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <
> > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com>
> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the diversity
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > PMC,
> > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > >>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project still is
> > > largely
> > > > > > >>> centered
> > > > > > >>> > around one individual and company.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company affiliation
> > have
> > > > > been,
> > > > > > >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a concern in
> > the
> > > > past
> > > > > > few
> > > > > > >>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that subject.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of diversity
> > of
> > > > view
> > > > > > >>> points
> > > > > > >>> is quite real in my opinion.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> > As another example, I don't think we ever discussed what to
> > do
> > > > > about
> > > > > > >>> having
> > > > > > >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how to
> get
> > to
> > > > > meet
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem. Interest in
> > > > projects
> > > > > > >>> waxes and wanes
> > > > > > >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity -- we're a bunch
> > of
> > > > > > >>> volunteers and
> > > > > > >>> lulls are to be excepted.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>> Roman.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Luciano Resende
> > > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> > > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> *Software Engeenier
> *
>
> *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <vi...@beeva.com>*
> * | victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> <vi...@bbva.com>*
>
>
>
> <http://www.beeva.com/>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Victor Manuel Garcia <vi...@beeva.com>.
+1
2016-04-04 17:37 GMT+02:00 Ahyoung Ryu <ah...@gmail.com>:
> BIG +1 for graduating Zeppelin.
> There is no more reason to delay this.
>
> Best,
> Ahyoung
>
> 2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 12:08, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
>
> > +1 on graduating Zeppelin
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:24 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Since last answer from Damien, there hasn't been much discussions for
> > > graduation.
> > > If all concerns are answered and explained well enough, then shell we
> > move
> > > on to the vote?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > moon
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM Corneau Damien <co...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Jeff,
> > > >
> > > > You can find the list of PPMC here [1], although it doesn't include
> the
> > > > affiliations.
> > > > We do not currently have commiters only status in the project.
> > > >
> > > > Informations about how to become a Committer is inside the
> Contributing
> > > > document of the project [2]
> > > >
> > > > For the selection, we follow the usual Apache Process:
> > > >
> > > > * Discussion on inviting a new member is created on the @private
> > mailing
> > > > list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
> > > > * PPMCs are voting on that thread
> > > > * If the vote is a success, an invite will be sent to that person,
> and
> > > the
> > > > result is published on the mailing list if the invite is accepted.
> > > >
> > > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
> > > > [2]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
> > > > On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <
> jeffrey.steinmetz@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a summary) -
> > > > > Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we could reply here)
> that
> > > > > outlines:
> > > > >
> > > > > What's the process within the zeppelin project to add additional
> > > > > Committers and/or PMC members?
> > > > > Who selects the people for these roles, and is there diversity
> beyond
> > > one
> > > > > affiliation/company in terms of who is selecting additional
> > committers
> > > or
> > > > > PMC members?
> > > > > Who are all the current PMC members and affiliations?
> > > > > Who are all the committers and affiliations?
> > > > > How would we know if you desire more members?
> > > > >
> > > > > I found this:
> > > > > http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
> > > > > Although - it's one large list with several incubator projects vs
> > > > > zeppelin alone.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Jeff Steinmetz
> > > > > Principal Architect
> > > > > Akili Interactive Labs
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Correction
> > > > > >
> > > > > >from
> > > > > >
> > > > > >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > >
> > > > > >to
> > > > > >
> > > > > >And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Thanks,
> > > > > >moon
> > > > > >
> > > > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> If i add more answer,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different affiliations. And 5
> > of
> > > > them
> > > > > >> is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3 different
> > affiliation
> > > > > invited
> > > > > >> since it's incubation.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it may depends
> > on
> > > > how
> > > > > >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a requirement of
> (P)PMC
> > > > [1].
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still have at least
> 3
> > > > > >> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the case of all
> > PPMC
> > > > > >> disappearing from any particular affiliation. Project still able
> > to
> > > > make
> > > > > >> any decisions.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement of graduation
> > > > > according
> > > > > >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that Roman
> mention).
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to affiliation.
> > > > > 'Diversity'
> > > > > >> can be location, language, nationality, gender, background,
> > > > experience,
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC are quite
> > diverse.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> One person could have more commits than others.
> > > > > >> But that doesn't give more votes because of that. All people has
> > the
> > > > > same
> > > > > >> single vote, that's effective particularly making decision in
> > Apache
> > > > > way.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Regarding diversity of view points,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on comment of
> > PR/issue
> > > > > (most
> > > > > >> discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether they're strong or
> > > not,
> > > > > and
> > > > > >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see it 'mature'
> > than
> > > > 'no
> > > > > >> disagreement'.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> And many different of features and improvements has been
> discussed
> > > and
> > > > > >> contributed from various people/organizations, most of them
> > actually
> > > > > not on
> > > > > >> the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can see from
> > Zeppelin
> > > > > >> community.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Although no one blocks post email or leave comment on any
> > > discussion,
> > > > If
> > > > > >> we feel we need more diversity of view point, we can always
> > improve
> > > it
> > > > > by
> > > > > >> explicitly encourage participating discussion from Zeppelin's
> > > > > contribution
> > > > > >> guide, or by any other way.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> > > > > >> [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> > > > > >> <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > >> moon
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > roman@shaposhnik.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <
> > > amos.elberg@gmail.com>
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the diversity of
> > the
> > > > > PMC,
> > > > > >>> and
> > > > > >>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project still is
> > largely
> > > > > >>> centered
> > > > > >>> > around one individual and company.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company affiliation
> have
> > > > been,
> > > > > >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a concern in
> the
> > > past
> > > > > few
> > > > > >>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that subject.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of diversity
> of
> > > view
> > > > > >>> points
> > > > > >>> is quite real in my opinion.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> > As another example, I don't think we ever discussed what to
> do
> > > > about
> > > > > >>> having
> > > > > >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how to get
> to
> > > > meet
> > > > > our
> > > > > >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem. Interest in
> > > projects
> > > > > >>> waxes and wanes
> > > > > >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity -- we're a bunch
> of
> > > > > >>> volunteers and
> > > > > >>> lulls are to be excepted.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>> Roman.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Luciano Resende
> > http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> > http://lresende.blogspot.com/
> >
>
--
*Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
*Software Engeenier
*
*+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <vi...@beeva.com>*
* | victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
<vi...@bbva.com>*
<http://www.beeva.com/>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Ahyoung Ryu <ah...@gmail.com>.
BIG +1 for graduating Zeppelin.
There is no more reason to delay this.
Best,
Ahyoung
2016년 4월 5일 (화) 오전 12:08, Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>님이 작성:
> +1 on graduating Zeppelin
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:24 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Since last answer from Damien, there hasn't been much discussions for
> > graduation.
> > If all concerns are answered and explained well enough, then shell we
> move
> > on to the vote?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > moon
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM Corneau Damien <co...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jeff,
> > >
> > > You can find the list of PPMC here [1], although it doesn't include the
> > > affiliations.
> > > We do not currently have commiters only status in the project.
> > >
> > > Informations about how to become a Committer is inside the Contributing
> > > document of the project [2]
> > >
> > > For the selection, we follow the usual Apache Process:
> > >
> > > * Discussion on inviting a new member is created on the @private
> mailing
> > > list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
> > > * PPMCs are voting on that thread
> > > * If the vote is a success, an invite will be sent to that person, and
> > the
> > > result is published on the mailing list if the invite is accepted.
> > >
> > > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
> > > [2]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
> > > On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <jeffrey.steinmetz@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a summary) -
> > > > Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we could reply here) that
> > > > outlines:
> > > >
> > > > What's the process within the zeppelin project to add additional
> > > > Committers and/or PMC members?
> > > > Who selects the people for these roles, and is there diversity beyond
> > one
> > > > affiliation/company in terms of who is selecting additional
> committers
> > or
> > > > PMC members?
> > > > Who are all the current PMC members and affiliations?
> > > > Who are all the committers and affiliations?
> > > > How would we know if you desire more members?
> > > >
> > > > I found this:
> > > > http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
> > > > Although - it's one large list with several incubator projects vs
> > > > zeppelin alone.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Jeff Steinmetz
> > > > Principal Architect
> > > > Akili Interactive Labs
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Correction
> > > > >
> > > > >from
> > > > >
> > > > >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > >
> > > > >to
> > > > >
> > > > >And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > > >
> > > > >Thanks,
> > > > >moon
> > > > >
> > > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> If i add more answer,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different affiliations. And 5
> of
> > > them
> > > > >> is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3 different
> affiliation
> > > > invited
> > > > >> since it's incubation.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it may depends
> on
> > > how
> > > > >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC
> > > [1].
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still have at least 3
> > > > >> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the case of all
> PPMC
> > > > >> disappearing from any particular affiliation. Project still able
> to
> > > make
> > > > >> any decisions.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement of graduation
> > > > according
> > > > >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that Roman mention).
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to affiliation.
> > > > 'Diversity'
> > > > >> can be location, language, nationality, gender, background,
> > > experience,
> > > > and
> > > > >> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC are quite
> diverse.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> One person could have more commits than others.
> > > > >> But that doesn't give more votes because of that. All people has
> the
> > > > same
> > > > >> single vote, that's effective particularly making decision in
> Apache
> > > > way.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Regarding diversity of view points,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on comment of
> PR/issue
> > > > (most
> > > > >> discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether they're strong or
> > not,
> > > > and
> > > > >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see it 'mature'
> than
> > > 'no
> > > > >> disagreement'.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> And many different of features and improvements has been discussed
> > and
> > > > >> contributed from various people/organizations, most of them
> actually
> > > > not on
> > > > >> the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can see from
> Zeppelin
> > > > >> community.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Although no one blocks post email or leave comment on any
> > discussion,
> > > If
> > > > >> we feel we need more diversity of view point, we can always
> improve
> > it
> > > > by
> > > > >> explicitly encourage participating discussion from Zeppelin's
> > > > contribution
> > > > >> guide, or by any other way.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> > > > >> [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> > > > >> <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > >> moon
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > roman@shaposhnik.org
> > > > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <
> > amos.elberg@gmail.com>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the diversity of
> the
> > > > PMC,
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project still is
> largely
> > > > >>> centered
> > > > >>> > around one individual and company.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company affiliation have
> > > been,
> > > > >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a concern in the
> > past
> > > > few
> > > > >>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that subject.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of diversity of
> > view
> > > > >>> points
> > > > >>> is quite real in my opinion.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> > As another example, I don't think we ever discussed what to do
> > > about
> > > > >>> having
> > > > >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how to get to
> > > meet
> > > > our
> > > > >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem. Interest in
> > projects
> > > > >>> waxes and wanes
> > > > >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity -- we're a bunch of
> > > > >>> volunteers and
> > > > >>> lulls are to be excepted.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > >>> Roman.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Luciano Resende
> http://twitter.com/lresende1975
> http://lresende.blogspot.com/
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Luciano Resende <lu...@gmail.com>.
+1 on graduating Zeppelin
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:24 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since last answer from Damien, there hasn't been much discussions for
> graduation.
> If all concerns are answered and explained well enough, then shell we move
> on to the vote?
>
> Thanks,
> moon
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM Corneau Damien <co...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > You can find the list of PPMC here [1], although it doesn't include the
> > affiliations.
> > We do not currently have commiters only status in the project.
> >
> > Informations about how to become a Committer is inside the Contributing
> > document of the project [2]
> >
> > For the selection, we follow the usual Apache Process:
> >
> > * Discussion on inviting a new member is created on the @private mailing
> > list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
> > * PPMCs are voting on that thread
> > * If the vote is a success, an invite will be sent to that person, and
> the
> > result is published on the mailing list if the invite is accepted.
> >
> > [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
> > [2]
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
> > On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <je...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a summary) -
> > > Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we could reply here) that
> > > outlines:
> > >
> > > What's the process within the zeppelin project to add additional
> > > Committers and/or PMC members?
> > > Who selects the people for these roles, and is there diversity beyond
> one
> > > affiliation/company in terms of who is selecting additional committers
> or
> > > PMC members?
> > > Who are all the current PMC members and affiliations?
> > > Who are all the committers and affiliations?
> > > How would we know if you desire more members?
> > >
> > > I found this:
> > > http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
> > > Although - it's one large list with several incubator projects vs
> > > zeppelin alone.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Jeff Steinmetz
> > > Principal Architect
> > > Akili Interactive Labs
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Correction
> > > >
> > > >from
> > > >
> > > >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > >
> > > >to
> > > >
> > > >And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > > >
> > > >Thanks,
> > > >moon
> > > >
> > > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
> > > >>
> > > >> If i add more answer,
> > > >>
> > > >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different affiliations. And 5 of
> > them
> > > >> is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3 different affiliation
> > > invited
> > > >> since it's incubation.
> > > >>
> > > >> I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it may depends on
> > how
> > > >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC
> > [1].
> > > >>
> > > >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still have at least 3
> > > >> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the case of all PPMC
> > > >> disappearing from any particular affiliation. Project still able to
> > make
> > > >> any decisions.
> > > >>
> > > >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement of graduation
> > > according
> > > >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that Roman mention).
> > > >>
> > > >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to affiliation.
> > > 'Diversity'
> > > >> can be location, language, nationality, gender, background,
> > experience,
> > > and
> > > >> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC are quite diverse.
> > > >>
> > > >> One person could have more commits than others.
> > > >> But that doesn't give more votes because of that. All people has the
> > > same
> > > >> single vote, that's effective particularly making decision in Apache
> > > way.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Regarding diversity of view points,
> > > >>
> > > >> To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on comment of PR/issue
> > > (most
> > > >> discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether they're strong or
> not,
> > > and
> > > >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see it 'mature' than
> > 'no
> > > >> disagreement'.
> > > >>
> > > >> And many different of features and improvements has been discussed
> and
> > > >> contributed from various people/organizations, most of them actually
> > > not on
> > > >> the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can see from Zeppelin
> > > >> community.
> > > >>
> > > >> Although no one blocks post email or leave comment on any
> discussion,
> > If
> > > >> we feel we need more diversity of view point, we can always improve
> it
> > > by
> > > >> explicitly encourage participating discussion from Zeppelin's
> > > contribution
> > > >> guide, or by any other way.
> > > >>
> > > >> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> > > >> [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> > > >> <
> > >
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> moon
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > roman@shaposhnik.org
> > > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <
> amos.elberg@gmail.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the diversity of the
> > > PMC,
> > > >>> and
> > > >>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project still is largely
> > > >>> centered
> > > >>> > around one individual and company.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company affiliation have
> > been,
> > > >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a concern in the
> past
> > > few
> > > >>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that subject.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of diversity of
> view
> > > >>> points
> > > >>> is quite real in my opinion.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > As another example, I don't think we ever discussed what to do
> > about
> > > >>> having
> > > >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how to get to
> > meet
> > > our
> > > >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem. Interest in
> projects
> > > >>> waxes and wanes
> > > >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity -- we're a bunch of
> > > >>> volunteers and
> > > >>> lulls are to be excepted.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks,
> > > >>> Roman.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Luciano Resende
http://twitter.com/lresende1975
http://lresende.blogspot.com/
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Since last answer from Damien, there hasn't been much discussions for
graduation.
If all concerns are answered and explained well enough, then shell we move
on to the vote?
Thanks,
moon
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:41 AM Corneau Damien <co...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> You can find the list of PPMC here [1], although it doesn't include the
> affiliations.
> We do not currently have commiters only status in the project.
>
> Informations about how to become a Committer is inside the Contributing
> document of the project [2]
>
> For the selection, we follow the usual Apache Process:
>
> * Discussion on inviting a new member is created on the @private mailing
> list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
> * PPMCs are voting on that thread
> * If the vote is a success, an invite will be sent to that person, and the
> result is published on the mailing list if the invite is accepted.
>
> [1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
> [2]
>
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
> On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <je...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a summary) -
> > Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we could reply here) that
> > outlines:
> >
> > What's the process within the zeppelin project to add additional
> > Committers and/or PMC members?
> > Who selects the people for these roles, and is there diversity beyond one
> > affiliation/company in terms of who is selecting additional committers or
> > PMC members?
> > Who are all the current PMC members and affiliations?
> > Who are all the committers and affiliations?
> > How would we know if you desire more members?
> >
> > I found this:
> > http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
> > Although - it's one large list with several incubator projects vs
> > zeppelin alone.
> >
> > Best,
> > Jeff Steinmetz
> > Principal Architect
> > Akili Interactive Labs
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > >Correction
> > >
> > >from
> > >
> > >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > >
> > >to
> > >
> > >And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >moon
> > >
> > >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
> > >>
> > >> If i add more answer,
> > >>
> > >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different affiliations. And 5 of
> them
> > >> is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3 different affiliation
> > invited
> > >> since it's incubation.
> > >>
> > >> I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it may depends on
> how
> > >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC
> [1].
> > >>
> > >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still have at least 3
> > >> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the case of all PPMC
> > >> disappearing from any particular affiliation. Project still able to
> make
> > >> any decisions.
> > >>
> > >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement of graduation
> > according
> > >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that Roman mention).
> > >>
> > >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to affiliation.
> > 'Diversity'
> > >> can be location, language, nationality, gender, background,
> experience,
> > and
> > >> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC are quite diverse.
> > >>
> > >> One person could have more commits than others.
> > >> But that doesn't give more votes because of that. All people has the
> > same
> > >> single vote, that's effective particularly making decision in Apache
> > way.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Regarding diversity of view points,
> > >>
> > >> To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on comment of PR/issue
> > (most
> > >> discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether they're strong or not,
> > and
> > >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see it 'mature' than
> 'no
> > >> disagreement'.
> > >>
> > >> And many different of features and improvements has been discussed and
> > >> contributed from various people/organizations, most of them actually
> > not on
> > >> the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can see from Zeppelin
> > >> community.
> > >>
> > >> Although no one blocks post email or leave comment on any discussion,
> If
> > >> we feel we need more diversity of view point, we can always improve it
> > by
> > >> explicitly encourage participating discussion from Zeppelin's
> > contribution
> > >> guide, or by any other way.
> > >>
> > >> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> > >> [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> > >> <
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> moon
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> roman@shaposhnik.org
> > >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the diversity of the
> > PMC,
> > >>> and
> > >>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project still is largely
> > >>> centered
> > >>> > around one individual and company.
> > >>>
> > >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company affiliation have
> been,
> > >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a concern in the past
> > few
> > >>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that subject.
> > >>>
> > >>> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of diversity of view
> > >>> points
> > >>> is quite real in my opinion.
> > >>>
> > >>> > As another example, I don't think we ever discussed what to do
> about
> > >>> having
> > >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how to get to
> meet
> > our
> > >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> > >>>
> > >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem. Interest in projects
> > >>> waxes and wanes
> > >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity -- we're a bunch of
> > >>> volunteers and
> > >>> lulls are to be excepted.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>> Roman.
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Corneau Damien <co...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jeff,
You can find the list of PPMC here [1], although it doesn't include the
affiliations.
We do not currently have commiters only status in the project.
Informations about how to become a Committer is inside the Contributing
document of the project [2]
For the selection, we follow the usual Apache Process:
* Discussion on inviting a new member is created on the @private mailing
list (any PPMC can create a discussion)
* PPMCs are voting on that thread
* If the vote is a success, an invite will be sent to that person, and the
result is published on the mailing list if the invite is accepted.
[1] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html
[2]
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#becoming-a-committer
On Feb 16, 2016 4:42 PM, "Jeff Steinmetz" <je...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a summary) -
> Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we could reply here) that
> outlines:
>
> What's the process within the zeppelin project to add additional
> Committers and/or PMC members?
> Who selects the people for these roles, and is there diversity beyond one
> affiliation/company in terms of who is selecting additional committers or
> PMC members?
> Who are all the current PMC members and affiliations?
> Who are all the committers and affiliations?
> How would we know if you desire more members?
>
> I found this:
> http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
> Although - it's one large list with several incubator projects vs
> zeppelin alone.
>
> Best,
> Jeff Steinmetz
> Principal Architect
> Akili Interactive Labs
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >Correction
> >
> >from
> >
> >And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> >
> >to
> >
> >And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> >
> >Thanks,
> >moon
> >
> >On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
> >>
> >> If i add more answer,
> >>
> >> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different affiliations. And 5 of them
> >> is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3 different affiliation
> invited
> >> since it's incubation.
> >>
> >> I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it may depends on how
> >> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
> >>
> >> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still have at least 3
> >> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the case of all PPMC
> >> disappearing from any particular affiliation. Project still able to make
> >> any decisions.
> >>
> >> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement of graduation
> according
> >> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that Roman mention).
> >>
> >> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to affiliation.
> 'Diversity'
> >> can be location, language, nationality, gender, background, experience,
> and
> >> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC are quite diverse.
> >>
> >> One person could have more commits than others.
> >> But that doesn't give more votes because of that. All people has the
> same
> >> single vote, that's effective particularly making decision in Apache
> way.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regarding diversity of view points,
> >>
> >> To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on comment of PR/issue
> (most
> >> discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether they're strong or not,
> and
> >> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see it 'mature' than 'no
> >> disagreement'.
> >>
> >> And many different of features and improvements has been discussed and
> >> contributed from various people/organizations, most of them actually
> not on
> >> the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can see from Zeppelin
> >> community.
> >>
> >> Although no one blocks post email or leave comment on any discussion, If
> >> we feel we need more diversity of view point, we can always improve it
> by
> >> explicitly encourage participating discussion from Zeppelin's
> contribution
> >> guide, or by any other way.
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> >> [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> >> <
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> moon
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <roman@shaposhnik.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the diversity of the
> PMC,
> >>> and
> >>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project still is largely
> >>> centered
> >>> > around one individual and company.
> >>>
> >>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company affiliation have been,
> >>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a concern in the past
> few
> >>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that subject.
> >>>
> >>> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of diversity of view
> >>> points
> >>> is quite real in my opinion.
> >>>
> >>> > As another example, I don't think we ever discussed what to do about
> >>> having
> >>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how to get to meet
> our
> >>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
> >>>
> >>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem. Interest in projects
> >>> waxes and wanes
> >>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity -- we're a bunch of
> >>> volunteers and
> >>> lulls are to be excepted.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Roman.
> >>>
> >>
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Jeff Steinmetz <je...@gmail.com>.
Mainly for clarity (as I may have missed such a summary) -
Is there a summary that exists (or perhaps we could reply here) that outlines:
What's the process within the zeppelin project to add additional Committers and/or PMC members?
Who selects the people for these roles, and is there diversity beyond one affiliation/company in terms of who is selecting additional committers or PMC members?
Who are all the current PMC members and affiliations?
Who are all the committers and affiliations?
How would we know if you desire more members?
I found this: http://people.apache.org/committers-by-project.html#incubator
Although - it's one large list with several incubator projects vs zeppelin alone.
Best,
Jeff Steinmetz
Principal Architect
Akili Interactive Labs
On 2/11/16, 9:31 PM, "moon soo Lee" <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>Correction
>
>from
>
>And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
>
>to
>
>And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
>
>Thanks,
>moon
>
>On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
>>
>> If i add more answer,
>>
>> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different affiliations. And 5 of them
>> is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3 different affiliation invited
>> since it's incubation.
>>
>> I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it may depends on how
>> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
>>
>> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still have at least 3
>> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the case of all PPMC
>> disappearing from any particular affiliation. Project still able to make
>> any decisions.
>>
>> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement of graduation according
>> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that Roman mention).
>>
>> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to affiliation. 'Diversity'
>> can be location, language, nationality, gender, background, experience, and
>> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC are quite diverse.
>>
>> One person could have more commits than others.
>> But that doesn't give more votes because of that. All people has the same
>> single vote, that's effective particularly making decision in Apache way.
>>
>>
>> Regarding diversity of view points,
>>
>> To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on comment of PR/issue (most
>> discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether they're strong or not, and
>> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see it 'mature' than 'no
>> disagreement'.
>>
>> And many different of features and improvements has been discussed and
>> contributed from various people/organizations, most of them actually not on
>> the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can see from Zeppelin
>> community.
>>
>> Although no one blocks post email or leave comment on any discussion, If
>> we feel we need more diversity of view point, we can always improve it by
>> explicitly encourage participating discussion from Zeppelin's contribution
>> guide, or by any other way.
>>
>> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
>> [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
>> <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> moon
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the diversity of the PMC,
>>> and
>>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project still is largely
>>> centered
>>> > around one individual and company.
>>>
>>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company affiliation have been,
>>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a concern in the past few
>>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that subject.
>>>
>>> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of diversity of view
>>> points
>>> is quite real in my opinion.
>>>
>>> > As another example, I don't think we ever discussed what to do about
>>> having
>>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how to get to meet our
>>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
>>>
>>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem. Interest in projects
>>> waxes and wanes
>>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity -- we're a bunch of
>>> volunteers and
>>> lulls are to be excepted.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Roman.
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
Correction
from
And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
to
And programmer is not a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
Thanks,
moon
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 2:30 PM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
>
> If i add more answer,
>
> So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different affiliations. And 5 of them
> is work in the same company. 3 of them from 3 different affiliation invited
> since it's incubation.
>
> I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it may depends on how
> you define 'programmer'. And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
>
> In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still have at least 3
> different PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the case of all PPMC
> disappearing from any particular affiliation. Project still able to make
> any decisions.
>
> Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement of graduation according
> to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that Roman mention).
>
> I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to affiliation. 'Diversity'
> can be location, language, nationality, gender, background, experience, and
> so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC are quite diverse.
>
> One person could have more commits than others.
> But that doesn't give more votes because of that. All people has the same
> single vote, that's effective particularly making decision in Apache way.
>
>
> Regarding diversity of view points,
>
> To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on comment of PR/issue (most
> discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether they're strong or not, and
> most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see it 'mature' than 'no
> disagreement'.
>
> And many different of features and improvements has been discussed and
> contributed from various people/organizations, most of them actually not on
> the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can see from Zeppelin
> community.
>
> Although no one blocks post email or leave comment on any discussion, If
> we feel we need more diversity of view point, we can always improve it by
> explicitly encourage participating discussion from Zeppelin's contribution
> guide, or by any other way.
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
> [2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
> <http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E>
>
> Thanks,
> moon
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the diversity of the PMC,
>> and
>> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project still is largely
>> centered
>> > around one individual and company.
>>
>> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company affiliation have been,
>> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a concern in the past few
>> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that subject.
>>
>> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of diversity of view
>> points
>> is quite real in my opinion.
>>
>> > As another example, I don't think we ever discussed what to do about
>> having
>> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how to get to meet our
>> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
>>
>> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem. Interest in projects
>> waxes and wanes
>> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity -- we're a bunch of
>> volunteers and
>> lulls are to be excepted.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
Appreciate Amos, for sharing thoughtful concerns.
If i add more answer,
So far, Zeppelin has 8 PPMC from 4 different affiliations. And 5 of them is
work in the same company. 3 of them from 3 different affiliation invited
since it's incubation.
I personally think all 3 are good programmer, but it may depends on how you
define 'programmer'. And programmer is a requirement of (P)PMC [1].
In point of view of survival, Zeppelin will still have at least 3 different
PPMC from 3 different affiliation, in the case of all PPMC disappearing
from any particular affiliation. Project still able to make any decisions.
Diversity of PPMC affiliation is not a requirement of graduation according
to this thread [2] (I guess this is the email that Roman mention).
I think meaning of 'diversity' is not limited to affiliation. 'Diversity'
can be location, language, nationality, gender, background, experience, and
so on. In this perspective, I think Zeppelin PPMC are quite diverse.
One person could have more commits than others.
But that doesn't give more votes because of that. All people has the same
single vote, that's effective particularly making decision in Apache way.
Regarding diversity of view points,
To me, I always see different opinions, ideas on comment of PR/issue (most
discussions are happening on PR/issue) whether they're strong or not, and
most of them, eventually converged. I'd like to see it 'mature' than 'no
disagreement'.
And many different of features and improvements has been discussed and
contributed from various people/organizations, most of them actually not on
the roadmap. Thats another form of diversity I can see from Zeppelin
community.
Although no one blocks post email or leave comment on any discussion, If we
feel we need more diversity of view point, we can always improve it by
explicitly encourage participating discussion from Zeppelin's contribution
guide, or by any other way.
[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#pmc
[2] http://markmail.org/message/5l5hsygvntcx5fqb
<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201507.mbox/%3C20150721204853.GG28615@boudnik.org%3E>
Thanks,
moon
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:56 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the diversity of the PMC,
> and
> > whether graduation is being rushed. The project still is largely
> centered
> > around one individual and company.
>
> FWIW: the diversity requirements around company affiliation have been,
> if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a concern in the past few
> years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that subject.
>
> Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of diversity of view
> points
> is quite real in my opinion.
>
> > As another example, I don't think we ever discussed what to do about
> having
> > fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how to get to meet our
> > standard, we adjusted the standard.
>
> That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem. Interest in projects
> waxes and wanes
> all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity -- we're a bunch of
> volunteers and
> lulls are to be excepted.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the diversity of the PMC, and
> whether graduation is being rushed. The project still is largely centered
> around one individual and company.
FWIW: the diversity requirements around company affiliation have been,
if not de-emphasized, but made at least less of a concern in the past few
years. Search for emails from Roy Fielding on that subject.
Another concern that you are raising -- the lack of diversity of view points
is quite real in my opinion.
> As another example, I don't think we ever discussed what to do about having
> fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how to get to meet our
> standard, we adjusted the standard.
That is, also, strictly speaking not a problem. Interest in projects
waxes and wanes
all the time. ASF is not a commercial entity -- we're a bunch of volunteers and
lulls are to be excepted.
Thanks,
Roman.
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>.
Thank you, Moon, I appreciate that. I've tried to give some deep thought
over the last couple of days to clarifying, for myself, what my concern has
been. Cos' email of the other day was particularly helpful, and I took his
points to heart.
In my view, there are two concerns, which are distinct. One of them is a
graduation issue, and one of them is not.
The one that is a graduation issue, concerns the diversity of the PMC, and
whether graduation is being rushed. The project still is largely centered
around one individual and company. The size of *code* contributions from
outside is vanishingly small. Whether the number of "independents" on the
PMC is 1 or 2, is beside the point. I think that's reflected in the path
that these disagreements took.
I think its also reflected in a startling *lack*of disagreement on the
mailing list in general.
It isn't necessarily *bad* for a project to center around one person, and
that one person did contribute most of the code. But it does suggest that
as an *Apache* project, perhaps it needs more time to mature.
As an example, since incubation began, I don't think we've added any
*programmers* to the PMC who aren't affiliated with the same company. Why?
As another example, I don't think we ever discussed what to do about having
fallen behind the roadmap. Instead of looking at how to get to meet our
standard, we adjusted the standard.
I think the project would benefit from an opportunity to catch up to its
own goals. Let the codebase become more diverse, reflecting code (not just
documentation and 3d party interpreters) from a wider range of the
community. And the community should have a chance to show that it is able
to have, and resolve, healthy disagreements on its own.
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 11:49 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Amos,
>
> As you see, other PPMC started helping your PR. I hope that makes you feel
> more comfortable.
>
> Also I'd like to take your concern about zeppelin's graduation more
> seriously.
>
> So, could you list out your official concern about the zeppelin's
> graduation?
>
> Then me and other PPMC are willing to answer.
>
>
> One thing i want to ask is, actually having and express concern is very
> good thing and encouraging. It is part of community diversity, right? But
> let's keep in mind that other people is also free to have different
> opinion.
>
> With this respect, i'll be happy to continue the discussion.
>
> Thanks,
> moon
>
> On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 11:58 Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Moon - Are you now actually claiming that, even if what I'm saying is
> true
> > (which it is) that Felix' conduct is acceptable to the project?
> >
> > (As for how I know Felix never wrote anything on his own, there's a
> record
> > on github.)
> >
> > > I have asked Felix to help review in your PR. Actually not only Felix
> but
> > > others, too. Hope that's not a problem for you, because of reviewing
> code
> > > is open for everyone.
> >
> > "Review" is not the same thing as "manage," "supervise," "oversee."
> Felix
> > claimed you had put him *in charge* of it. You've never denied this.
> >
> > The story you're giving doesn't make any sense. Your version works
> > something like this:
> >
> > Your friend contacted you to say that a PR submitted by a new contributor
> > contained material stolen from him. You decided to ignore the PR, until
> > the new contributor contacted you. When you heard his story, you asked
> both
> > sides to try to move on. But, immediately after that, you asked your
> > friend to "supervise" the new contributor. While that was happening, you
> > went to an event where you saw your friend present an alternative version
> > of what the contributor had done. But, you didn't say "hey buddy, I
> asked
> > you to help that guy out with this, why are you doing a competing version
> > instead?"
> >
> > What I think happened, is that Felix was trying to make a code
> contribution
> > because he wanted to become a committer, and he wanted the R work to be
> his
> > contribution, but he wasn't able to do it because he doesn't know how to
> > code. I think you were trying to help your friend out, and that's why you
> > asked him to "supervise" the work. I think after I refused to work
> further
> > with Felix, you intended to just ignore the whole thing until it went
> away.
> > Which, honestly, it would have - except that people found the work on
> my
> > repo through google and it accumulated users. I think the stuff since
> has
> > been a cover for what happened before.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:39 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Amos, i'm not sure how you can so sure about other people is lying and
> > not
> > > so straight and stealing your work.
> > >
> > > You maybe have little bit of misunderstanding in Apache open source
> > > project.
> > >
> > > Normally, not a individual contributor / committer 'own' a source code.
> > The
> > > code belongs to ASF in my understanding. And if you help people and
> > > 'contribute' code and involve project, everyone in the community
> > recognize
> > > your effort and that's how you get credit in the opensource project.
> Not
> > by
> > > claimming ownership of the single piece of source code. So anyone has
> > > absolutely no reason to steal your work.
> > >
> > > And committers are not manager who manages CI. CI is part of opensource
> > > project and it's open to everyone for improvement.
> > > Of course committer is willing to help, like I volunteered look in to
> > your
> > > brach to test CI, but basically you can do it yourself, too. Nothing
> > stops
> > > it.
> > >
> > > Also zeppelin community did not organized that seattle meetup last year
> > and
> > > i had been invited. So i should say 3rd party meetup.
> > >
> > > Hope this help you look project in a different view.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > moon
> > >
> > > On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 9:35 Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > No Moon, you're not being straight about this.
> > > >
> > > > The subject here is the maturity of the project. Part of that is the
> > > > conduct of two members of the PMC.
> > > >
> > > > I am now sharing publicly what I have been trying to resolve
> privately
> > > > for months.
> > > >
> > > > > I think CI stability is not a problem for graduation. . . CI has
> > > > > no problem in general.
> > > >
> > > > What *is* a problem for the project (graduation or not) is whether
> the
> > > > project is *OPEN AND HONEST ABOUT CODE QUALITY*.
> > > >
> > > > CI is an example where the response has been defensiveness and denial
> > > > rather than openness or honesty. There is another example below:
> > > >
> > > > > I must say clearly, pr208 is not merged because of it does not pass
> > > > > ci test, not because of CI is broken. Please don't confuse.
> > > >
> > > > That is absolutely false.
> > > >
> > > > Many PRs have been merged even though they broke CI. With PR 208, the
> > > > only part that fails CI are the new tests *OF PR 208*. If the tests
> > > > weren't there, CI would pass.
> > > >
> > > > It was *me* who insisted on fixing CI for merger! And Moon has
> > > > admitted that the problem is not in the PR - it's in CI. Moon
> > > > personally promised in December to fix it.
> > > >
> > > > > I don't see anyone in the community try to steal your work. You
> > > > > always pointing Felix but he said he used his own work.
> > > >
> > > > And I showed you the commit record, which proved that he was lying.
> > > >
> > > > > Zeppelin community is not judging what happened in a 3rd party
> > > > > meetup.
> > > >
> > > > Third party? Moon, you were a participant! It was part of your own
> > > > presentation!
> > > >
> > > > And it was made at a time when you had "officially," supposedly,
> asked
> > > > Felix to "supervise" the PR.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 23:59 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > > Amos,
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think CI stability is not a problem for graduation.
> > > > > CI sometimes break, but always fixed and back online in a day. CI
> has
> > > > > no
> > > > > problem in general.
> > > > >
> > > > > I must say clearly, pr208 is not merged because of it does not pass
> > > > > ci
> > > > > test, not because of CI is broken. Please don't confuse.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't see anyone in the community try to steal your work. You
> > > > > always
> > > > > pointing Felix but he said he used his own work.
> > > > >
> > > > > Zeppelin community is not judging what happened in a 3rd party
> > > > > meetup.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please go to law court with your evidence if you think someone
> stole
> > > > > your
> > > > > work for the presentation for the meetup. That's better instead of
> > > > > complaining in graduation discussion thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > moon
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 7:44 Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The topic here is supposed to be an open, honest, objective
> > > > > > evaluation
> > > > > > of the project against the criteria in the checklist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would like us to stick to the subject.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > QU10 The project is open and honest about the quality of
> its
> > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI
> issues
> > > > > > > > were first reported, the response for some three months was
> > > > > > > > "there can't be anything wrong so we won't bother looking."
> ...
> > > > > > > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > > > > > > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always
> > > > > > > try
> > > > > > > to fix and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The issue is whether the project is "open and honest" about code
> > > > > > quality. Or defensive (and hostile).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CI isn't broken? How many PRs have been merged in the last month
> > > > > > with a
> > > > > > note to not worry that they don't pass CI because its broken?
> More
> > > > > > than a month ago Moon personally committed to fix it, and NFlabs
> > > > > > has a
> > > > > > project to completely replace it because its so unstable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think Moon has just proven my point.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing
> > > > > > > > > secure
> > > > > > > > > software.
> > > > > > > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi
> > > > > > > -user
> > > > > > > PR, too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not really... Usually the answer was to refer people to NFlabs,
> or
> > > > > > say
> > > > > > its something that would be discussed in the future.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There was an example on the User list yesterday.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when
> they
> > > > > > > need authentication even before it is being merged.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If that were true then why was the PR was ignored for so long?
> The
> > > > > > excuse in December was that the PR was forgotten about.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards
> > > > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > > and aims to document any incompatible changes and provide
> > > > > > > > > tools >
> > > > > > > > and documentation to help users transition . . .
> > > > > > > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to,
> > > > > > > > e.g.,
> > > > > > > > the. . . that broke code and broke installations, but were
> > > > > > > > never documented.
> > > > > > > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so
> > > > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > > nothing to document."
> > > > > > > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > > > > > > Integration since way Spark integration changes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's not correct. In fact Moon and I had an e-mail exchange
> about
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > in August and September, and its been discussed several times in
> PR
> > > > > > comments.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This issue is *still* breaking builds for people, and it comes up
> > > > > > on the
> > > > > > user help list every few days. And that's just one issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Moon has, again, made my point.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug
> reports
> > > > > > > > > in > >
> > > > > > > timely manner.
> > > > > > > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted
> in
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple people
> > > > > > > > and the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > > > > > > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not correct. Fixes to typos and grammar errors in documentation,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > changes to the shading of windows, are not "bug fixes."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the 0.5.6 vote I asked if there were any substantive changes
> or
> > > > > > bug
> > > > > > fixes in 0.5.6. The twitter-bug was the only example that anyone
> > > > > > was able
> > > > > > to produce.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway, the question is still why that PR and the bug reports
> were
> > > > > > ignored
> > > > > > in September, October, November, before twitter complained?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The issue is whether *the project* is responding to bug reports
> in
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > timely manner. My example shows that it is not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor
> > > > > > > > > Agreement
> > > > > > > > > (the "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are
> allowed
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > commit and how they need to identify code that is not their
> > > > > > > > > own.
> > > > > > > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > the iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and
> didn't
> > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > anything about it.
> > > > > > > If you want, you can always sign ICLA...
> > > > > > > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > > > > > > Committer, who already signed ICLA. So signing ICLA for
> > > > > > > contributor
> > > > > > > is not mandatory.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Part of the iCLA is also *honesty* about the attribution of code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > CO20 The community welcomes contributions from anyone who
> > > > > > > > > acts in >
> > > > > > > > good faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is that a joke? One current member of the PMC tried to bully me
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > crediting him for work he hadn't done. Then tried to stall the PR
> > > > > > while
> > > > > > publicly claiming authorship. And another member of the PMC
> covered
> > > > > > -up for
> > > > > > him.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to
> give
> > > > > > > > > more rights and responsibilities to contributors who add
> > > > > > > > > value to
> > > > > > > > > the project.
> > > > > > > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer
> > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > isn't an affiliate of NFLabs. That person is not a programmer
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > has made no contribution to the Zeppelin codebase.
> > > > > > > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2
> > > > > > > committers
> > > > > > > are out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> > > > > > > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Google says 6 are affiliated with NFLabs. Of the two who are not,
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > is Felix.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs,
> > > > > > > marketing,
> > > > > > > etc). It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> > > > > > > contribution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is true. But the question is whether the project is a
> > > > > > 'meritocracy.' In this case, the non-programmer committer is
> Felix,
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > personal friend of Moon's who has a record of dishonesty.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in
> > > > > > > > > written
> > > > > > > > > form on the project's main communications channel. Offline,
> > > > > > > > > face
> > > > > > -> > > to-face or private discussions that affect the project are
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > documented on that channel.
> > > > > > > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.>
> >
> > > > > > > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish
> result
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > the mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline,
> > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > discussion in the meetup, discussion in the conference,
> > > > > > > discussion in
> > > > > > > personal email, we move that into the mailing list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are examples mentioned already in this email chain...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 20:36 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:37 AM Amos Elberg <
> > amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since subtlety has not worked, I will now be blunter.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The reason PR 208 has been delayed since August is that Felix
> > > > > > > > Cheung
> > > > > > > > demanded that I credit him as a co-author even though he
> hadn't
> > > > > > > > done
> > > > > > > > any work.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When I refused, Felix privately contacted Moon, who is his
> > > > > > > > friend,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > claimed the PR contained Felix' intellectual property. Moon
> > > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > > held
> > > > > > > > the PR at Felix' request.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I found out what happened after I pursued Moon to ask why the
> > > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > been ignored. When he told me what happened, I had to offer
> e
> > > > > > > > -mail
> > > > > > > > chains and commit logs to prove that Felix was lying.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since then, its been one bogus, junk reason for delay after
> > > > > > > > another.
> > > > > > > > For a while, this seems to be because Moon wanted to give
> Felix
> > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > produce a competing implementation. Except, Felix wasn't
> able
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > it. I caught him trying to pass-off code he'd stolen as his
> > > > > > > > own,
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > Moon (who should have known) present.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > When I confronted Moon he told me, basically, "don't rock our
> > > > > > > > boat."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If anyone has any doubt about whether what I've said is
> true, I
> > > > > > > > have the
> > > > > > > > email chains, the commit logs, the chat records...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I believe the reason PRs have been delayed is that they
> > > > > > > > conflicted
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > other goals of either NFLabs, or friends of committers. Such
> as
> > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > PRs, when NFlabs offers multi-user functionality commercially
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > outside
> > > > > > > > the project.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Here are my comments on the draft checklist:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > QU10The project is open and honest about the quality of its
> > > > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > > Various levels of quality and maturity for various modules
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > natural and acceptable as long as they are clearly
> > > > > > > > > communicated.
> > > > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI
> issues
> > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > first reported, the response for some three months was "there
> > > > > > > > can't
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > anything wrong so we won't bother looking." Now its
> > > > > > > > acknowledged
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > CI is basically broken for the whole project.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are many such examples.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > > > > > > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always
> > > > > > > try
> > > > > > > to fix
> > > > > > > and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > QU20The project puts a very high priority on producing
> secure
> > > > > > > > > software.
> > > > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The evidence is otherwise.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > While many people ask about security features, the response
> has
> > > > > > > > always
> > > > > > > > been from the PMC "some day," with no progress made. When
> > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > members tried to contribute the code --- the Shiro PR was
> > > > > > > > inexplicably
> > > > > > > > delayed by 4+ months; and the reaction to the new multi-user
> PR
> > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > seems unusual, etc.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe the project intends to make security a priority in the
> > > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > > But so far it has not.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi
> > > > > > > -user
> > > > > > > PR,
> > > > > > > too.
> > > > > > > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when
> they
> > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > authentication even before it is being merged.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And SSL support, securing cross origin access, etc, there're
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > improvement effort that already been done and merged.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think project is not producing secure software.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards
> > > > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > documentation to help users transition to new features.
> > > > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to,
> > > > > > > > e.g.,
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > way Zeppelin has to be configured, the way Spark integrates
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > Zeppelin, etc., that broke code and broke installations, but
> > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > never
> > > > > > > > documented.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so
> there's
> > > > > > > > nothing to document." But that is not the case.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > > > > > > Integration
> > > > > > > since way Spark integration changes. And it still does
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you don't think it's enough, you can always contribute the
> > > > > > > documentation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug
> reports
> > > > > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > > > timely manner.Yes
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted
> in
> > > > > > > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple
> > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is just one example.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes. see
> > > > > > >
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=
> > > > > > > 1231
> > > > > > > 6221&version=12334165
> > > > > > > I don't think bug fixes are ignored.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can always help fix the bug. Project does not officially
> > > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > twitter about the bug.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor
> > > > > > > > > Agreement
> > > > > > > > > (the
> > > > > > > > > "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed to
> > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > and how they need to identify code that is not their own.
> > > > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent
> > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't
> do
> > > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > about it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you want, you can always sign ICLA.
> > > > > > > https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > > > > > > Committer,
> > > > > > > who already signed ICLA.
> > > > > > > So signing ICLA for contributor is not mandatory.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > CO20
> > > > > > > > > The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts
> in
> > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See above.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to
> give
> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value
> to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer
> > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > isn't
> > > > > > > > an affiliate of NFLabs.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That person is not a programmer and has made no contribution
> to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Zeppelin codebase.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2
> > > > > > > committers
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs,
> > > > > > > marketing,
> > > > > > > etc).
> > > > > > > It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> > > > > > > contribution.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > CO50
> > > > > > > > > The way in which contributors can be granted more rights
> such
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > commit access or decision power is clearly documented and
> is
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > > for all contributors.
> > > > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > See above.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in
> > > > > > > > written
> > > > > > > > form
> > > > > > > > > on the project's main communications channel. Offline, face
> > > > > > > > > -to
> > > > > > > > > -face
> > > > > > > > > or private discussions that affect the project are also
> > > > > > > > > documented on
> > > > > > > > > that channel.
> > > > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish
> result
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline, like
> > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > in the meetup, discussion in the conference, discussion in
> > > > > > > personal
> > > > > > > email,
> > > > > > > we move that into the mailing list.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > IN10The project is independent from any corporate or
> > > > > > > > > organizational
> > > > > > > > > influence.
> > > > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm not so sure...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 23:50 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I have filled out all checklists and commented as much as i
> > > > > > > > > can.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please review
> > > > > > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Z
> > > > > > > > > eppe
> > > > > > > > > lin+
> > > > > > > > > Project+Maturity+Model
> > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Did i filled out correctly? Any feedback would be really
> > > > > > > > > appreciated.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:03 AM moon soo Lee <
> moon@apache.org
> > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I have created
> > > > > > > > > >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache
> > > > > > > > > > +Zep
> > > > > > > > > > peli
> > > > > > > > > > n+Project+Maturity+Model and
> > > > > > > > > > trying to fill out Apache Maturity Model checklist.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Let me notify this thread when everything is filled out.
> > > > > > > > > > And any comment, help would be appreciated.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > > > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were
> to
> > > > > > > > > > > fill
> > > > > > > > > > > out the
> > > > > > > > > > > Apache Maturity Model
> > > > > > > > > > > checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > Roman.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <
> > > > > > > > > > > minalee@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for
> graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more
> > > > > > > > > > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Number of
> > > > > > > > > > > > contributors has increased more than 7 times and
> three
> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > committers
> > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling
> project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > release, vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big
> > > > > > > > > > > > synergy
> > > > > > > > > > > > with other
> > > > > > > > > > > > apache projects by providing different back-end
> > > > > > > > > > > > interpreters(ex
> > > > > > > > > > > > spark,
> > > > > > > > > > > > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > so +1 for graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <
> > > > > > > > > > > madhukaudantha@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > doanduyhai@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo
> about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > maturity model. (
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-mat
> > > > > > > > > > > urit
> > > > > > > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > producing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > secure
> > > > > > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's related to security and I know that there
> is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > on Shiro
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him
> by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way). There is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kerberos (
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/6
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 40).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know
> > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on
> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > chapter
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > security,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the works are being done and are on good way.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Under the Community topic, I think all the points
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > covered (for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > documented
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > CONTRIBUTING.md)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as well as consensus (point CO60).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > related to
> > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now my personal opinion as a community member is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > high
> > > > > > > > > > > time for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > comfortable
> > > > > > > > > > > advising
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > lack of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but since security support (at least for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > authentication) is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > > > > trunk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > blocker anymore.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So a big +1 for me
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ahyoungryu93@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think
> it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, ++1 !
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anthonycorbacho@apache.org>님이
> > > > > > > > > > > 작성한
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 메시지:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start
> a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any
> specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (For
> > > > > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the
> > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as TLP),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so for me its a big +1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Garcia <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incubator.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think we
> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that also
> > > > > > > > > > > will be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > greatly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander
> Bezzubov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jakob,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and get
> > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oppinions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from other participants - that would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > awesome!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the next release here, but please feel
> free
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion on technical details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jghoman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey all-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A data point and observation from an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ASF
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > community development and adherence to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Way,
> > > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > entering
> > > > > > > > > > > Incubator,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > releases,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finished
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incubation checklist
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (
> > http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > peli
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > n.ht
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ml), has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's
> in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > position to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from my perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handled
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a speedy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > matter,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > disagreement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that -
> > > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jakob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we didn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented
> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *in* 208
> > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > functioning.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to
> fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is broken
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > myself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proven
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the field:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > People
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the
> version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in my repo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since
> August,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's very
> > > > > > > > > > > hard to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meetup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > September
> > > > > > > > > > > > > where a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > variant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dealing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > significant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > outside the core development team.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Addressing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > R,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maturity.
> > > > > > > > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-beta release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon
> soo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sourav for interest in this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > valuable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree how much R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication (which
> > > > > > > > > > > i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in Zeppelin) will be useful for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > users.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believe me, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in Zeppelin more than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But at the same time we have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diversity of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user bases.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people might think supporting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JDBC is more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful feature, the other can think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > multi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -tenancy is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, i believe Apache Top Level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > defined by how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > works,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not defined by what feature does
> the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > includes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding bringing R into main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tried to make
> > > > > > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > passes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could able to make it pass 1 test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profile,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > couldn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other test profiles.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm suggesting split the
> contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > smaller
> > > > > > > > > > > peaces
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one. Like Hayssam did it for his
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Shiro
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (pr586). And I'm volunteering
> making
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into smaller
> > > > > > > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM
> Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com
> > <javascript:;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This does make sense Moon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Completely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with you
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important for becoming a top
> level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my opinion, from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > > > standpoint,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two features Zeppelin does not
> look
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > > > > fledged
> > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious whether there are any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > technical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glitches which
> > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impediment
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bringing these features to the
> main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wondering
> > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to get those problems fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > soo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think any feature (R or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prerequisites
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation. Especially when a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never setup
> > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation goal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Including specific features
> could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valid concern for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but i don't think it's related
> to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graduation is much more like if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is doing it in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding. Last time the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't go
> > > > > > > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is, because of there were valid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impasse.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since that, community improved
> /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarified
> > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > guide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > process. And Zeppelin PPMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > members
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that they have been as a open
> PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jongyoul
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Felix helped a lot)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, let's move discussions like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature should
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > included'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release / roadmap discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the graduation discussion,
> i'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussions,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evaluating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-mat
> > > > > > > > > > > urit
> > > > > > > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense for you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guys?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran, Sourav?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
Amos,
As you see, other PPMC started helping your PR. I hope that makes you feel
more comfortable.
Also I'd like to take your concern about zeppelin's graduation more
seriously.
So, could you list out your official concern about the zeppelin's
graduation?
Then me and other PPMC are willing to answer.
One thing i want to ask is, actually having and express concern is very
good thing and encouraging. It is part of community diversity, right? But
let's keep in mind that other people is also free to have different opinion.
With this respect, i'll be happy to continue the discussion.
Thanks,
moon
On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 11:58 Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Moon - Are you now actually claiming that, even if what I'm saying is true
> (which it is) that Felix' conduct is acceptable to the project?
>
> (As for how I know Felix never wrote anything on his own, there's a record
> on github.)
>
> > I have asked Felix to help review in your PR. Actually not only Felix but
> > others, too. Hope that's not a problem for you, because of reviewing code
> > is open for everyone.
>
> "Review" is not the same thing as "manage," "supervise," "oversee." Felix
> claimed you had put him *in charge* of it. You've never denied this.
>
> The story you're giving doesn't make any sense. Your version works
> something like this:
>
> Your friend contacted you to say that a PR submitted by a new contributor
> contained material stolen from him. You decided to ignore the PR, until
> the new contributor contacted you. When you heard his story, you asked both
> sides to try to move on. But, immediately after that, you asked your
> friend to "supervise" the new contributor. While that was happening, you
> went to an event where you saw your friend present an alternative version
> of what the contributor had done. But, you didn't say "hey buddy, I asked
> you to help that guy out with this, why are you doing a competing version
> instead?"
>
> What I think happened, is that Felix was trying to make a code contribution
> because he wanted to become a committer, and he wanted the R work to be his
> contribution, but he wasn't able to do it because he doesn't know how to
> code. I think you were trying to help your friend out, and that's why you
> asked him to "supervise" the work. I think after I refused to work further
> with Felix, you intended to just ignore the whole thing until it went away.
> Which, honestly, it would have - except that people found the work on my
> repo through google and it accumulated users. I think the stuff since has
> been a cover for what happened before.
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:39 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Amos, i'm not sure how you can so sure about other people is lying and
> not
> > so straight and stealing your work.
> >
> > You maybe have little bit of misunderstanding in Apache open source
> > project.
> >
> > Normally, not a individual contributor / committer 'own' a source code.
> The
> > code belongs to ASF in my understanding. And if you help people and
> > 'contribute' code and involve project, everyone in the community
> recognize
> > your effort and that's how you get credit in the opensource project. Not
> by
> > claimming ownership of the single piece of source code. So anyone has
> > absolutely no reason to steal your work.
> >
> > And committers are not manager who manages CI. CI is part of opensource
> > project and it's open to everyone for improvement.
> > Of course committer is willing to help, like I volunteered look in to
> your
> > brach to test CI, but basically you can do it yourself, too. Nothing
> stops
> > it.
> >
> > Also zeppelin community did not organized that seattle meetup last year
> and
> > i had been invited. So i should say 3rd party meetup.
> >
> > Hope this help you look project in a different view.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > moon
> >
> > On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 9:35 Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > No Moon, you're not being straight about this.
> > >
> > > The subject here is the maturity of the project. Part of that is the
> > > conduct of two members of the PMC.
> > >
> > > I am now sharing publicly what I have been trying to resolve privately
> > > for months.
> > >
> > > > I think CI stability is not a problem for graduation. . . CI has
> > > > no problem in general.
> > >
> > > What *is* a problem for the project (graduation or not) is whether the
> > > project is *OPEN AND HONEST ABOUT CODE QUALITY*.
> > >
> > > CI is an example where the response has been defensiveness and denial
> > > rather than openness or honesty. There is another example below:
> > >
> > > > I must say clearly, pr208 is not merged because of it does not pass
> > > > ci test, not because of CI is broken. Please don't confuse.
> > >
> > > That is absolutely false.
> > >
> > > Many PRs have been merged even though they broke CI. With PR 208, the
> > > only part that fails CI are the new tests *OF PR 208*. If the tests
> > > weren't there, CI would pass.
> > >
> > > It was *me* who insisted on fixing CI for merger! And Moon has
> > > admitted that the problem is not in the PR - it's in CI. Moon
> > > personally promised in December to fix it.
> > >
> > > > I don't see anyone in the community try to steal your work. You
> > > > always pointing Felix but he said he used his own work.
> > >
> > > And I showed you the commit record, which proved that he was lying.
> > >
> > > > Zeppelin community is not judging what happened in a 3rd party
> > > > meetup.
> > >
> > > Third party? Moon, you were a participant! It was part of your own
> > > presentation!
> > >
> > > And it was made at a time when you had "officially," supposedly, asked
> > > Felix to "supervise" the PR.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 23:59 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > Amos,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for opinion.
> > > >
> > > > I think CI stability is not a problem for graduation.
> > > > CI sometimes break, but always fixed and back online in a day. CI has
> > > > no
> > > > problem in general.
> > > >
> > > > I must say clearly, pr208 is not merged because of it does not pass
> > > > ci
> > > > test, not because of CI is broken. Please don't confuse.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't see anyone in the community try to steal your work. You
> > > > always
> > > > pointing Felix but he said he used his own work.
> > > >
> > > > Zeppelin community is not judging what happened in a 3rd party
> > > > meetup.
> > > >
> > > > Please go to law court with your evidence if you think someone stole
> > > > your
> > > > work for the presentation for the meetup. That's better instead of
> > > > complaining in graduation discussion thread.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > moon
> > > >
> > > > On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 7:44 Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The topic here is supposed to be an open, honest, objective
> > > > > evaluation
> > > > > of the project against the criteria in the checklist.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like us to stick to the subject.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > QU10 The project is open and honest about the quality of its
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI issues
> > > > > > > were first reported, the response for some three months was
> > > > > > > "there can't be anything wrong so we won't bother looking." ...
> > > > > > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > > > > > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always
> > > > > > try
> > > > > > to fix and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > The issue is whether the project is "open and honest" about code
> > > > > quality. Or defensive (and hostile).
> > > > >
> > > > > CI isn't broken? How many PRs have been merged in the last month
> > > > > with a
> > > > > note to not worry that they don't pass CI because its broken? More
> > > > > than a month ago Moon personally committed to fix it, and NFlabs
> > > > > has a
> > > > > project to completely replace it because its so unstable.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think Moon has just proven my point.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing
> > > > > > > > secure
> > > > > > > > software.
> > > > > > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi
> > > > > > -user
> > > > > > PR, too.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not really... Usually the answer was to refer people to NFlabs, or
> > > > > say
> > > > > its something that would be discussed in the future.
> > > > >
> > > > > There was an example on the User list yesterday.
> > > > >
> > > > > > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when they
> > > > > > need authentication even before it is being merged.
> > > > >
> > > > > If that were true then why was the PR was ignored for so long? The
> > > > > excuse in December was that the PR was forgotten about.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards
> > > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > and aims to document any incompatible changes and provide
> > > > > > > > tools >
> > > > > > > and documentation to help users transition . . .
> > > > > > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to,
> > > > > > > e.g.,
> > > > > > > the. . . that broke code and broke installations, but were
> > > > > > > never documented.
> > > > > > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so
> > > > > > > there's
> > > > > > > nothing to document."
> > > > > > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > > > > > Integration since way Spark integration changes.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's not correct. In fact Moon and I had an e-mail exchange about
> > > > > this
> > > > > in August and September, and its been discussed several times in PR
> > > > > comments.
> > > > >
> > > > > This issue is *still* breaking builds for people, and it comes up
> > > > > on the
> > > > > user help list every few days. And that's just one issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > Moon has, again, made my point.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug reports
> > > > > > > > in > >
> > > > > > timely manner.
> > > > > > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted in
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple people
> > > > > > > and the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > > > > > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not correct. Fixes to typos and grammar errors in documentation,
> > > > > and
> > > > > changes to the shading of windows, are not "bug fixes."
> > > > >
> > > > > In the 0.5.6 vote I asked if there were any substantive changes or
> > > > > bug
> > > > > fixes in 0.5.6. The twitter-bug was the only example that anyone
> > > > > was able
> > > > > to produce.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway, the question is still why that PR and the bug reports were
> > > > > ignored
> > > > > in September, October, November, before twitter complained?
> > > > >
> > > > > The issue is whether *the project* is responding to bug reports in
> > > > > a
> > > > > timely manner. My example shows that it is not.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor
> > > > > > > > Agreement
> > > > > > > > (the "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > commit and how they need to identify code that is not their
> > > > > > > > own.
> > > > > > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > the iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > anything about it.
> > > > > > If you want, you can always sign ICLA...
> > > > > > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > > > > > Committer, who already signed ICLA. So signing ICLA for
> > > > > > contributor
> > > > > > is not mandatory.
> > > > >
> > > > > Part of the iCLA is also *honesty* about the attribution of code.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > CO20 The community welcomes contributions from anyone who
> > > > > > > > acts in >
> > > > > > > good faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is that a joke? One current member of the PMC tried to bully me
> > > > > into
> > > > > crediting him for work he hadn't done. Then tried to stall the PR
> > > > > while
> > > > > publicly claiming authorship. And another member of the PMC covered
> > > > > -up for
> > > > > him.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to give
> > > > > > > > more rights and responsibilities to contributors who add
> > > > > > > > value to
> > > > > > > > the project.
> > > > > > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer
> > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > isn't an affiliate of NFLabs. That person is not a programmer
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > has made no contribution to the Zeppelin codebase.
> > > > > > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2
> > > > > > committers
> > > > > > are out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> > > > > > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Google says 6 are affiliated with NFLabs. Of the two who are not,
> > > > > one
> > > > > is Felix.
> > > > >
> > > > > > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs,
> > > > > > marketing,
> > > > > > etc). It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> > > > > > contribution.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is true. But the question is whether the project is a
> > > > > 'meritocracy.' In this case, the non-programmer committer is Felix,
> > > > > a
> > > > > personal friend of Moon's who has a record of dishonesty.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in
> > > > > > > > written
> > > > > > > > form on the project's main communications channel. Offline,
> > > > > > > > face
> > > > > -> > > to-face or private discussions that affect the project are
> > > > > also
> > > > > > > > documented on that channel.
> > > > > > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.> >
> > > > > > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish result
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > the mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline,
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > discussion in the meetup, discussion in the conference,
> > > > > > discussion in
> > > > > > personal email, we move that into the mailing list.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are examples mentioned already in this email chain...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 20:36 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:37 AM Amos Elberg <
> amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since subtlety has not worked, I will now be blunter.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The reason PR 208 has been delayed since August is that Felix
> > > > > > > Cheung
> > > > > > > demanded that I credit him as a co-author even though he hadn't
> > > > > > > done
> > > > > > > any work.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When I refused, Felix privately contacted Moon, who is his
> > > > > > > friend,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > claimed the PR contained Felix' intellectual property. Moon
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > held
> > > > > > > the PR at Felix' request.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I found out what happened after I pursued Moon to ask why the
> > > > > > > PR
> > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > been ignored. When he told me what happened, I had to offer e
> > > > > > > -mail
> > > > > > > chains and commit logs to prove that Felix was lying.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since then, its been one bogus, junk reason for delay after
> > > > > > > another.
> > > > > > > For a while, this seems to be because Moon wanted to give Felix
> > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > produce a competing implementation. Except, Felix wasn't able
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > it. I caught him trying to pass-off code he'd stolen as his
> > > > > > > own,
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > Moon (who should have known) present.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When I confronted Moon he told me, basically, "don't rock our
> > > > > > > boat."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If anyone has any doubt about whether what I've said is true, I
> > > > > > > have the
> > > > > > > email chains, the commit logs, the chat records...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe the reason PRs have been delayed is that they
> > > > > > > conflicted
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > other goals of either NFLabs, or friends of committers. Such as
> > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > PRs, when NFlabs offers multi-user functionality commercially
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > outside
> > > > > > > the project.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here are my comments on the draft checklist:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > QU10The project is open and honest about the quality of its
> > > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > > Various levels of quality and maturity for various modules
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > natural and acceptable as long as they are clearly
> > > > > > > > communicated.
> > > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI issues
> > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > first reported, the response for some three months was "there
> > > > > > > can't
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > anything wrong so we won't bother looking." Now its
> > > > > > > acknowledged
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > CI is basically broken for the whole project.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are many such examples.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > > > > > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always
> > > > > > try
> > > > > > to fix
> > > > > > and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > QU20The project puts a very high priority on producing secure
> > > > > > > > software.
> > > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The evidence is otherwise.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > While many people ask about security features, the response has
> > > > > > > always
> > > > > > > been from the PMC "some day," with no progress made. When
> > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > members tried to contribute the code --- the Shiro PR was
> > > > > > > inexplicably
> > > > > > > delayed by 4+ months; and the reaction to the new multi-user PR
> > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > seems unusual, etc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe the project intends to make security a priority in the
> > > > > > > future.
> > > > > > > But so far it has not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi
> > > > > > -user
> > > > > > PR,
> > > > > > too.
> > > > > > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when they
> > > > > > need
> > > > > > authentication even before it is being merged.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And SSL support, securing cross origin access, etc, there're
> > > > > > other
> > > > > > security
> > > > > > improvement effort that already been done and merged.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think project is not producing secure software.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards
> > > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > documentation to help users transition to new features.
> > > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to,
> > > > > > > e.g.,
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > way Zeppelin has to be configured, the way Spark integrates
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > Zeppelin, etc., that broke code and broke installations, but
> > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > never
> > > > > > > documented.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so there's
> > > > > > > nothing to document." But that is not the case.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > > > > > Integration
> > > > > > since way Spark integration changes. And it still does
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you don't think it's enough, you can always contribute the
> > > > > > documentation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug reports
> > > > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > > timely manner.Yes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted in
> > > > > > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple
> > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is just one example.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes. see
> > > > > >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=
> > > > > > 1231
> > > > > > 6221&version=12334165
> > > > > > I don't think bug fixes are ignored.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can always help fix the bug. Project does not officially
> > > > > > discuss
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > twitter about the bug.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor
> > > > > > > > Agreement
> > > > > > > > (the
> > > > > > > > "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed to
> > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > and how they need to identify code that is not their own.
> > > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't do
> > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > about it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > If you want, you can always sign ICLA.
> > > > > > https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > > > > > Committer,
> > > > > > who already signed ICLA.
> > > > > > So signing ICLA for contributor is not mandatory.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > CO20
> > > > > > > > The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts in
> > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See above.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to give
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer
> > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > isn't
> > > > > > > an affiliate of NFLabs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That person is not a programmer and has made no contribution to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > Zeppelin codebase.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2
> > > > > > committers
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs,
> > > > > > marketing,
> > > > > > etc).
> > > > > > It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> > > > > > contribution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > CO50
> > > > > > > > The way in which contributors can be granted more rights such
> > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > commit access or decision power is clearly documented and is
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > for all contributors.
> > > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > See above.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in
> > > > > > > written
> > > > > > > form
> > > > > > > > on the project's main communications channel. Offline, face
> > > > > > > > -to
> > > > > > > > -face
> > > > > > > > or private discussions that affect the project are also
> > > > > > > > documented on
> > > > > > > > that channel.
> > > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish result
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline, like
> > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > in the meetup, discussion in the conference, discussion in
> > > > > > personal
> > > > > > email,
> > > > > > we move that into the mailing list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > IN10The project is independent from any corporate or
> > > > > > > > organizational
> > > > > > > > influence.
> > > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not so sure...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 23:50 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > > > > > I have filled out all checklists and commented as much as i
> > > > > > > > can.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please review
> > > > > > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Z
> > > > > > > > eppe
> > > > > > > > lin+
> > > > > > > > Project+Maturity+Model
> > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Did i filled out correctly? Any feedback would be really
> > > > > > > > appreciated.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:03 AM moon soo Lee <moon@apache.org
> >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have created
> > > > > > > > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache
> > > > > > > > > +Zep
> > > > > > > > > peli
> > > > > > > > > n+Project+Maturity+Model and
> > > > > > > > > trying to fill out Apache Maturity Model checklist.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Let me notify this thread when everything is filled out.
> > > > > > > > > And any comment, help would be appreciated.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were to
> > > > > > > > > > fill
> > > > > > > > > > out the
> > > > > > > > > > Apache Maturity Model
> > > > > > > > > > checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Roman.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <
> > > > > > > > > > minalee@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more
> > > > > > > > > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > > > > > Number of
> > > > > > > > > > > contributors has increased more than 7 times and three
> > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > committers
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling project.
> > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > release, vote
> > > > > > > > > > > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
> > > > > > > > > > > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big
> > > > > > > > > > > synergy
> > > > > > > > > > > with other
> > > > > > > > > > > apache projects by providing different back-end
> > > > > > > > > > > interpreters(ex
> > > > > > > > > > > spark,
> > > > > > > > > > > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > so +1 for graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <
> > > > > > > > > > madhukaudantha@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <
> > > > > > > > > > > > doanduyhai@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > maturity model. (
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-mat
> > > > > > > > > > urit
> > > > > > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > producing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > secure
> > > > > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It's related to security and I know that there is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > > on Shiro
> > > > > > > > > > > > > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > way). There is
> > > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Kerberos (
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/6
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 40).
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > chapter
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > security,
> > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the works are being done and are on good way.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Under the Community topic, I think all the points
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > covered (for
> > > > > > > > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > documented
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > CONTRIBUTING.md)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as well as consensus (point CO60).
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every
> > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > related to
> > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Now my personal opinion as a community member is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > high
> > > > > > > > > > time for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > comfortable
> > > > > > > > > > advising
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production
> > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > lack of
> > > > > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but since security support (at least for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > authentication) is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > > > trunk
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see
> > > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > blocker anymore.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So a big +1 for me
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ahyoungryu93@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, ++1 !
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > anthonycorbacho@apache.org>님이
> > > > > > > > > > 작성한
> > > > > > > > > > > > 메시지:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (For
> > > > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the
> > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as TLP),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so for me its a big +1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Garcia <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incubator.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think we
> > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that also
> > > > > > > > > > will be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > greatly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jakob,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and get
> > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oppinions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from other participants - that would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > awesome!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the next release here, but please feel free
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion on technical details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jghoman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey all-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A data point and observation from an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ASF
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member and
> > > > > > > > > > > > Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > PMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > community development and adherence to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Way,
> > > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > entering
> > > > > > > > > > Incubator,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > releases,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finished
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incubation checklist
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > peli
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > n.ht
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ml), has
> > > > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > position to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from my perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handled
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a speedy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > matter,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > disagreement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that -
> > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jakob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we didn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *in* 208
> > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > functioning.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is broken
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > myself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proven
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the field:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > People
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in my repo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since August,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's very
> > > > > > > > > > hard to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meetup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > September
> > > > > > > > > > > > where a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > variant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dealing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > significant
> > > > > > > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > outside the core development team.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Addressing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these issues
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > R,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maturity.
> > > > > > > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-beta release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sourav for interest in this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > valuable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree how much R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication (which
> > > > > > > > > > i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in Zeppelin) will be useful for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > users.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believe me, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in Zeppelin more than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But at the same time we have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diversity of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user bases.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people might think supporting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JDBC is more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful feature, the other can think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > multi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -tenancy is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, i believe Apache Top Level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > defined by how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > works,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not defined by what feature does the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > includes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding bringing R into main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tried to make
> > > > > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > passes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could able to make it pass 1 test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profile,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > couldn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other test profiles.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm suggesting split the contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > smaller
> > > > > > > > > > peaces
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one. Like Hayssam did it for his
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Shiro
> > > > > > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (pr586). And I'm volunteering making
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into smaller
> > > > > > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com
> <javascript:;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This does make sense Moon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Completely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with you
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important for becoming a top level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my opinion, from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > > standpoint,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two features Zeppelin does not look
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > > > fledged
> > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious whether there are any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > technical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glitches which
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impediment
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bringing these features to the main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wondering
> > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to get those problems fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > soo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think any feature (R or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > prerequisites
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation. Especially when a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never setup
> > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation goal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Including specific features could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valid concern for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but i don't think it's related to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graduation is much more like if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is doing it in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding. Last time the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't go
> > > > > > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is, because of there were valid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impasse.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since that, community improved /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarified
> > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > guide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > process. And Zeppelin PPMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > members
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to help
> > > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that they have been as a open PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (Especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jongyoul
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Felix helped a lot)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, let's move discussions like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature should
> > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > included'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release / roadmap discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the graduation discussion, i'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > discussions,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evaluating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-mat
> > > > > > > > > > urit
> > > > > > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense for you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guys?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran, Sourav?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>.
Moon - Are you now actually claiming that, even if what I'm saying is true
(which it is) that Felix' conduct is acceptable to the project?
(As for how I know Felix never wrote anything on his own, there's a record
on github.)
> I have asked Felix to help review in your PR. Actually not only Felix but
> others, too. Hope that's not a problem for you, because of reviewing code
> is open for everyone.
"Review" is not the same thing as "manage," "supervise," "oversee." Felix
claimed you had put him *in charge* of it. You've never denied this.
The story you're giving doesn't make any sense. Your version works
something like this:
Your friend contacted you to say that a PR submitted by a new contributor
contained material stolen from him. You decided to ignore the PR, until
the new contributor contacted you. When you heard his story, you asked both
sides to try to move on. But, immediately after that, you asked your
friend to "supervise" the new contributor. While that was happening, you
went to an event where you saw your friend present an alternative version
of what the contributor had done. But, you didn't say "hey buddy, I asked
you to help that guy out with this, why are you doing a competing version
instead?"
What I think happened, is that Felix was trying to make a code contribution
because he wanted to become a committer, and he wanted the R work to be his
contribution, but he wasn't able to do it because he doesn't know how to
code. I think you were trying to help your friend out, and that's why you
asked him to "supervise" the work. I think after I refused to work further
with Felix, you intended to just ignore the whole thing until it went away.
Which, honestly, it would have - except that people found the work on my
repo through google and it accumulated users. I think the stuff since has
been a cover for what happened before.
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:39 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Amos, i'm not sure how you can so sure about other people is lying and not
> so straight and stealing your work.
>
> You maybe have little bit of misunderstanding in Apache open source
> project.
>
> Normally, not a individual contributor / committer 'own' a source code. The
> code belongs to ASF in my understanding. And if you help people and
> 'contribute' code and involve project, everyone in the community recognize
> your effort and that's how you get credit in the opensource project. Not by
> claimming ownership of the single piece of source code. So anyone has
> absolutely no reason to steal your work.
>
> And committers are not manager who manages CI. CI is part of opensource
> project and it's open to everyone for improvement.
> Of course committer is willing to help, like I volunteered look in to your
> brach to test CI, but basically you can do it yourself, too. Nothing stops
> it.
>
> Also zeppelin community did not organized that seattle meetup last year and
> i had been invited. So i should say 3rd party meetup.
>
> Hope this help you look project in a different view.
>
> Thanks,
> moon
>
> On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 9:35 Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > No Moon, you're not being straight about this.
> >
> > The subject here is the maturity of the project. Part of that is the
> > conduct of two members of the PMC.
> >
> > I am now sharing publicly what I have been trying to resolve privately
> > for months.
> >
> > > I think CI stability is not a problem for graduation. . . CI has
> > > no problem in general.
> >
> > What *is* a problem for the project (graduation or not) is whether the
> > project is *OPEN AND HONEST ABOUT CODE QUALITY*.
> >
> > CI is an example where the response has been defensiveness and denial
> > rather than openness or honesty. There is another example below:
> >
> > > I must say clearly, pr208 is not merged because of it does not pass
> > > ci test, not because of CI is broken. Please don't confuse.
> >
> > That is absolutely false.
> >
> > Many PRs have been merged even though they broke CI. With PR 208, the
> > only part that fails CI are the new tests *OF PR 208*. If the tests
> > weren't there, CI would pass.
> >
> > It was *me* who insisted on fixing CI for merger! And Moon has
> > admitted that the problem is not in the PR - it's in CI. Moon
> > personally promised in December to fix it.
> >
> > > I don't see anyone in the community try to steal your work. You
> > > always pointing Felix but he said he used his own work.
> >
> > And I showed you the commit record, which proved that he was lying.
> >
> > > Zeppelin community is not judging what happened in a 3rd party
> > > meetup.
> >
> > Third party? Moon, you were a participant! It was part of your own
> > presentation!
> >
> > And it was made at a time when you had "officially," supposedly, asked
> > Felix to "supervise" the PR.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 23:59 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > Amos,
> > >
> > > Thanks for opinion.
> > >
> > > I think CI stability is not a problem for graduation.
> > > CI sometimes break, but always fixed and back online in a day. CI has
> > > no
> > > problem in general.
> > >
> > > I must say clearly, pr208 is not merged because of it does not pass
> > > ci
> > > test, not because of CI is broken. Please don't confuse.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't see anyone in the community try to steal your work. You
> > > always
> > > pointing Felix but he said he used his own work.
> > >
> > > Zeppelin community is not judging what happened in a 3rd party
> > > meetup.
> > >
> > > Please go to law court with your evidence if you think someone stole
> > > your
> > > work for the presentation for the meetup. That's better instead of
> > > complaining in graduation discussion thread.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > moon
> > >
> > > On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 7:44 Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The topic here is supposed to be an open, honest, objective
> > > > evaluation
> > > > of the project against the criteria in the checklist.
> > > >
> > > > I would like us to stick to the subject.
> > > >
> > > > > > > QU10 The project is open and honest about the quality of its
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI issues
> > > > > > were first reported, the response for some three months was
> > > > > > "there can't be anything wrong so we won't bother looking." ...
> > > > > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > > > > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always
> > > > > try
> > > > > to fix and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > The issue is whether the project is "open and honest" about code
> > > > quality. Or defensive (and hostile).
> > > >
> > > > CI isn't broken? How many PRs have been merged in the last month
> > > > with a
> > > > note to not worry that they don't pass CI because its broken? More
> > > > than a month ago Moon personally committed to fix it, and NFlabs
> > > > has a
> > > > project to completely replace it because its so unstable.
> > > >
> > > > I think Moon has just proven my point.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing
> > > > > > > secure
> > > > > > > software.
> > > > > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi
> > > > > -user
> > > > > PR, too.
> > > >
> > > > Not really... Usually the answer was to refer people to NFlabs, or
> > > > say
> > > > its something that would be discussed in the future.
> > > >
> > > > There was an example on the User list yesterday.
> > > >
> > > > > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when they
> > > > > need authentication even before it is being merged.
> > > >
> > > > If that were true then why was the PR was ignored for so long? The
> > > > excuse in December was that the PR was forgotten about.
> > > >
> > > > > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards
> > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > and aims to document any incompatible changes and provide
> > > > > > > tools >
> > > > > > and documentation to help users transition . . .
> > > > > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to,
> > > > > > e.g.,
> > > > > > the. . . that broke code and broke installations, but were
> > > > > > never documented.
> > > > > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so
> > > > > > there's
> > > > > > nothing to document."
> > > > > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > > > > Integration since way Spark integration changes.
> > > >
> > > > That's not correct. In fact Moon and I had an e-mail exchange about
> > > > this
> > > > in August and September, and its been discussed several times in PR
> > > > comments.
> > > >
> > > > This issue is *still* breaking builds for people, and it comes up
> > > > on the
> > > > user help list every few days. And that's just one issue.
> > > >
> > > > Moon has, again, made my point.
> > > >
> > > > > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug reports
> > > > > > > in > >
> > > > > timely manner.
> > > > > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted in
> > > > > > > >
> > > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple people
> > > > > > and the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > > > > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes.
> > > >
> > > > Not correct. Fixes to typos and grammar errors in documentation,
> > > > and
> > > > changes to the shading of windows, are not "bug fixes."
> > > >
> > > > In the 0.5.6 vote I asked if there were any substantive changes or
> > > > bug
> > > > fixes in 0.5.6. The twitter-bug was the only example that anyone
> > > > was able
> > > > to produce.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, the question is still why that PR and the bug reports were
> > > > ignored
> > > > in September, October, November, before twitter complained?
> > > >
> > > > The issue is whether *the project* is responding to bug reports in
> > > > a
> > > > timely manner. My example shows that it is not.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor
> > > > > > > Agreement
> > > > > > > (the "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > commit and how they need to identify code that is not their
> > > > > > > own.
> > > > > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > the iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > anything about it.
> > > > > If you want, you can always sign ICLA...
> > > > > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > > > > Committer, who already signed ICLA. So signing ICLA for
> > > > > contributor
> > > > > is not mandatory.
> > > >
> > > > Part of the iCLA is also *honesty* about the attribution of code.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > CO20 The community welcomes contributions from anyone who
> > > > > > > acts in >
> > > > > > good faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > > > > > project.
> > > > > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
> > > >
> > > > Is that a joke? One current member of the PMC tried to bully me
> > > > into
> > > > crediting him for work he hadn't done. Then tried to stall the PR
> > > > while
> > > > publicly claiming authorship. And another member of the PMC covered
> > > > -up for
> > > > him.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to give
> > > > > > > more rights and responsibilities to contributors who add
> > > > > > > value to
> > > > > > > the project.
> > > > > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > isn't an affiliate of NFLabs. That person is not a programmer
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > has made no contribution to the Zeppelin codebase.
> > > > > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2
> > > > > committers
> > > > > are out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> > > > > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
> > > >
> > > > Google says 6 are affiliated with NFLabs. Of the two who are not,
> > > > one
> > > > is Felix.
> > > >
> > > > > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs,
> > > > > marketing,
> > > > > etc). It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> > > > > contribution.
> > > >
> > > > That is true. But the question is whether the project is a
> > > > 'meritocracy.' In this case, the non-programmer committer is Felix,
> > > > a
> > > > personal friend of Moon's who has a record of dishonesty.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in
> > > > > > > written
> > > > > > > form on the project's main communications channel. Offline,
> > > > > > > face
> > > > -> > > to-face or private discussions that affect the project are
> > > > also
> > > > > > > documented on that channel.
> > > > > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.> >
> > > > > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish result
> > > > > in
> > > > > the mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline,
> > > > > like
> > > > > discussion in the meetup, discussion in the conference,
> > > > > discussion in
> > > > > personal email, we move that into the mailing list.
> > > >
> > > > There are examples mentioned already in this email chain...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 20:36 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:37 AM Amos Elberg <amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Since subtlety has not worked, I will now be blunter.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reason PR 208 has been delayed since August is that Felix
> > > > > > Cheung
> > > > > > demanded that I credit him as a co-author even though he hadn't
> > > > > > done
> > > > > > any work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I refused, Felix privately contacted Moon, who is his
> > > > > > friend,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > claimed the PR contained Felix' intellectual property. Moon
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > held
> > > > > > the PR at Felix' request.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I found out what happened after I pursued Moon to ask why the
> > > > > > PR
> > > > > > had
> > > > > > been ignored. When he told me what happened, I had to offer e
> > > > > > -mail
> > > > > > chains and commit logs to prove that Felix was lying.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since then, its been one bogus, junk reason for delay after
> > > > > > another.
> > > > > > For a while, this seems to be because Moon wanted to give Felix
> > > > > > time to
> > > > > > produce a competing implementation. Except, Felix wasn't able
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > it. I caught him trying to pass-off code he'd stolen as his
> > > > > > own,
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > Moon (who should have known) present.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I confronted Moon he told me, basically, "don't rock our
> > > > > > boat."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If anyone has any doubt about whether what I've said is true, I
> > > > > > have the
> > > > > > email chains, the commit logs, the chat records...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe the reason PRs have been delayed is that they
> > > > > > conflicted
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > other goals of either NFLabs, or friends of committers. Such as
> > > > > > security
> > > > > > PRs, when NFlabs offers multi-user functionality commercially
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > outside
> > > > > > the project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here are my comments on the draft checklist:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > QU10The project is open and honest about the quality of its
> > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > Various levels of quality and maturity for various modules
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > natural and acceptable as long as they are clearly
> > > > > > > communicated.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI issues
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > first reported, the response for some three months was "there
> > > > > > can't
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > anything wrong so we won't bother looking." Now its
> > > > > > acknowledged
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > CI is basically broken for the whole project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are many such examples.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > > > > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always
> > > > > try
> > > > > to fix
> > > > > and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > QU20The project puts a very high priority on producing secure
> > > > > > > software.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The evidence is otherwise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While many people ask about security features, the response has
> > > > > > always
> > > > > > been from the PMC "some day," with no progress made. When
> > > > > > community
> > > > > > members tried to contribute the code --- the Shiro PR was
> > > > > > inexplicably
> > > > > > delayed by 4+ months; and the reaction to the new multi-user PR
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > seems unusual, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe the project intends to make security a priority in the
> > > > > > future.
> > > > > > But so far it has not.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi
> > > > > -user
> > > > > PR,
> > > > > too.
> > > > > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when they
> > > > > need
> > > > > authentication even before it is being merged.
> > > > >
> > > > > And SSL support, securing cross origin access, etc, there're
> > > > > other
> > > > > security
> > > > > improvement effort that already been done and merged.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think project is not producing secure software.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards
> > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > documentation to help users transition to new features.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to,
> > > > > > e.g.,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > way Zeppelin has to be configured, the way Spark integrates
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > Zeppelin, etc., that broke code and broke installations, but
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > never
> > > > > > documented.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so there's
> > > > > > nothing to document." But that is not the case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > > > > Integration
> > > > > since way Spark integration changes. And it still does
> > > > >
> > > > > If you don't think it's enough, you can always contribute the
> > > > > documentation.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug reports
> > > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > timely manner.Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted in
> > > > > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is just one example.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes. see
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=
> > > > > 1231
> > > > > 6221&version=12334165
> > > > > I don't think bug fixes are ignored.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can always help fix the bug. Project does not officially
> > > > > discuss
> > > > > on
> > > > > twitter about the bug.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor
> > > > > > > Agreement
> > > > > > > (the
> > > > > > > "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed to
> > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > and how they need to identify code that is not their own.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't do
> > > > > > anything
> > > > > > about it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > If you want, you can always sign ICLA.
> > > > > https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> > > > >
> > > > > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > > > > Committer,
> > > > > who already signed ICLA.
> > > > > So signing ICLA for contributor is not mandatory.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > CO20
> > > > > > > The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts in
> > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See above.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to give
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > isn't
> > > > > > an affiliate of NFLabs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That person is not a programmer and has made no contribution to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > Zeppelin codebase.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2
> > > > > committers
> > > > > are
> > > > > out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
> > > > >
> > > > > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs,
> > > > > marketing,
> > > > > etc).
> > > > > It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> > > > > contribution.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > CO50
> > > > > > > The way in which contributors can be granted more rights such
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > commit access or decision power is clearly documented and is
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > for all contributors.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in
> > > > > > written
> > > > > > form
> > > > > > > on the project's main communications channel. Offline, face
> > > > > > > -to
> > > > > > > -face
> > > > > > > or private discussions that affect the project are also
> > > > > > > documented on
> > > > > > > that channel.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish result
> > > > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline, like
> > > > > discussion
> > > > > in the meetup, discussion in the conference, discussion in
> > > > > personal
> > > > > email,
> > > > > we move that into the mailing list.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > IN10The project is independent from any corporate or
> > > > > > > organizational
> > > > > > > influence.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not so sure...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 23:50 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > > > > I have filled out all checklists and commented as much as i
> > > > > > > can.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please review
> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Z
> > > > > > > eppe
> > > > > > > lin+
> > > > > > > Project+Maturity+Model
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Did i filled out correctly? Any feedback would be really
> > > > > > > appreciated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:03 AM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have created
> > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache
> > > > > > > > +Zep
> > > > > > > > peli
> > > > > > > > n+Project+Maturity+Model and
> > > > > > > > trying to fill out Apache Maturity Model checklist.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let me notify this thread when everything is filled out.
> > > > > > > > And any comment, help would be appreciated.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were to
> > > > > > > > > fill
> > > > > > > > > out the
> > > > > > > > > Apache Maturity Model
> > > > > > > > > checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Roman.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <
> > > > > > > > > minalee@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for graduation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more
> > > > > > > > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > > > > Number of
> > > > > > > > > > contributors has increased more than 7 times and three
> > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > committers
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling project.
> > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > release, vote
> > > > > > > > > > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
> > > > > > > > > > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big
> > > > > > > > > > synergy
> > > > > > > > > > with other
> > > > > > > > > > apache projects by providing different back-end
> > > > > > > > > > interpreters(ex
> > > > > > > > > > spark,
> > > > > > > > > > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > so +1 for graduation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <
> > > > > > > > > madhukaudantha@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <
> > > > > > > > > > > doanduyhai@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo about
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > maturity model. (
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-mat
> > > > > > > > > urit
> > > > > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > producing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > secure
> > > > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's related to security and I know that there is a
> > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > on Shiro
> > > > > > > > > > > > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him by
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > way). There is
> > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kerberos (
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/6
> > > > > > > > > > > > 40).
> > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > chapter
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > security,
> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > the works are being done and are on good way.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Under the Community topic, I think all the points
> > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > covered (for
> > > > > > > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > > > > > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > documented
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > CONTRIBUTING.md)
> > > > > > > > > > > > as well as consensus (point CO60).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every
> > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > related to
> > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now my personal opinion as a community member is
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > high
> > > > > > > > > time for
> > > > > > > > > > > > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel
> > > > > > > > > > > > comfortable
> > > > > > > > > advising
> > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production
> > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > lack of
> > > > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > but since security support (at least for
> > > > > > > > > > > > authentication) is
> > > > > > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > > trunk
> > > > > > > > > > > > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see
> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > blocker anymore.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So a big +1 for me
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <
> > > > > > > > > > > > ahyoungryu93@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, ++1 !
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > anthonycorbacho@apache.org>님이
> > > > > > > > > 작성한
> > > > > > > > > > > 메시지:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (For
> > > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the
> > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as TLP),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so for me its a big +1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Garcia <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incubator.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think we
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that also
> > > > > > > > > will be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > greatly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jakob,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > > > > > > (there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and get
> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > oppinions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from other participants - that would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > awesome!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the next release here, but please feel free
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion on technical details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jghoman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey all-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A data point and observation from an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ASF
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member and
> > > > > > > > > > > Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > community development and adherence to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Way,
> > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > entering
> > > > > > > > > Incubator,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > releases,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finished
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incubation checklist
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > peli
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > n.ht
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ml), has
> > > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > position to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from my perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handled
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a speedy
> > > > > > > > > > > > matter,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > disagreement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that -
> > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jakob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we didn't
> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *in* 208
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > functioning.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is broken
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > myself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proven
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the field:
> > > > > > > > > > > > People
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in my repo
> > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since August,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's very
> > > > > > > > > hard to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meetup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > September
> > > > > > > > > > > where a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > variant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dealing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > significant
> > > > > > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > outside the core development team.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Addressing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these issues
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > R,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maturity.
> > > > > > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-beta release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sourav for interest in this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and very
> > > > > > > > > > > > valuable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree how much R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication (which
> > > > > > > > > i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in Zeppelin) will be useful for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > users.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believe me, I
> > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in Zeppelin more than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But at the same time we have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diversity of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user bases.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people might think supporting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JDBC is more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful feature, the other can think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > multi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -tenancy is the
> > > > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, i believe Apache Top Level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > defined by how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > works,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not defined by what feature does the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > includes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding bringing R into main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tried to make
> > > > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > passes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could able to make it pass 1 test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profile,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > couldn't
> > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other test profiles.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm suggesting split the contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > smaller
> > > > > > > > > peaces
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one. Like Hayssam did it for his
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Shiro
> > > > > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (pr586). And I'm volunteering making
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into smaller
> > > > > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This does make sense Moon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Completely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with you
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important for becoming a top level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my opinion, from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > standpoint,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two features Zeppelin does not look
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > > fledged
> > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious whether there are any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > technical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glitches which
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impediment
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bringing these features to the main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wondering
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to get those problems fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > soo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee <
> > > > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think any feature (R or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > prerequisites
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation. Especially when a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never setup
> > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation goal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Including specific features could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valid concern for
> > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but i don't think it's related to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graduation is much more like if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is doing it in
> > > > > > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding. Last time the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't go
> > > > > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is, because of there were valid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impasse.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since that, community improved /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarified
> > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > guide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > process. And Zeppelin PPMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > members
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to help
> > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that they have been as a open PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > (Especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jongyoul
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Felix helped a lot)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, let's move discussions like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature should
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > included'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release / roadmap discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the graduation discussion, i'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have an
> > > > > > > > > > > > discussions,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evaluating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-mat
> > > > > > > > > urit
> > > > > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense for you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guys?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran, Sourav?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No Eran is right. The last vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > passed-it
> > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > withdrawn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there was
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors concerning graduation,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some other
> > > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > last public discussion about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > until today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex if you disagree with that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have links to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > emails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you're referring to.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexander
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eran,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for sharing your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oppinion!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please check my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reply about
> > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schedulle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know if that makes sense to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, please our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct me if I'm
> > > > > > > > > wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > here,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reading [1] I was under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impression
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that project
> > > > > > > > > does not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pre-request
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding its code or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > order to undergo
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > formal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.
> > > > > > > > > html
> > > > > > > > > #Gra
> > > > > > > > > duating+from+the+Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Witkon <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > eranwitkon@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I recall correctly R
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pre-requisite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from day one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be added as
> > > > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation after we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <ja
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vasc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Surely I vote for the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin is already
> > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > popular
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quarts of the Spark/Big
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group. High
> > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I shall suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the support for
> > > > > > > > > R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to Zeppelin before that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
Amos, i'm not sure how you can so sure about other people is lying and not
so straight and stealing your work.
You maybe have little bit of misunderstanding in Apache open source
project.
Normally, not a individual contributor / committer 'own' a source code. The
code belongs to ASF in my understanding. And if you help people and
'contribute' code and involve project, everyone in the community recognize
your effort and that's how you get credit in the opensource project. Not by
claimming ownership of the single piece of source code. So anyone has
absolutely no reason to steal your work.
And committers are not manager who manages CI. CI is part of opensource
project and it's open to everyone for improvement.
Of course committer is willing to help, like I volunteered look in to your
brach to test CI, but basically you can do it yourself, too. Nothing stops
it.
Also zeppelin community did not organized that seattle meetup last year and
i had been invited. So i should say 3rd party meetup.
Hope this help you look project in a different view.
Thanks,
moon
On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 9:35 Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No Moon, you're not being straight about this.
>
> The subject here is the maturity of the project. Part of that is the
> conduct of two members of the PMC.
>
> I am now sharing publicly what I have been trying to resolve privately
> for months.
>
> > I think CI stability is not a problem for graduation. . . CI has
> > no problem in general.
>
> What *is* a problem for the project (graduation or not) is whether the
> project is *OPEN AND HONEST ABOUT CODE QUALITY*.
>
> CI is an example where the response has been defensiveness and denial
> rather than openness or honesty. There is another example below:
>
> > I must say clearly, pr208 is not merged because of it does not pass
> > ci test, not because of CI is broken. Please don't confuse.
>
> That is absolutely false.
>
> Many PRs have been merged even though they broke CI. With PR 208, the
> only part that fails CI are the new tests *OF PR 208*. If the tests
> weren't there, CI would pass.
>
> It was *me* who insisted on fixing CI for merger! And Moon has
> admitted that the problem is not in the PR - it's in CI. Moon
> personally promised in December to fix it.
>
> > I don't see anyone in the community try to steal your work. You
> > always pointing Felix but he said he used his own work.
>
> And I showed you the commit record, which proved that he was lying.
>
> > Zeppelin community is not judging what happened in a 3rd party
> > meetup.
>
> Third party? Moon, you were a participant! It was part of your own
> presentation!
>
> And it was made at a time when you had "officially," supposedly, asked
> Felix to "supervise" the PR.
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 23:59 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > Amos,
> >
> > Thanks for opinion.
> >
> > I think CI stability is not a problem for graduation.
> > CI sometimes break, but always fixed and back online in a day. CI has
> > no
> > problem in general.
> >
> > I must say clearly, pr208 is not merged because of it does not pass
> > ci
> > test, not because of CI is broken. Please don't confuse.
> >
> >
> > I don't see anyone in the community try to steal your work. You
> > always
> > pointing Felix but he said he used his own work.
> >
> > Zeppelin community is not judging what happened in a 3rd party
> > meetup.
> >
> > Please go to law court with your evidence if you think someone stole
> > your
> > work for the presentation for the meetup. That's better instead of
> > complaining in graduation discussion thread.
> >
> > Best,
> > moon
> >
> > On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 7:44 Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The topic here is supposed to be an open, honest, objective
> > > evaluation
> > > of the project against the criteria in the checklist.
> > >
> > > I would like us to stick to the subject.
> > >
> > > > > > QU10 The project is open and honest about the quality of its
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality,
> > > > > and
> > > > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI issues
> > > > > were first reported, the response for some three months was
> > > > > "there can't be anything wrong so we won't bother looking." ...
> > > > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > > > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always
> > > > try
> > > > to fix and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> > >
> > > The issue is whether the project is "open and honest" about code
> > > quality. Or defensive (and hostile).
> > >
> > > CI isn't broken? How many PRs have been merged in the last month
> > > with a
> > > note to not worry that they don't pass CI because its broken? More
> > > than a month ago Moon personally committed to fix it, and NFlabs
> > > has a
> > > project to completely replace it because its so unstable.
> > >
> > > I think Moon has just proven my point.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing
> > > > > > secure
> > > > > > software.
> > > > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi
> > > > -user
> > > > PR, too.
> > >
> > > Not really... Usually the answer was to refer people to NFlabs, or
> > > say
> > > its something that would be discussed in the future.
> > >
> > > There was an example on the User list yesterday.
> > >
> > > > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when they
> > > > need authentication even before it is being merged.
> > >
> > > If that were true then why was the PR was ignored for so long? The
> > > excuse in December was that the PR was forgotten about.
> > >
> > > > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards
> > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > and aims to document any incompatible changes and provide
> > > > > > tools >
> > > > > and documentation to help users transition . . .
> > > > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to,
> > > > > e.g.,
> > > > > the. . . that broke code and broke installations, but were
> > > > > never documented.
> > > > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so
> > > > > there's
> > > > > nothing to document."
> > > > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > > > Integration since way Spark integration changes.
> > >
> > > That's not correct. In fact Moon and I had an e-mail exchange about
> > > this
> > > in August and September, and its been discussed several times in PR
> > > comments.
> > >
> > > This issue is *still* breaking builds for people, and it comes up
> > > on the
> > > user help list every few days. And that's just one issue.
> > >
> > > Moon has, again, made my point.
> > >
> > > > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug reports
> > > > > > in > >
> > > > timely manner.
> > > > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted in
> > > > > > >
> > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple people
> > > > > and the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > > > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes.
> > >
> > > Not correct. Fixes to typos and grammar errors in documentation,
> > > and
> > > changes to the shading of windows, are not "bug fixes."
> > >
> > > In the 0.5.6 vote I asked if there were any substantive changes or
> > > bug
> > > fixes in 0.5.6. The twitter-bug was the only example that anyone
> > > was able
> > > to produce.
> > >
> > > Anyway, the question is still why that PR and the bug reports were
> > > ignored
> > > in September, October, November, before twitter complained?
> > >
> > > The issue is whether *the project* is responding to bug reports in
> > > a
> > > timely manner. My example shows that it is not.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor
> > > > > > Agreement
> > > > > > (the "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > commit and how they need to identify code that is not their
> > > > > > own.
> > > > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent
> > > > > with
> > > > > the iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't
> > > > > do
> > > > > anything about it.
> > > > If you want, you can always sign ICLA...
> > > > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > > > Committer, who already signed ICLA. So signing ICLA for
> > > > contributor
> > > > is not mandatory.
> > >
> > > Part of the iCLA is also *honesty* about the attribution of code.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > CO20 The community welcomes contributions from anyone who
> > > > > > acts in >
> > > > > good faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > > > > project.
> > > > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
> > >
> > > Is that a joke? One current member of the PMC tried to bully me
> > > into
> > > crediting him for work he hadn't done. Then tried to stall the PR
> > > while
> > > publicly claiming authorship. And another member of the PMC covered
> > > -up for
> > > him.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to give
> > > > > > more rights and responsibilities to contributors who add
> > > > > > value to
> > > > > > the project.
> > > > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer
> > > > > who
> > > > > isn't an affiliate of NFLabs. That person is not a programmer
> > > > > and
> > > > > has made no contribution to the Zeppelin codebase.
> > > > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2
> > > > committers
> > > > are out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> > > > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
> > >
> > > Google says 6 are affiliated with NFLabs. Of the two who are not,
> > > one
> > > is Felix.
> > >
> > > > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs,
> > > > marketing,
> > > > etc). It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> > > > contribution.
> > >
> > > That is true. But the question is whether the project is a
> > > 'meritocracy.' In this case, the non-programmer committer is Felix,
> > > a
> > > personal friend of Moon's who has a record of dishonesty.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in
> > > > > > written
> > > > > > form on the project's main communications channel. Offline,
> > > > > > face
> > > -> > > to-face or private discussions that affect the project are
> > > also
> > > > > > documented on that channel.
> > > > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.> >
> > > > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish result
> > > > in
> > > > the mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline,
> > > > like
> > > > discussion in the meetup, discussion in the conference,
> > > > discussion in
> > > > personal email, we move that into the mailing list.
> > >
> > > There are examples mentioned already in this email chain...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 20:36 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:37 AM Amos Elberg <amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Since subtlety has not worked, I will now be blunter.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason PR 208 has been delayed since August is that Felix
> > > > > Cheung
> > > > > demanded that I credit him as a co-author even though he hadn't
> > > > > done
> > > > > any work.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I refused, Felix privately contacted Moon, who is his
> > > > > friend,
> > > > > and
> > > > > claimed the PR contained Felix' intellectual property. Moon
> > > > > then
> > > > > held
> > > > > the PR at Felix' request.
> > > > >
> > > > > I found out what happened after I pursued Moon to ask why the
> > > > > PR
> > > > > had
> > > > > been ignored. When he told me what happened, I had to offer e
> > > > > -mail
> > > > > chains and commit logs to prove that Felix was lying.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since then, its been one bogus, junk reason for delay after
> > > > > another.
> > > > > For a while, this seems to be because Moon wanted to give Felix
> > > > > time to
> > > > > produce a competing implementation. Except, Felix wasn't able
> > > > > to
> > > > > do
> > > > > it. I caught him trying to pass-off code he'd stolen as his
> > > > > own,
> > > > > with
> > > > > Moon (who should have known) present.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I confronted Moon he told me, basically, "don't rock our
> > > > > boat."
> > > > >
> > > > > If anyone has any doubt about whether what I've said is true, I
> > > > > have the
> > > > > email chains, the commit logs, the chat records...
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe the reason PRs have been delayed is that they
> > > > > conflicted
> > > > > with
> > > > > other goals of either NFLabs, or friends of committers. Such as
> > > > > security
> > > > > PRs, when NFlabs offers multi-user functionality commercially
> > > > > and
> > > > > outside
> > > > > the project.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Here are my comments on the draft checklist:
> > > > >
> > > > > > QU10The project is open and honest about the quality of its
> > > > > > code.
> > > > > > Various levels of quality and maturity for various modules
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > natural and acceptable as long as they are clearly
> > > > > > communicated.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality,
> > > > > and
> > > > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI issues
> > > > > were
> > > > > first reported, the response for some three months was "there
> > > > > can't
> > > > > be
> > > > > anything wrong so we won't bother looking." Now its
> > > > > acknowledged
> > > > > that
> > > > > CI is basically broken for the whole project.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are many such examples.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > > > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always
> > > > try
> > > > to fix
> > > > and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > QU20The project puts a very high priority on producing secure
> > > > > > software.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > The evidence is otherwise.
> > > > >
> > > > > While many people ask about security features, the response has
> > > > > always
> > > > > been from the PMC "some day," with no progress made. When
> > > > > community
> > > > > members tried to contribute the code --- the Shiro PR was
> > > > > inexplicably
> > > > > delayed by 4+ months; and the reaction to the new multi-user PR
> > > > > already
> > > > > seems unusual, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe the project intends to make security a priority in the
> > > > > future.
> > > > > But so far it has not.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi
> > > > -user
> > > > PR,
> > > > too.
> > > > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when they
> > > > need
> > > > authentication even before it is being merged.
> > > >
> > > > And SSL support, securing cross origin access, etc, there're
> > > > other
> > > > security
> > > > improvement effort that already been done and merged.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think project is not producing secure software.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards
> > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > documentation to help users transition to new features.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to,
> > > > > e.g.,
> > > > > the
> > > > > way Zeppelin has to be configured, the way Spark integrates
> > > > > with
> > > > > Zeppelin, etc., that broke code and broke installations, but
> > > > > were
> > > > > never
> > > > > documented.
> > > > >
> > > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so there's
> > > > > nothing to document." But that is not the case.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > > > Integration
> > > > since way Spark integration changes. And it still does
> > > >
> > > > If you don't think it's enough, you can always contribute the
> > > > documentation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug reports
> > > > > > in a
> > > > > > timely manner.Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted in
> > > > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple
> > > > > people
> > > > > and
> > > > > the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is just one example.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes. see
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=
> > > > 1231
> > > > 6221&version=12334165
> > > > I don't think bug fixes are ignored.
> > > >
> > > > You can always help fix the bug. Project does not officially
> > > > discuss
> > > > on
> > > > twitter about the bug.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor
> > > > > > Agreement
> > > > > > (the
> > > > > > "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed to
> > > > > > commit
> > > > > > and how they need to identify code that is not their own.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent
> > > > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't do
> > > > > anything
> > > > > about it.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > If you want, you can always sign ICLA.
> > > > https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> > > >
> > > > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > > > Committer,
> > > > who already signed ICLA.
> > > > So signing ICLA for contributor is not mandatory.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > CO20
> > > > > > The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts in
> > > > > > good
> > > > > > faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > > > > project.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > See above.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to give
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > project.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer
> > > > > who
> > > > > isn't
> > > > > an affiliate of NFLabs.
> > > > >
> > > > > That person is not a programmer and has made no contribution to
> > > > > the
> > > > > Zeppelin codebase.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2
> > > > committers
> > > > are
> > > > out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> > > >
> > > > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
> > > >
> > > > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs,
> > > > marketing,
> > > > etc).
> > > > It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> > > > contribution.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > CO50
> > > > > > The way in which contributors can be granted more rights such
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > commit access or decision power is clearly documented and is
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > for all contributors.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > See above.
> > > > >
> > > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in
> > > > > written
> > > > > form
> > > > > > on the project's main communications channel. Offline, face
> > > > > > -to
> > > > > > -face
> > > > > > or private discussions that affect the project are also
> > > > > > documented on
> > > > > > that channel.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish result
> > > > in
> > > > the
> > > > mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline, like
> > > > discussion
> > > > in the meetup, discussion in the conference, discussion in
> > > > personal
> > > > email,
> > > > we move that into the mailing list.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > IN10The project is independent from any corporate or
> > > > > > organizational
> > > > > > influence.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not so sure...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 23:50 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > > > I have filled out all checklists and commented as much as i
> > > > > > can.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please review
> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Z
> > > > > > eppe
> > > > > > lin+
> > > > > > Project+Maturity+Model
> > > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Did i filled out correctly? Any feedback would be really
> > > > > > appreciated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > moon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:03 AM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have created
> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache
> > > > > > > +Zep
> > > > > > > peli
> > > > > > > n+Project+Maturity+Model and
> > > > > > > trying to fill out Apache Maturity Model checklist.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let me notify this thread when everything is filled out.
> > > > > > > And any comment, help would be appreciated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were to
> > > > > > > > fill
> > > > > > > > out the
> > > > > > > > Apache Maturity Model
> > > > > > > > checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Roman.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <
> > > > > > > > minalee@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for graduation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more
> > > > > > > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > > > Number of
> > > > > > > > > contributors has increased more than 7 times and three
> > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > committers
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling project.
> > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > release, vote
> > > > > > > > > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
> > > > > > > > > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big
> > > > > > > > > synergy
> > > > > > > > > with other
> > > > > > > > > apache projects by providing different back-end
> > > > > > > > > interpreters(ex
> > > > > > > > > spark,
> > > > > > > > > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > so +1 for graduation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <
> > > > > > > > madhukaudantha@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <
> > > > > > > > > > doanduyhai@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo about
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > maturity model. (
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-mat
> > > > > > > > urit
> > > > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on
> > > > > > > > > > > > producing
> > > > > > > > > > > > secure
> > > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It's related to security and I know that there is a
> > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > on Shiro
> > > > > > > > > > > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him by
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > way). There is
> > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about
> > > > > > > > > > > Kerberos (
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/6
> > > > > > > > > > > 40).
> > > > > > > > > > > Don't know
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on the
> > > > > > > > > > > chapter
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > security,
> > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > the works are being done and are on good way.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Under the Community topic, I think all the points
> > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > covered (for
> > > > > > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > > > > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > documented
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > CONTRIBUTING.md)
> > > > > > > > > > > as well as consensus (point CO60).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every
> > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > related to
> > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the
> > > > > > > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Now my personal opinion as a community member is
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > high
> > > > > > > > time for
> > > > > > > > > > > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel
> > > > > > > > > > > comfortable
> > > > > > > > advising
> > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production
> > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > lack of
> > > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > but since security support (at least for
> > > > > > > > > > > authentication) is
> > > > > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > trunk
> > > > > > > > > > > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > blocker anymore.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So a big +1 for me
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <
> > > > > > > > > > > ahyoungryu93@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, ++1 !
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<
> > > > > > > > > > > > anthonycorbacho@apache.org>님이
> > > > > > > > 작성한
> > > > > > > > > > 메시지:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (For
> > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for the
> > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as TLP),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > so for me its a big +1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Garcia <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > incubator.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > think we
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that also
> > > > > > > > will be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > greatly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jakob,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > > > > > (there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and get
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > oppinions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from other participants - that would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > awesome!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the next release here, but please feel free
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion on technical details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jghoman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey all-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A data point and observation from an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ASF
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member and
> > > > > > > > > > Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > PMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > community development and adherence to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Way,
> > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > entering
> > > > > > > > Incubator,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > releases,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finished
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incubation checklist
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > peli
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > n.ht
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ml), has
> > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > position to
> > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from my perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handled
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a speedy
> > > > > > > > > > > matter,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > disagreement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that -
> > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jakob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we didn't
> > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *in* 208
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > functioning.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is broken
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > myself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proven
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the field:
> > > > > > > > > > > People
> > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in my repo
> > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since August,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's very
> > > > > > > > hard to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meetup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > September
> > > > > > > > > > where a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > variant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dealing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > significant
> > > > > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > outside the core development team.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Addressing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these issues
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > R,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maturity.
> > > > > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-beta release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sourav for interest in this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and very
> > > > > > > > > > > valuable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree how much R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication (which
> > > > > > > > i
> > > > > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in Zeppelin) will be useful for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > users.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believe me, I
> > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in Zeppelin more than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But at the same time we have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diversity of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user bases.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people might think supporting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JDBC is more
> > > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful feature, the other can think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > multi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -tenancy is the
> > > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, i believe Apache Top Level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > defined by how
> > > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > works,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not defined by what feature does the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > includes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding bringing R into main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tried to make
> > > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > passes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could able to make it pass 1 test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profile,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > couldn't
> > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other test profiles.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm suggesting split the contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > smaller
> > > > > > > > peaces
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one. Like Hayssam did it for his
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Shiro
> > > > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (pr586). And I'm volunteering making
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into smaller
> > > > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This does make sense Moon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Completely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with you
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important for becoming a top level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my opinion, from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > standpoint,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two features Zeppelin does not look
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > fledged
> > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious whether there are any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > technical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glitches which
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > impediment
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bringing these features to the main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wondering
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to get those problems fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > soo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee <
> > > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think any feature (R or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > prerequisites
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation. Especially when a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never setup
> > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation goal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Including specific features could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valid concern for
> > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but i don't think it's related to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graduation is much more like if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is doing it in
> > > > > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding. Last time the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't go
> > > > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is, because of there were valid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > impasse.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since that, community improved /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarified
> > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > guide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > process. And Zeppelin PPMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > members
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to help
> > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that they have been as a open PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long time.
> > > > > > > > > > > (Especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jongyoul
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Felix helped a lot)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, let's move discussions like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature should
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > included'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release / roadmap discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the graduation discussion, i'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have an
> > > > > > > > > > > discussions,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evaluating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-mat
> > > > > > > > urit
> > > > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense for you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guys?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran, Sourav?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No Eran is right. The last vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > passed-it
> > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > withdrawn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there was
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors concerning graduation,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some other
> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > last public discussion about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > until today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex if you disagree with that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have links to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > emails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you're referring to.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexander
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eran,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for sharing your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oppinion!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please check my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reply about
> > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schedulle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know if that makes sense to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, please our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct me if I'm
> > > > > > > > wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > here,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reading [1] I was under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impression
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that project
> > > > > > > > does not
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pre-request
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding its code or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > order to undergo
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > formal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.
> > > > > > > > html
> > > > > > > > #Gra
> > > > > > > > duating+from+the+Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Witkon <
> > > > > > > > > > > > eranwitkon@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I recall correctly R
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > pre-requisite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from day one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be added as
> > > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation after we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <ja
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vasc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Surely I vote for the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin is already
> > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > popular
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quarts of the Spark/Big
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group. High
> > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I shall suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the support for
> > > > > > > > R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to Zeppelin before that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>.
No Moon, you're not being straight about this.
The subject here is the maturity of the project. Part of that is the
conduct of two members of the PMC.
I am now sharing publicly what I have been trying to resolve privately
for months.
> I think CI stability is not a problem for graduation. . . CI has
> no problem in general.
What *is* a problem for the project (graduation or not) is whether the
project is *OPEN AND HONEST ABOUT CODE QUALITY*.
CI is an example where the response has been defensiveness and denial
rather than openness or honesty. There is another example below:
> I must say clearly, pr208 is not merged because of it does not pass
> ci test, not because of CI is broken. Please don't confuse.
That is absolutely false.
Many PRs have been merged even though they broke CI. With PR 208, the
only part that fails CI are the new tests *OF PR 208*. If the tests
weren't there, CI would pass.
It was *me* who insisted on fixing CI for merger! And Moon has
admitted that the problem is not in the PR - it's in CI. Moon
personally promised in December to fix it.
> I don't see anyone in the community try to steal your work. You
> always pointing Felix but he said he used his own work.
And I showed you the commit record, which proved that he was lying.
> Zeppelin community is not judging what happened in a 3rd party
> meetup.
Third party? Moon, you were a participant! It was part of your own
presentation!
And it was made at a time when you had "officially," supposedly, asked
Felix to "supervise" the PR.
On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 23:59 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> Amos,
>
> Thanks for opinion.
>
> I think CI stability is not a problem for graduation.
> CI sometimes break, but always fixed and back online in a day. CI has
> no
> problem in general.
>
> I must say clearly, pr208 is not merged because of it does not pass
> ci
> test, not because of CI is broken. Please don't confuse.
>
>
> I don't see anyone in the community try to steal your work. You
> always
> pointing Felix but he said he used his own work.
>
> Zeppelin community is not judging what happened in a 3rd party
> meetup.
>
> Please go to law court with your evidence if you think someone stole
> your
> work for the presentation for the meetup. That's better instead of
> complaining in graduation discussion thread.
>
> Best,
> moon
>
> On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 7:44 Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The topic here is supposed to be an open, honest, objective
> > evaluation
> > of the project against the criteria in the checklist.
> >
> > I would like us to stick to the subject.
> >
> > > > > QU10 The project is open and honest about the quality of its
> > > > > ...
> > > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality,
> > > > and
> > > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI issues
> > > > were first reported, the response for some three months was
> > > > "there can't be anything wrong so we won't bother looking." ...
> > > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always
> > > try
> > > to fix and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> >
> > The issue is whether the project is "open and honest" about code
> > quality. Or defensive (and hostile).
> >
> > CI isn't broken? How many PRs have been merged in the last month
> > with a
> > note to not worry that they don't pass CI because its broken? More
> > than a month ago Moon personally committed to fix it, and NFlabs
> > has a
> > project to completely replace it because its so unstable.
> >
> > I think Moon has just proven my point.
> >
> >
> > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing
> > > > > secure
> > > > > software.
> > > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi
> > > -user
> > > PR, too.
> >
> > Not really... Usually the answer was to refer people to NFlabs, or
> > say
> > its something that would be discussed in the future.
> >
> > There was an example on the User list yesterday.
> >
> > > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when they
> > > need authentication even before it is being merged.
> >
> > If that were true then why was the PR was ignored for so long? The
> > excuse in December was that the PR was forgotten about.
> >
> > > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards
> > > > > compatibility
> > > > > and aims to document any incompatible changes and provide
> > > > > tools >
> > > > and documentation to help users transition . . .
> > > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to,
> > > > e.g.,
> > > > the. . . that broke code and broke installations, but were
> > > > never documented.
> > > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so
> > > > there's
> > > > nothing to document."
> > > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > > Integration since way Spark integration changes.
> >
> > That's not correct. In fact Moon and I had an e-mail exchange about
> > this
> > in August and September, and its been discussed several times in PR
> > comments.
> >
> > This issue is *still* breaking builds for people, and it comes up
> > on the
> > user help list every few days. And that's just one issue.
> >
> > Moon has, again, made my point.
> >
> > > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug reports
> > > > > in > >
> > > timely manner.
> > > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted in
> > > > > >
> > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple people
> > > > and the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes.
> >
> > Not correct. Fixes to typos and grammar errors in documentation,
> > and
> > changes to the shading of windows, are not "bug fixes."
> >
> > In the 0.5.6 vote I asked if there were any substantive changes or
> > bug
> > fixes in 0.5.6. The twitter-bug was the only example that anyone
> > was able
> > to produce.
> >
> > Anyway, the question is still why that PR and the bug reports were
> > ignored
> > in September, October, November, before twitter complained?
> >
> > The issue is whether *the project* is responding to bug reports in
> > a
> > timely manner. My example shows that it is not.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor
> > > > > Agreement
> > > > > (the "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed
> > > > > to
> > > > > commit and how they need to identify code that is not their
> > > > > own.
> > > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent
> > > > with
> > > > the iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't
> > > > do
> > > > anything about it.
> > > If you want, you can always sign ICLA...
> > > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > > Committer, who already signed ICLA. So signing ICLA for
> > > contributor
> > > is not mandatory.
> >
> > Part of the iCLA is also *honesty* about the attribution of code.
> >
> >
> > > > > CO20 The community welcomes contributions from anyone who
> > > > > acts in >
> > > > good faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > > > project.
> > > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
> >
> > Is that a joke? One current member of the PMC tried to bully me
> > into
> > crediting him for work he hadn't done. Then tried to stall the PR
> > while
> > publicly claiming authorship. And another member of the PMC covered
> > -up for
> > him.
> >
> >
> > > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to give
> > > > > more rights and responsibilities to contributors who add
> > > > > value to
> > > > > the project.
> > > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer
> > > > who
> > > > isn't an affiliate of NFLabs. That person is not a programmer
> > > > and
> > > > has made no contribution to the Zeppelin codebase.
> > > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2
> > > committers
> > > are out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> > > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
> >
> > Google says 6 are affiliated with NFLabs. Of the two who are not,
> > one
> > is Felix.
> >
> > > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs,
> > > marketing,
> > > etc). It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> > > contribution.
> >
> > That is true. But the question is whether the project is a
> > 'meritocracy.' In this case, the non-programmer committer is Felix,
> > a
> > personal friend of Moon's who has a record of dishonesty.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in
> > > > > written
> > > > > form on the project's main communications channel. Offline,
> > > > > face
> > -> > > to-face or private discussions that affect the project are
> > also
> > > > > documented on that channel.
> > > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.> >
> > > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish result
> > > in
> > > the mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline,
> > > like
> > > discussion in the meetup, discussion in the conference,
> > > discussion in
> > > personal email, we move that into the mailing list.
> >
> > There are examples mentioned already in this email chain...
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 20:36 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:37 AM Amos Elberg <amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Since subtlety has not worked, I will now be blunter.
> > > >
> > > > The reason PR 208 has been delayed since August is that Felix
> > > > Cheung
> > > > demanded that I credit him as a co-author even though he hadn't
> > > > done
> > > > any work.
> > > >
> > > > When I refused, Felix privately contacted Moon, who is his
> > > > friend,
> > > > and
> > > > claimed the PR contained Felix' intellectual property. Moon
> > > > then
> > > > held
> > > > the PR at Felix' request.
> > > >
> > > > I found out what happened after I pursued Moon to ask why the
> > > > PR
> > > > had
> > > > been ignored. When he told me what happened, I had to offer e
> > > > -mail
> > > > chains and commit logs to prove that Felix was lying.
> > > >
> > > > Since then, its been one bogus, junk reason for delay after
> > > > another.
> > > > For a while, this seems to be because Moon wanted to give Felix
> > > > time to
> > > > produce a competing implementation. Except, Felix wasn't able
> > > > to
> > > > do
> > > > it. I caught him trying to pass-off code he'd stolen as his
> > > > own,
> > > > with
> > > > Moon (who should have known) present.
> > > >
> > > > When I confronted Moon he told me, basically, "don't rock our
> > > > boat."
> > > >
> > > > If anyone has any doubt about whether what I've said is true, I
> > > > have the
> > > > email chains, the commit logs, the chat records...
> > > >
> > > > I believe the reason PRs have been delayed is that they
> > > > conflicted
> > > > with
> > > > other goals of either NFLabs, or friends of committers. Such as
> > > > security
> > > > PRs, when NFlabs offers multi-user functionality commercially
> > > > and
> > > > outside
> > > > the project.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Here are my comments on the draft checklist:
> > > >
> > > > > QU10The project is open and honest about the quality of its
> > > > > code.
> > > > > Various levels of quality and maturity for various modules
> > > > > are
> > > > > natural and acceptable as long as they are clearly
> > > > > communicated.
> > > > > Yes
> > > >
> > > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality,
> > > > and
> > > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI issues
> > > > were
> > > > first reported, the response for some three months was "there
> > > > can't
> > > > be
> > > > anything wrong so we won't bother looking." Now its
> > > > acknowledged
> > > > that
> > > > CI is basically broken for the whole project.
> > > >
> > > > There are many such examples.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always
> > > try
> > > to fix
> > > and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > QU20The project puts a very high priority on producing secure
> > > > > software.
> > > > > Yes
> > > >
> > > > The evidence is otherwise.
> > > >
> > > > While many people ask about security features, the response has
> > > > always
> > > > been from the PMC "some day," with no progress made. When
> > > > community
> > > > members tried to contribute the code --- the Shiro PR was
> > > > inexplicably
> > > > delayed by 4+ months; and the reaction to the new multi-user PR
> > > > already
> > > > seems unusual, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe the project intends to make security a priority in the
> > > > future.
> > > > But so far it has not.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi
> > > -user
> > > PR,
> > > too.
> > > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when they
> > > need
> > > authentication even before it is being merged.
> > >
> > > And SSL support, securing cross origin access, etc, there're
> > > other
> > > security
> > > improvement effort that already been done and merged.
> > >
> > > I don't think project is not producing secure software.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards
> > > > > compatibility
> > > > > and
> > > > > aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools
> > > > > and
> > > > > documentation to help users transition to new features.
> > > > > Yes
> > > >
> > > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to,
> > > > e.g.,
> > > > the
> > > > way Zeppelin has to be configured, the way Spark integrates
> > > > with
> > > > Zeppelin, etc., that broke code and broke installations, but
> > > > were
> > > > never
> > > > documented.
> > > >
> > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so there's
> > > > nothing to document." But that is not the case.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > > Integration
> > > since way Spark integration changes. And it still does
> > >
> > > If you don't think it's enough, you can always contribute the
> > > documentation.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug reports
> > > > > in a
> > > > > timely manner.Yes
> > > >
> > > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted in
> > > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple
> > > > people
> > > > and
> > > > the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > > >
> > > > This is just one example.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes. see
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=
> > > 1231
> > > 6221&version=12334165
> > > I don't think bug fixes are ignored.
> > >
> > > You can always help fix the bug. Project does not officially
> > > discuss
> > > on
> > > twitter about the bug.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor
> > > > > Agreement
> > > > > (the
> > > > > "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed to
> > > > > commit
> > > > > and how they need to identify code that is not their own.
> > > > > Yes
> > > >
> > > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent
> > > > with
> > > > the
> > > > iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't do
> > > > anything
> > > > about it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > If you want, you can always sign ICLA.
> > > https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> > >
> > > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > > Committer,
> > > who already signed ICLA.
> > > So signing ICLA for contributor is not mandatory.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > CO20
> > > > > The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts in
> > > > > good
> > > > > faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > > > project.
> > > > > Yes
> > > >
> > > > See above.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to give
> > > > > more
> > > > > rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value to
> > > > > the
> > > > > project.
> > > > > Yes
> > > >
> > > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer
> > > > who
> > > > isn't
> > > > an affiliate of NFLabs.
> > > >
> > > > That person is not a programmer and has made no contribution to
> > > > the
> > > > Zeppelin codebase.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2
> > > committers
> > > are
> > > out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> > >
> > > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
> > >
> > > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs,
> > > marketing,
> > > etc).
> > > It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> > > contribution.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > CO50
> > > > > The way in which contributors can be granted more rights such
> > > > > as
> > > > > commit access or decision power is clearly documented and is
> > > > > the
> > > > > same
> > > > > for all contributors.
> > > > > Yes
> > > >
> > > > See above.
> > > >
> > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in
> > > > written
> > > > form
> > > > > on the project's main communications channel. Offline, face
> > > > > -to
> > > > > -face
> > > > > or private discussions that affect the project are also
> > > > > documented on
> > > > > that channel.
> > > > > Yes
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish result
> > > in
> > > the
> > > mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline, like
> > > discussion
> > > in the meetup, discussion in the conference, discussion in
> > > personal
> > > email,
> > > we move that into the mailing list.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > IN10The project is independent from any corporate or
> > > > > organizational
> > > > > influence.
> > > > > Yes
> > > >
> > > > I'm not so sure...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 23:50 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > > I have filled out all checklists and commented as much as i
> > > > > can.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please review
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Z
> > > > > eppe
> > > > > lin+
> > > > > Project+Maturity+Model
> > > > > .
> > > > >
> > > > > Did i filled out correctly? Any feedback would be really
> > > > > appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > moon
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:03 AM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have created
> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache
> > > > > > +Zep
> > > > > > peli
> > > > > > n+Project+Maturity+Model and
> > > > > > trying to fill out Apache Maturity Model checklist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let me notify this thread when everything is filled out.
> > > > > > And any comment, help would be appreciated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > moon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were to
> > > > > > > fill
> > > > > > > out the
> > > > > > > Apache Maturity Model
> > > > > > > checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Roman.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <
> > > > > > > minalee@apache.org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for graduation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more
> > > > > > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > > Number of
> > > > > > > > contributors has increased more than 7 times and three
> > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > committers
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling project.
> > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > release, vote
> > > > > > > > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
> > > > > > > > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big
> > > > > > > > synergy
> > > > > > > > with other
> > > > > > > > apache projects by providing different back-end
> > > > > > > > interpreters(ex
> > > > > > > > spark,
> > > > > > > > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > so +1 for graduation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <
> > > > > > > madhukaudantha@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <
> > > > > > > > > doanduyhai@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo about
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > maturity model. (
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-mat
> > > > > > > urit
> > > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on
> > > > > > > > > > > producing
> > > > > > > > > > > secure
> > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It's related to security and I know that there is a
> > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > on Shiro
> > > > > > > > > > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him by
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > way). There is
> > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about
> > > > > > > > > > Kerberos (
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/6
> > > > > > > > > > 40).
> > > > > > > > > > Don't know
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on the
> > > > > > > > > > chapter
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > security,
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > the works are being done and are on good way.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Under the Community topic, I think all the points
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > covered (for
> > > > > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > > > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly
> > > > > > > > > > documented
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > CONTRIBUTING.md)
> > > > > > > > > > as well as consensus (point CO60).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every
> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > related to
> > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the
> > > > > > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Now my personal opinion as a community member is
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > high
> > > > > > > time for
> > > > > > > > > > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel
> > > > > > > > > > comfortable
> > > > > > > advising
> > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production
> > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > lack of
> > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > but since security support (at least for
> > > > > > > > > > authentication) is
> > > > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > trunk
> > > > > > > > > > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > blocker anymore.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So a big +1 for me
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <
> > > > > > > > > > ahyoungryu93@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think it's
> > > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > > > > > So, ++1 !
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<
> > > > > > > > > > > anthonycorbacho@apache.org>님이
> > > > > > > 작성한
> > > > > > > > > 메시지:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a
> > > > > > > > > > > > vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > (For
> > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > requirement
> > > > > > > > > > > > for the
> > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > as TLP),
> > > > > > > > > > > > so for me its a big +1.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel
> > > > > > > > > > > > Garcia <
> > > > > > > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > incubator.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > think we
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that also
> > > > > > > will be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > greatly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > improve the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jakob,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > > > > (there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and get
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > oppinions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from other participants - that would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > awesome!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the next release here, but please feel free
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion on technical details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > jghoman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey all-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A data point and observation from an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ASF
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member and
> > > > > > > > > Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > PMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > community development and adherence to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Way,
> > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > entering
> > > > > > > Incubator,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > releases,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finished
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incubation checklist
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zep
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > peli
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > n.ht
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ml), has
> > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > position to
> > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from my perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handled
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a speedy
> > > > > > > > > > matter,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > disagreement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that -
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jakob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we didn't
> > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *in* 208
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > functioning.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to fail.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is broken
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > myself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proven
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the field:
> > > > > > > > > > People
> > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in my repo
> > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since August,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's very
> > > > > > > hard to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meetup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > September
> > > > > > > > > where a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > variant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dealing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > significant
> > > > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > outside the core development team.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Addressing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these issues
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > R,
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maturity.
> > > > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-beta release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sourav for interest in this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and very
> > > > > > > > > > valuable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree how much R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication (which
> > > > > > > i
> > > > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in Zeppelin) will be useful for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > users.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believe me, I
> > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in Zeppelin more than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But at the same time we have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diversity of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user bases.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people might think supporting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JDBC is more
> > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful feature, the other can think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > multi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -tenancy is the
> > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > important,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, i believe Apache Top Level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > defined by how
> > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > works,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not defined by what feature does the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > includes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding bringing R into main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tried to make
> > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > passes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could able to make it pass 1 test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profile,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > couldn't
> > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other test profiles.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm suggesting split the contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > smaller
> > > > > > > peaces
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one. Like Hayssam did it for his
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Shiro
> > > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (pr586). And I'm volunteering making
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into smaller
> > > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This does make sense Moon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Completely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with you
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important for becoming a top level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my opinion, from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > standpoint,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two features Zeppelin does not look
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > fledged
> > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious whether there are any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > technical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glitches which
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > impediment
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bringing these features to the main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wondering
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to get those problems fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > soo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee <
> > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think any feature (R or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > prerequisites
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation. Especially when a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never setup
> > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation goal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Including specific features could
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valid concern for
> > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but i don't think it's related to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graduation is much more like if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is doing it in
> > > > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding. Last time the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't go
> > > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is, because of there were valid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > impasse.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since that, community improved /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarified
> > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > guide
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > process. And Zeppelin PPMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > members
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to help
> > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that they have been as a open PR
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long time.
> > > > > > > > > > (Especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jongyoul
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Felix helped a lot)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, let's move discussions like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature should
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > included'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release / roadmap discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the graduation discussion, i'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have an
> > > > > > > > > > discussions,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evaluating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-mat
> > > > > > > urit
> > > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense for you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guys?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran, Sourav?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No Eran is right. The last vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > passed-it
> > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > withdrawn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there was
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors concerning graduation,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > R,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some other
> > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > last public discussion about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > until today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex if you disagree with that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have links to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > emails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you're referring to.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexander
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eran,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for sharing your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oppinion!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please check my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reply about
> > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > schedulle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know if that makes sense to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, please our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct me if I'm
> > > > > > > wrong
> > > > > > > > > > here,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reading [1] I was under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impression
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that project
> > > > > > > does not
> > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pre-request
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding its code or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > order to undergo
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > formal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.
> > > > > > > html
> > > > > > > #Gra
> > > > > > > duating+from+the+Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Witkon <
> > > > > > > > > > > eranwitkon@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I recall correctly R
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one of the
> > > > > > > > > > > pre-requisite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from day one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be added as
> > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation after we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <ja
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vasc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Surely I vote for the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin is already
> > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > popular
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quarts of the Spark/Big
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group. High
> > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I shall suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the support for
> > > > > > > R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to Zeppelin before that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are the supports
> > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eagerly waiting for.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8:23
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon soo Lee <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Alexander for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > resuming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's start a vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11:11
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PM Alexander
> > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Zeppelin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > developers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now, after number of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > releases
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and committers
> > > > > > > grew
> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the re-new the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduating
> > > > > > > Zeppelin to
> > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there are on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > objections -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next step would be
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > start a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > VOTE
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you guys
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *Software Engeenier
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <ja
> > > > > > > > > > > > > vasc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > :;> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > marta.tapia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > * |
> > > > > > > > > victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <marta.tapia@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > Madhuka Udantha
> > > > > > > > > http://madhukaudantha.blogspot.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>.
Haha sorry Roman this is my last message.
Amos you are very funny and you have just made my week.
I am reviewing our conversations and I have in fact pointed you to my GitHub fork more than once and given you code improvements you could add, and said "that is my own code. That wasn't a fork or clone of your code" "my original implementation of an interpreter" and you have in fact looked at my changes and you asked me "my files don't match what you committed against" (dated Sept 10, 2015, 9:58PM)
I wish you really don't trust your memory so much and look at my working code more closely other than to discount it as not working the entire time.
Ok I'm really stopping this time.
_____________________________
From: Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 5, 2016 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
To: <de...@zeppelin.incubator.apache.org>
Felix - I'm not going to respond to you other than to say that I am
absolutely accusing you, and prepared to back it up. If you want to claim
that people tested your work some time before you had access to mine, I
would love to talk to that person.
There's a record on github of the whole thing, so...
P.S.: You didn't "stop helping me" in September -- I told Moon that you
were incompetent as a programmer, that you were actively trying to prevent
the PR from being completed, and I didn't 'trust you. I then asked if
someone other than you could be involved, if Moon felt it necessary to have
someone "supervise" the PR.
P.P.S.: So literally days after you were "helping" me with the PR, you had
an alternative implementation you were demoing? Do you seriously expect
anyone to believe that?
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Ok this has gone too far. You are putting words into my mouth that I have
> not said.
> My work is my own and do not falsely accuse me, without facts, that I have
> stolen anything. I equally have records to prove that you have not been
> collaborative and my implementation is working before yours, and an user,
> who apparently you work with separately, has tested my working
> implementation before yours. Furthermore, I have no involvement in your PR
> since 1st week of Sept 2015 when I stopped helping you.
> Personal attack is not the Apache Way, and I urge you to reconsider your
> approach. I am not going to reply or debate with you any further on email
> or any electronic medium. And you don't need to send me more SMS or call,
> you have been blocked.
> Felix
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:44 PM -0800, "Amos Elberg" <am...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I met Felix first time in the meetup you always refering.
>
> He told me he was friends with you in one of our first conversations on
> the phone in July. Maybe he was lying -- he did also claim to be a PMC
> member at the time, which wasn't true.
>
> But you've never denied that in August you appointed him to "oversee"
> and "supervise" the PR. Even though you say you knew he's not a
> programmer and doesnt know how to write code?
>
> I don't think you're being straight with everyone.
>
>
> On Sat, 2016-02-06 at 00:19 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > Amos,
> >
> > I forgot to say thank you for you saying,
> > 6 of committer affiliated in NFLabs and Felix is my friend.
> >
> > But here's some correction,
> >
> > As an employee of NFLabs,
> > I hope more people from my company contribute more and become a
> > Committer
> > of Zeppelin. But so far 5 out of 8 affiliated NFLabs,
> >
> > And Zeppelin, as any another apache project does, taking diversity of
> > committer really importantly. And i believe that's how project grow.
> >
> > If you say Felix is my friend, i say thank you. I met Felix first
> > time in
> > the meetup you always refering.
> > Thank you Amos to make me friend of Felix.
> >
> > Best,
> > moon
> >
> > On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 8:59 moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Amos,
> > >
> > > Thanks for opinion.
> > >
> > > I think CI stability is not a problem for graduation.
> > > CI sometimes break, but always fixed and back online in a day. CI
> > > has no
> > > problem in general.
> > >
> > > I must say clearly, pr208 is not merged because of it does not pass
> > > ci
> > > test, not because of CI is broken. Please don't confuse.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't see anyone in the community try to steal your work. You
> > > always
> > > pointing Felix but he said he used his own work.
> > >
> > > Zeppelin community is not judging what happened in a 3rd party
> > > meetup.
> > >
> > > Please go to law court with your evidence if you think someone
> > > stole your
> > > work for the presentation for the meetup. That's better instead of
> > > complaining in graduation discussion thread.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > moon
> > >
> > > On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 7:44 Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The topic here is supposed to be an open, honest, objective
> > > > evaluation
> > > > of the project against the criteria in the checklist.
> > > >
> > > > I would like us to stick to the subject.
> > > >
> > > > > > > QU10 The project is open and honest about the quality of
> > > > > > > its ...
> > > > > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > were first reported, the response for some three months was
> > > > > > "there can't be anything wrong so we won't bother looking."
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > > > > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always
> > > > > try
> > > > > to fix and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > The issue is whether the project is "open and honest" about code
> > > > quality. Or defensive (and hostile).
> > > >
> > > > CI isn't broken? How many PRs have been merged in the last month
> > > > with a
> > > > note to not worry that they don't pass CI because its broken?
> > > > More
> > > > than a month ago Moon personally committed to fix it, and NFlabs
> > > > has a
> > > > project to completely replace it because its so unstable.
> > > >
> > > > I think Moon has just proven my point.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing
> > > > > > > secure
> > > > > > > software.
> > > > > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi
> > > > > -user
> > > > > PR, too.
> > > >
> > > > Not really... Usually the answer was to refer people to NFlabs,
> > > > or say
> > > > its something that would be discussed in the future.
> > > >
> > > > There was an example on the User list yesterday.
> > > >
> > > > > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when
> > > > > they
> > > > > need authentication even before it is being merged.
> > > >
> > > > If that were true then why was the PR was ignored for so long?
> > > > The
> > > > excuse in December was that the PR was forgotten about.
> > > >
> > > > > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards
> > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > and aims to document any incompatible changes and provide
> > > > > > > tools >
> > > > > > and documentation to help users transition . . .
> > > > > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to,
> > > > > > e.g.,
> > > > > > the. . . that broke code and broke installations, but were
> > > > > > never documented.
> > > > > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so
> > > > > > there's
> > > > > > nothing to document."
> > > > > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > > > > Integration since way Spark integration changes.
> > > >
> > > > That's not correct. In fact Moon and I had an e-mail exchange
> > > > about this
> > > > in August and September, and its been discussed several times in
> > > > PR
> > > > comments.
> > > >
> > > > This issue is *still* breaking builds for people, and it comes up
> > > > on the
> > > > user help list every few days. And that's just one issue.
> > > >
> > > > Moon has, again, made my point.
> > > >
> > > > > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug
> > > > > > > reports in > >
> > > > > timely manner.
> > > > > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted
> > > > > > in > >
> > > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple people
> > > > > > and the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > > > > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes.
> > > >
> > > > Not correct. Fixes to typos and grammar errors in documentation,
> > > > and
> > > > changes to the shading of windows, are not "bug fixes."
> > > >
> > > > In the 0.5.6 vote I asked if there were any substantive changes
> > > > or bug
> > > > fixes in 0.5.6. The twitter-bug was the only example that anyone
> > > > was able
> > > > to produce.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, the question is still why that PR and the bug reports
> > > > were
> > > > ignored in September, October, November, before twitter
> > > > complained?
> > > >
> > > > The issue is whether *the project* is responding to bug reports
> > > > in a
> > > > timely manner. My example shows that it is not.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor
> > > > > > > Agreement
> > > > > > > (the "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are
> > > > > > > allowed to
> > > > > > > commit and how they need to identify code that is not their
> > > > > > > own.
> > > > > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > the iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and
> > > > > > didn't do
> > > > > > anything about it.
> > > > > If you want, you can always sign ICLA...
> > > > > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > > > > Committer, who already signed ICLA. So signing ICLA for
> > > > > contributor
> > > > > is not mandatory.
> > > >
> > > > Part of the iCLA is also *honesty* about the attribution of code.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > CO20 The community welcomes contributions from anyone who
> > > > > > > acts in >
> > > > > > good faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > > > > > project.
> > > > > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
> > > >
> > > > Is that a joke? One current member of the PMC tried to bully me
> > > > into
> > > > crediting him for work he hadn't done. Then tried to stall the PR
> > > > while
> > > > publicly claiming authorship. And another member of the PMC
> > > > covered-up for
> > > > him.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to
> > > > > > > give
> > > > > > > more rights and responsibilities to contributors who add
> > > > > > > value to
> > > > > > > the project.
> > > > > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > isn't an affiliate of NFLabs. That person is not a programmer
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > has made no contribution to the Zeppelin codebase.
> > > > > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2
> > > > > committers
> > > > > are out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> > > > > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
> > > >
> > > > Google says 6 are affiliated with NFLabs. Of the two who are not,
> > > > one
> > > > is Felix.
> > > >
> > > > > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs,
> > > > > marketing,
> > > > > etc). It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> > > > > contribution.
> > > >
> > > > That is true. But the question is whether the project is a
> > > > 'meritocracy.' In this case, the non-programmer committer is
> > > > Felix, a
> > > > personal friend of Moon's who has a record of dishonesty.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in
> > > > > > > written
> > > > > > > form on the project's main communications channel. Offline,
> > > > > > > face
> > > > -> > > to-face or private discussions that affect the project are
> > > > also
> > > > > > > documented on that channel.
> > > > > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish
> > > > > result in
> > > > > the mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline,
> > > > > like
> > > > > discussion in the meetup, discussion in the conference,
> > > > > discussion in
> > > > > personal email, we move that into the mailing list.
> > > >
> > > > There are examples mentioned already in this email chain...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 20:36 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:37 AM Amos Elberg <
> > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Since subtlety has not worked, I will now be blunter.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reason PR 208 has been delayed since August is that Felix
> > > > > > Cheung
> > > > > > demanded that I credit him as a co-author even though he
> > > > > > hadn't
> > > > > > done
> > > > > > any work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I refused, Felix privately contacted Moon, who is his
> > > > > > friend,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > claimed the PR contained Felix' intellectual property. Moon
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > held
> > > > > > the PR at Felix' request.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I found out what happened after I pursued Moon to ask why the
> > > > > > PR
> > > > > > had
> > > > > > been ignored. When he told me what happened, I had to offer
> > > > > > e-mail
> > > > > > chains and commit logs to prove that Felix was lying.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since then, its been one bogus, junk reason for delay after
> > > > > > another.
> > > > > > For a while, this seems to be because Moon wanted to give
> > > > > > Felix
> > > > > > time to
> > > > > > produce a competing implementation. Except, Felix wasn't
> > > > > > able to
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > it. I caught him trying to pass-off code he'd stolen as his
> > > > > > own,
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > Moon (who should have known) present.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I confronted Moon he told me, basically, "don't rock our
> > > > > > boat."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If anyone has any doubt about whether what I've said is true,
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > have the
> > > > > > email chains, the commit logs, the chat records...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe the reason PRs have been delayed is that they
> > > > > > conflicted
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > other goals of either NFLabs, or friends of committers. Such
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > security
> > > > > > PRs, when NFlabs offers multi-user functionality commercially
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > outside
> > > > > > the project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here are my comments on the draft checklist:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > QU10The project is open and honest about the quality of its
> > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > Various levels of quality and maturity for various modules
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > natural and acceptable as long as they are clearly
> > > > > > > communicated.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > first reported, the response for some three months was "there
> > > > > > can't
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > anything wrong so we won't bother looking." Now its
> > > > > > acknowledged
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > CI is basically broken for the whole project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are many such examples.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > > > > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always
> > > > > try
> > > > > to fix
> > > > > and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > QU20The project puts a very high priority on producing
> > > > > > > secure
> > > > > > > software.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The evidence is otherwise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While many people ask about security features, the response
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > always
> > > > > > been from the PMC "some day," with no progress made. When
> > > > > > community
> > > > > > members tried to contribute the code --- the Shiro PR was
> > > > > > inexplicably
> > > > > > delayed by 4+ months; and the reaction to the new multi-user
> > > > > > PR
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > seems unusual, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe the project intends to make security a priority in the
> > > > > > future.
> > > > > > But so far it has not.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi
> > > > > -user
> > > > > PR,
> > > > > too.
> > > > > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when
> > > > > they
> > > > > need
> > > > > authentication even before it is being merged.
> > > > >
> > > > > And SSL support, securing cross origin access, etc, there're
> > > > > other
> > > > > security
> > > > > improvement effort that already been done and merged.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think project is not producing secure software.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards
> > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > documentation to help users transition to new features.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to,
> > > > > > e.g.,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > way Zeppelin has to be configured, the way Spark integrates
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > Zeppelin, etc., that broke code and broke installations, but
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > never
> > > > > > documented.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so
> > > > > there's
> > > > > > nothing to document." But that is not the case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > > > > Integration
> > > > > since way Spark integration changes. And it still does
> > > > >
> > > > > If you don't think it's enough, you can always contribute the
> > > > > documentation.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug
> > > > > > > reports in a
> > > > > > > timely manner.Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is just one example.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes. see
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectI
> > > > > d=1231
> > > > > 6221&version=12334165
> > > > > I don't think bug fixes are ignored.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can always help fix the bug. Project does not officially
> > > > > discuss
> > > > > on
> > > > > twitter about the bug.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor
> > > > > > > Agreement
> > > > > > > (the
> > > > > > > "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed to
> > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > and how they need to identify code that is not their own.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > anything
> > > > > > about it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > If you want, you can always sign ICLA.
> > > > > https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> > > > >
> > > > > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > > > > Committer,
> > > > > who already signed ICLA.
> > > > > So signing ICLA for contributor is not mandatory.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > CO20
> > > > > > > The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts
> > > > > > > in good
> > > > > > > faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See above.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to
> > > > > > > give more
> > > > > > > rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value
> > > > > > > to the
> > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > isn't
> > > > > > an affiliate of NFLabs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That person is not a programmer and has made no contribution
> > > > > > to the
> > > > > > Zeppelin codebase.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2
> > > > > committers
> > > > > are
> > > > > out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
> > > > >
> > > > > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs,
> > > > > marketing,
> > > > > etc).
> > > > > It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> > > > > contribution.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > CO50
> > > > > > > The way in which contributors can be granted more rights
> > > > > > > such as
> > > > > > > commit access or decision power is clearly documented and
> > > > > > > is the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > for all contributors.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in
> > > > > > written
> > > > > > form
> > > > > > > on the project's main communications channel. Offline, face
> > > > > > > -to
> > > > > > > -face
> > > > > > > or private discussions that affect the project are also
> > > > > > > documented on
> > > > > > > that channel.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish
> > > > > result in
> > > > > the
> > > > > mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline, like
> > > > > discussion
> > > > > in the meetup, discussion in the conference, discussion in
> > > > > personal
> > > > > email,
> > > > > we move that into the mailing list.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > IN10The project is independent from any corporate or
> > > > > > > organizational
> > > > > > > influence.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not so sure...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 23:50 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > > > > I have filled out all checklists and commented as much as i
> > > > > > > can.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please review
> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache
> > > > > > > +Zeppe
> > > > > > > lin+
> > > > > > > Project+Maturity+Model
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Did i filled out correctly? Any feedback would be really
> > > > > > > appreciated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:03 AM moon soo Lee <
> > > > > > > moon@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have created
> > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apac
> > > > > > > > he+Zep
> > > > > > > > peli
> > > > > > > > n+Project+Maturity+Model and
> > > > > > > > trying to fill out Apache Maturity Model checklist.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let me notify this thread when everything is filled out.
> > > > > > > > And any comment, help would be appreciated.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > fill
> > > > > > > > > out the
> > > > > > > > > Apache Maturity Model
> > > > > > > > > checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Roman.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <
> > > > > > > > > minalee@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for
> > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more
> > > > > > > > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > > > > Number of
> > > > > > > > > > contributors has increased more than 7 times and
> > > > > > > > > > three new
> > > > > > > > > > committers
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling
> > > > > > > > > > project. And
> > > > > > > > > > release, vote
> > > > > > > > > > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
> > > > > > > > > > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big
> > > > > > > > > > synergy
> > > > > > > > > > with other
> > > > > > > > > > apache projects by providing different back-end
> > > > > > > > > > interpreters(ex
> > > > > > > > > > spark,
> > > > > > > > > > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > so +1 for graduation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <
> > > > > > > > > madhukaudantha@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <
> > > > > > > > > > > doanduyhai@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo
> > > > > > > > > > > > about the
> > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > maturity model. (
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-m
> > > > > > > > > aturit
> > > > > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > producing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > secure
> > > > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's related to security and I know that there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > on Shiro
> > > > > > > > > > > > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him
> > > > > > > > > > > > by the
> > > > > > > > > > > > way). There is
> > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kerberos (
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull
> > > > > > > > > > > > /640).
> > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > chapter
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > security,
> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > the works are being done and are on good way.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Under the Community topic, I think all the points
> > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > covered (for
> > > > > > > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > > > > > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > documented
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > CONTRIBUTING.md)
> > > > > > > > > > > > as well as consensus (point CO60).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every
> > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > related to
> > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now my personal opinion as a community member is
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > high
> > > > > > > > > time for
> > > > > > > > > > > > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel
> > > > > > > > > > > > comfortable
> > > > > > > > > advising
> > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production
> > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > lack of
> > > > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > but since security support (at least for
> > > > > > > > > > > > authentication) is
> > > > > > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > > trunk
> > > > > > > > > > > > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see
> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > blocker anymore.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So a big +1 for me
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <
> > > > > > > > > > > > ahyoungryu93@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, ++1 !
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > anthonycorbacho@apache.org>님이
> > > > > > > > > 작성한
> > > > > > > > > > > 메시지:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (For
> > > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the
> > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as TLP),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so for me its a big +1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Garcia <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incubator.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think we
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that also
> > > > > > > > > will be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > greatly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jakob,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > > > > > > (there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and get
> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > oppinions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from other participants - that would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > awesome!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the next release here, but please feel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > free to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion on technical details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jghoman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey all-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A data point and observation from an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ASF
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member and
> > > > > > > > > > > Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > community development and adherence to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Way,
> > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > entering
> > > > > > > > > Incubator,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > releases,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finished
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incubation checklist
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ( http://incubator.apache.org/projects/z
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eppeli
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > n.ht
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ml), has
> > > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > position to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from my perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handled
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a speedy
> > > > > > > > > > > > matter,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > disagreement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that -
> > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jakob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we didn't
> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *in* 208
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > functioning.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail. Now
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is broken
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > myself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proven
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the field:
> > > > > > > > > > > > People
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in my repo
> > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > August, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's very
> > > > > > > > > hard to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meetup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > September
> > > > > > > > > > > where a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > variant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dealing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > significant
> > > > > > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > outside the core development team.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Addressing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these issues
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > R,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maturity.
> > > > > > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-beta release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > soo Lee
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sourav for interest in this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and very
> > > > > > > > > > > > valuable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree how much R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication (which
> > > > > > > > > i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in Zeppelin) will be useful for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > users.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believe me, I
> > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in Zeppelin more than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But at the same time we have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diversity of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user bases.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people might think supporting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JDBC is more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful feature, the other can think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > multi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -tenancy is the
> > > > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, i believe Apache Top Level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > defined by how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > works,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not defined by what feature does
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > includes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding bringing R into main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tried to make
> > > > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > passes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could able to make it pass 1 test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profile,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > couldn't
> > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other test profiles.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm suggesting split the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > smaller
> > > > > > > > > peaces
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one. Like Hayssam did it for his
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Shiro
> > > > > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (pr586). And I'm volunteering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > making
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into smaller
> > > > > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This does make sense Moon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Completely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with you
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important for becoming a top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my opinion, from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > standpoint,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two features Zeppelin does not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > > fledged
> > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious whether there are any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > technical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glitches which
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impediment
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bringing these features to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wondering
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to get those problems fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > soo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee <
> > > > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think any feature (R or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > prerequisites
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation. Especially when a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never setup
> > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation goal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Including specific features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valid concern for
> > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but i don't think it's related
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graduation is much more like if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is doing it in
> > > > > > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding. Last time the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't go
> > > > > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is, because of there were valid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impasse.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since that, community improved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarified
> > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > guide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > process. And Zeppelin PPMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > members
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to help
> > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that they have been as a open
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > (Especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jongyoul
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Felix helped a lot)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, let's move discussions like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature should
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > included'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release / roadmap discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the graduation discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have an
> > > > > > > > > > > > discussions,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evaluating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-m
> > > > > > > > > aturit
> > > > > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense for you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guys?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran, Sourav?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No Eran is right. The last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > passed-it
> > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > withdrawn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in favor of releasing 0.5.6.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there was
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors concerning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation, R,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some other
> > > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > last public discussion about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > until today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex if you disagree with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have links to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > emails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you're referring to.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexander
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eran,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for sharing your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oppinion!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please check my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reply about
> > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schedulle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know if that makes sense to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, please our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct me if I'm
> > > > > > > > > wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > here,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reading [1] I was under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impression
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that project
> > > > > > > > > does not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pre-request
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding its code or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > order to undergo
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > formal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Polic
> > > > > > > > > y.html
> > > > > > > > > #Gra
> > > > > > > > > duating+from+the+Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 20:04 Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Witkon <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > eranwitkon@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I recall correctly R
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pre-requisite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from day one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be added as
> > > > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 20:24
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > javasc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Surely I vote for the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin is already
> > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > popular
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quarts of the Spark/Big
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group. High
> > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I shall
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggest to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the support for
> > > > > > > > > R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to Zeppelin before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are the supports
> > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eagerly waiting for.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at 8:23
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon soo Lee <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Alexander for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > resuming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's start a vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11:11
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PM Alexander
> > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Zeppelin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > developers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now, after number
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > releases
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and committers
> > > > > > > > > grew
> > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the re-new the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduating
> > > > > > > > > Zeppelin to
> > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there are on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > objections -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next step would be
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > start a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VOTE
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you guys
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Software Engeenier
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > javasc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > marta.tapia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * |
> > > > > > > > > > > victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <marta.tapia@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > < http://www.beeva.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > > > Madhuka Udantha
> > > > > > > > > > > http://madhukaudantha.blogspot.com
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>.
Felix - I'm not going to respond to you other than to say that I am
absolutely accusing you, and prepared to back it up. If you want to claim
that people tested your work some time before you had access to mine, I
would love to talk to that person.
There's a record on github of the whole thing, so...
P.S.: You didn't "stop helping me" in September -- I told Moon that you
were incompetent as a programmer, that you were actively trying to prevent
the PR from being completed, and I didn't 'trust you. I then asked if
someone other than you could be involved, if Moon felt it necessary to have
someone "supervise" the PR.
P.P.S.: So literally days after you were "helping" me with the PR, you had
an alternative implementation you were demoing? Do you seriously expect
anyone to believe that?
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:17 PM, Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Ok this has gone too far. You are putting words into my mouth that I have
> not said.
> My work is my own and do not falsely accuse me, without facts, that I have
> stolen anything. I equally have records to prove that you have not been
> collaborative and my implementation is working before yours, and an user,
> who apparently you work with separately, has tested my working
> implementation before yours. Furthermore, I have no involvement in your PR
> since 1st week of Sept 2015 when I stopped helping you.
> Personal attack is not the Apache Way, and I urge you to reconsider your
> approach. I am not going to reply or debate with you any further on email
> or any electronic medium. And you don't need to send me more SMS or call,
> you have been blocked.
> Felix
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:44 PM -0800, "Amos Elberg" <am...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I met Felix first time in the meetup you always refering.
>
> He told me he was friends with you in one of our first conversations on
> the phone in July. Maybe he was lying -- he did also claim to be a PMC
> member at the time, which wasn't true.
>
> But you've never denied that in August you appointed him to "oversee"
> and "supervise" the PR. Even though you say you knew he's not a
> programmer and doesnt know how to write code?
>
> I don't think you're being straight with everyone.
>
>
> On Sat, 2016-02-06 at 00:19 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > Amos,
> >
> > I forgot to say thank you for you saying,
> > 6 of committer affiliated in NFLabs and Felix is my friend.
> >
> > But here's some correction,
> >
> > As an employee of NFLabs,
> > I hope more people from my company contribute more and become a
> > Committer
> > of Zeppelin. But so far 5 out of 8 affiliated NFLabs,
> >
> > And Zeppelin, as any another apache project does, taking diversity of
> > committer really importantly. And i believe that's how project grow.
> >
> > If you say Felix is my friend, i say thank you. I met Felix first
> > time in
> > the meetup you always refering.
> > Thank you Amos to make me friend of Felix.
> >
> > Best,
> > moon
> >
> > On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 8:59 moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Amos,
> > >
> > > Thanks for opinion.
> > >
> > > I think CI stability is not a problem for graduation.
> > > CI sometimes break, but always fixed and back online in a day. CI
> > > has no
> > > problem in general.
> > >
> > > I must say clearly, pr208 is not merged because of it does not pass
> > > ci
> > > test, not because of CI is broken. Please don't confuse.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't see anyone in the community try to steal your work. You
> > > always
> > > pointing Felix but he said he used his own work.
> > >
> > > Zeppelin community is not judging what happened in a 3rd party
> > > meetup.
> > >
> > > Please go to law court with your evidence if you think someone
> > > stole your
> > > work for the presentation for the meetup. That's better instead of
> > > complaining in graduation discussion thread.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > moon
> > >
> > > On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 7:44 Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The topic here is supposed to be an open, honest, objective
> > > > evaluation
> > > > of the project against the criteria in the checklist.
> > > >
> > > > I would like us to stick to the subject.
> > > >
> > > > > > > QU10 The project is open and honest about the quality of
> > > > > > > its ...
> > > > > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > were first reported, the response for some three months was
> > > > > > "there can't be anything wrong so we won't bother looking."
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > > > > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always
> > > > > try
> > > > > to fix and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > The issue is whether the project is "open and honest" about code
> > > > quality. Or defensive (and hostile).
> > > >
> > > > CI isn't broken? How many PRs have been merged in the last month
> > > > with a
> > > > note to not worry that they don't pass CI because its broken?
> > > > More
> > > > than a month ago Moon personally committed to fix it, and NFlabs
> > > > has a
> > > > project to completely replace it because its so unstable.
> > > >
> > > > I think Moon has just proven my point.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing
> > > > > > > secure
> > > > > > > software.
> > > > > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi
> > > > > -user
> > > > > PR, too.
> > > >
> > > > Not really... Usually the answer was to refer people to NFlabs,
> > > > or say
> > > > its something that would be discussed in the future.
> > > >
> > > > There was an example on the User list yesterday.
> > > >
> > > > > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when
> > > > > they
> > > > > need authentication even before it is being merged.
> > > >
> > > > If that were true then why was the PR was ignored for so long?
> > > > The
> > > > excuse in December was that the PR was forgotten about.
> > > >
> > > > > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards
> > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > and aims to document any incompatible changes and provide
> > > > > > > tools >
> > > > > > and documentation to help users transition . . .
> > > > > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to,
> > > > > > e.g.,
> > > > > > the. . . that broke code and broke installations, but were
> > > > > > never documented.
> > > > > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so
> > > > > > there's
> > > > > > nothing to document."
> > > > > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > > > > Integration since way Spark integration changes.
> > > >
> > > > That's not correct. In fact Moon and I had an e-mail exchange
> > > > about this
> > > > in August and September, and its been discussed several times in
> > > > PR
> > > > comments.
> > > >
> > > > This issue is *still* breaking builds for people, and it comes up
> > > > on the
> > > > user help list every few days. And that's just one issue.
> > > >
> > > > Moon has, again, made my point.
> > > >
> > > > > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug
> > > > > > > reports in > >
> > > > > timely manner.
> > > > > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted
> > > > > > in > >
> > > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple people
> > > > > > and the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > > > > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes.
> > > >
> > > > Not correct. Fixes to typos and grammar errors in documentation,
> > > > and
> > > > changes to the shading of windows, are not "bug fixes."
> > > >
> > > > In the 0.5.6 vote I asked if there were any substantive changes
> > > > or bug
> > > > fixes in 0.5.6. The twitter-bug was the only example that anyone
> > > > was able
> > > > to produce.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, the question is still why that PR and the bug reports
> > > > were
> > > > ignored in September, October, November, before twitter
> > > > complained?
> > > >
> > > > The issue is whether *the project* is responding to bug reports
> > > > in a
> > > > timely manner. My example shows that it is not.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor
> > > > > > > Agreement
> > > > > > > (the "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are
> > > > > > > allowed to
> > > > > > > commit and how they need to identify code that is not their
> > > > > > > own.
> > > > > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > the iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and
> > > > > > didn't do
> > > > > > anything about it.
> > > > > If you want, you can always sign ICLA...
> > > > > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > > > > Committer, who already signed ICLA. So signing ICLA for
> > > > > contributor
> > > > > is not mandatory.
> > > >
> > > > Part of the iCLA is also *honesty* about the attribution of code.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > CO20 The community welcomes contributions from anyone who
> > > > > > > acts in >
> > > > > > good faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > > > > > project.
> > > > > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
> > > >
> > > > Is that a joke? One current member of the PMC tried to bully me
> > > > into
> > > > crediting him for work he hadn't done. Then tried to stall the PR
> > > > while
> > > > publicly claiming authorship. And another member of the PMC
> > > > covered-up for
> > > > him.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to
> > > > > > > give
> > > > > > > more rights and responsibilities to contributors who add
> > > > > > > value to
> > > > > > > the project.
> > > > > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > isn't an affiliate of NFLabs. That person is not a programmer
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > has made no contribution to the Zeppelin codebase.
> > > > > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2
> > > > > committers
> > > > > are out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> > > > > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
> > > >
> > > > Google says 6 are affiliated with NFLabs. Of the two who are not,
> > > > one
> > > > is Felix.
> > > >
> > > > > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs,
> > > > > marketing,
> > > > > etc). It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> > > > > contribution.
> > > >
> > > > That is true. But the question is whether the project is a
> > > > 'meritocracy.' In this case, the non-programmer committer is
> > > > Felix, a
> > > > personal friend of Moon's who has a record of dishonesty.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in
> > > > > > > written
> > > > > > > form on the project's main communications channel. Offline,
> > > > > > > face
> > > > -> > > to-face or private discussions that affect the project are
> > > > also
> > > > > > > documented on that channel.
> > > > > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish
> > > > > result in
> > > > > the mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline,
> > > > > like
> > > > > discussion in the meetup, discussion in the conference,
> > > > > discussion in
> > > > > personal email, we move that into the mailing list.
> > > >
> > > > There are examples mentioned already in this email chain...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 20:36 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:37 AM Amos Elberg <
> > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Since subtlety has not worked, I will now be blunter.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reason PR 208 has been delayed since August is that Felix
> > > > > > Cheung
> > > > > > demanded that I credit him as a co-author even though he
> > > > > > hadn't
> > > > > > done
> > > > > > any work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I refused, Felix privately contacted Moon, who is his
> > > > > > friend,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > claimed the PR contained Felix' intellectual property. Moon
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > held
> > > > > > the PR at Felix' request.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I found out what happened after I pursued Moon to ask why the
> > > > > > PR
> > > > > > had
> > > > > > been ignored. When he told me what happened, I had to offer
> > > > > > e-mail
> > > > > > chains and commit logs to prove that Felix was lying.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since then, its been one bogus, junk reason for delay after
> > > > > > another.
> > > > > > For a while, this seems to be because Moon wanted to give
> > > > > > Felix
> > > > > > time to
> > > > > > produce a competing implementation. Except, Felix wasn't
> > > > > > able to
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > it. I caught him trying to pass-off code he'd stolen as his
> > > > > > own,
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > Moon (who should have known) present.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I confronted Moon he told me, basically, "don't rock our
> > > > > > boat."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If anyone has any doubt about whether what I've said is true,
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > have the
> > > > > > email chains, the commit logs, the chat records...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe the reason PRs have been delayed is that they
> > > > > > conflicted
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > other goals of either NFLabs, or friends of committers. Such
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > security
> > > > > > PRs, when NFlabs offers multi-user functionality commercially
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > outside
> > > > > > the project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here are my comments on the draft checklist:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > QU10The project is open and honest about the quality of its
> > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > Various levels of quality and maturity for various modules
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > natural and acceptable as long as they are clearly
> > > > > > > communicated.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > first reported, the response for some three months was "there
> > > > > > can't
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > anything wrong so we won't bother looking." Now its
> > > > > > acknowledged
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > CI is basically broken for the whole project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are many such examples.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > > > > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always
> > > > > try
> > > > > to fix
> > > > > and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > QU20The project puts a very high priority on producing
> > > > > > > secure
> > > > > > > software.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The evidence is otherwise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While many people ask about security features, the response
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > always
> > > > > > been from the PMC "some day," with no progress made. When
> > > > > > community
> > > > > > members tried to contribute the code --- the Shiro PR was
> > > > > > inexplicably
> > > > > > delayed by 4+ months; and the reaction to the new multi-user
> > > > > > PR
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > seems unusual, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe the project intends to make security a priority in the
> > > > > > future.
> > > > > > But so far it has not.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi
> > > > > -user
> > > > > PR,
> > > > > too.
> > > > > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when
> > > > > they
> > > > > need
> > > > > authentication even before it is being merged.
> > > > >
> > > > > And SSL support, securing cross origin access, etc, there're
> > > > > other
> > > > > security
> > > > > improvement effort that already been done and merged.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think project is not producing secure software.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards
> > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > documentation to help users transition to new features.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to,
> > > > > > e.g.,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > way Zeppelin has to be configured, the way Spark integrates
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > Zeppelin, etc., that broke code and broke installations, but
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > never
> > > > > > documented.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so
> > > > > there's
> > > > > > nothing to document." But that is not the case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > > > > Integration
> > > > > since way Spark integration changes. And it still does
> > > > >
> > > > > If you don't think it's enough, you can always contribute the
> > > > > documentation.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug
> > > > > > > reports in a
> > > > > > > timely manner.Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is just one example.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes. see
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectI
> > > > > d=1231
> > > > > 6221&version=12334165
> > > > > I don't think bug fixes are ignored.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can always help fix the bug. Project does not officially
> > > > > discuss
> > > > > on
> > > > > twitter about the bug.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor
> > > > > > > Agreement
> > > > > > > (the
> > > > > > > "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed to
> > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > and how they need to identify code that is not their own.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > anything
> > > > > > about it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > If you want, you can always sign ICLA.
> > > > > https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> > > > >
> > > > > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > > > > Committer,
> > > > > who already signed ICLA.
> > > > > So signing ICLA for contributor is not mandatory.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > CO20
> > > > > > > The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts
> > > > > > > in good
> > > > > > > faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See above.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to
> > > > > > > give more
> > > > > > > rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value
> > > > > > > to the
> > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > isn't
> > > > > > an affiliate of NFLabs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That person is not a programmer and has made no contribution
> > > > > > to the
> > > > > > Zeppelin codebase.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2
> > > > > committers
> > > > > are
> > > > > out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
> > > > >
> > > > > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs,
> > > > > marketing,
> > > > > etc).
> > > > > It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> > > > > contribution.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > CO50
> > > > > > > The way in which contributors can be granted more rights
> > > > > > > such as
> > > > > > > commit access or decision power is clearly documented and
> > > > > > > is the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > for all contributors.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in
> > > > > > written
> > > > > > form
> > > > > > > on the project's main communications channel. Offline, face
> > > > > > > -to
> > > > > > > -face
> > > > > > > or private discussions that affect the project are also
> > > > > > > documented on
> > > > > > > that channel.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish
> > > > > result in
> > > > > the
> > > > > mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline, like
> > > > > discussion
> > > > > in the meetup, discussion in the conference, discussion in
> > > > > personal
> > > > > email,
> > > > > we move that into the mailing list.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > IN10The project is independent from any corporate or
> > > > > > > organizational
> > > > > > > influence.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not so sure...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 23:50 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > > > > I have filled out all checklists and commented as much as i
> > > > > > > can.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please review
> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache
> > > > > > > +Zeppe
> > > > > > > lin+
> > > > > > > Project+Maturity+Model
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Did i filled out correctly? Any feedback would be really
> > > > > > > appreciated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:03 AM moon soo Lee <
> > > > > > > moon@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have created
> > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apac
> > > > > > > > he+Zep
> > > > > > > > peli
> > > > > > > > n+Project+Maturity+Model and
> > > > > > > > trying to fill out Apache Maturity Model checklist.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let me notify this thread when everything is filled out.
> > > > > > > > And any comment, help would be appreciated.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > fill
> > > > > > > > > out the
> > > > > > > > > Apache Maturity Model
> > > > > > > > > checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Roman.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <
> > > > > > > > > minalee@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for
> > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more
> > > > > > > > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > > > > Number of
> > > > > > > > > > contributors has increased more than 7 times and
> > > > > > > > > > three new
> > > > > > > > > > committers
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling
> > > > > > > > > > project. And
> > > > > > > > > > release, vote
> > > > > > > > > > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
> > > > > > > > > > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big
> > > > > > > > > > synergy
> > > > > > > > > > with other
> > > > > > > > > > apache projects by providing different back-end
> > > > > > > > > > interpreters(ex
> > > > > > > > > > spark,
> > > > > > > > > > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > so +1 for graduation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <
> > > > > > > > > madhukaudantha@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <
> > > > > > > > > > > doanduyhai@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo
> > > > > > > > > > > > about the
> > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > maturity model. (
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-m
> > > > > > > > > aturit
> > > > > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > producing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > secure
> > > > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's related to security and I know that there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > on Shiro
> > > > > > > > > > > > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him
> > > > > > > > > > > > by the
> > > > > > > > > > > > way). There is
> > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kerberos (
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull
> > > > > > > > > > > > /640).
> > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > chapter
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > security,
> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > the works are being done and are on good way.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Under the Community topic, I think all the points
> > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > covered (for
> > > > > > > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > > > > > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > documented
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > CONTRIBUTING.md)
> > > > > > > > > > > > as well as consensus (point CO60).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every
> > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > related to
> > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now my personal opinion as a community member is
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > high
> > > > > > > > > time for
> > > > > > > > > > > > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel
> > > > > > > > > > > > comfortable
> > > > > > > > > advising
> > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production
> > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > lack of
> > > > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > but since security support (at least for
> > > > > > > > > > > > authentication) is
> > > > > > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > > trunk
> > > > > > > > > > > > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see
> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > blocker anymore.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So a big +1 for me
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <
> > > > > > > > > > > > ahyoungryu93@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, ++1 !
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > anthonycorbacho@apache.org>님이
> > > > > > > > > 작성한
> > > > > > > > > > > 메시지:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (For
> > > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the
> > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as TLP),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so for me its a big +1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Garcia <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incubator.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think we
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that also
> > > > > > > > > will be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > greatly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jakob,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > > > > > > (there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and get
> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > oppinions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from other participants - that would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > awesome!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the next release here, but please feel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > free to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion on technical details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jghoman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey all-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A data point and observation from an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ASF
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member and
> > > > > > > > > > > Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > community development and adherence to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Way,
> > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > entering
> > > > > > > > > Incubator,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > releases,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finished
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incubation checklist
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/z
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eppeli
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > n.ht
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ml), has
> > > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > position to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from my perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handled
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a speedy
> > > > > > > > > > > > matter,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > disagreement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that -
> > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jakob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we didn't
> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *in* 208
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > functioning.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail. Now
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is broken
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > myself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proven
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the field:
> > > > > > > > > > > > People
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in my repo
> > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > August, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's very
> > > > > > > > > hard to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meetup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > September
> > > > > > > > > > > where a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > variant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dealing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > significant
> > > > > > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > outside the core development team.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Addressing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these issues
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > R,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maturity.
> > > > > > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-beta release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > soo Lee
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sourav for interest in this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and very
> > > > > > > > > > > > valuable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree how much R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication (which
> > > > > > > > > i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in Zeppelin) will be useful for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > users.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believe me, I
> > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in Zeppelin more than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But at the same time we have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diversity of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user bases.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people might think supporting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JDBC is more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful feature, the other can think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > multi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -tenancy is the
> > > > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, i believe Apache Top Level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > defined by how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > works,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not defined by what feature does
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > includes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding bringing R into main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tried to make
> > > > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > passes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could able to make it pass 1 test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profile,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > couldn't
> > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other test profiles.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm suggesting split the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > smaller
> > > > > > > > > peaces
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one. Like Hayssam did it for his
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Shiro
> > > > > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (pr586). And I'm volunteering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > making
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into smaller
> > > > > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This does make sense Moon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Completely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with you
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important for becoming a top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my opinion, from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > standpoint,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two features Zeppelin does not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > > fledged
> > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious whether there are any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > technical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glitches which
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impediment
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bringing these features to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wondering
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to get those problems fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > soo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee <
> > > > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think any feature (R or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > prerequisites
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation. Especially when a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never setup
> > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation goal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Including specific features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valid concern for
> > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but i don't think it's related
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graduation is much more like if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is doing it in
> > > > > > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding. Last time the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't go
> > > > > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is, because of there were valid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impasse.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since that, community improved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarified
> > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > guide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > process. And Zeppelin PPMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > members
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to help
> > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that they have been as a open
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > (Especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jongyoul
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Felix helped a lot)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, let's move discussions like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature should
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > included'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release / roadmap discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the graduation discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have an
> > > > > > > > > > > > discussions,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evaluating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-m
> > > > > > > > > aturit
> > > > > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense for you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guys?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran, Sourav?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No Eran is right. The last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > passed-it
> > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > withdrawn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in favor of releasing 0.5.6.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there was
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors concerning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation, R,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some other
> > > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > last public discussion about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > until today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex if you disagree with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have links to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > emails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you're referring to.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexander
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eran,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for sharing your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oppinion!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please check my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reply about
> > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schedulle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know if that makes sense to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, please our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct me if I'm
> > > > > > > > > wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > here,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reading [1] I was under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impression
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that project
> > > > > > > > > does not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pre-request
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding its code or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > order to undergo
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > formal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Polic
> > > > > > > > > y.html
> > > > > > > > > #Gra
> > > > > > > > > duating+from+the+Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 20:04 Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Witkon <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > eranwitkon@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I recall correctly R
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pre-requisite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from day one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be added as
> > > > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 20:24
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > javasc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Surely I vote for the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin is already
> > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > popular
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quarts of the Spark/Big
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group. High
> > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I shall
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggest to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the support for
> > > > > > > > > R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to Zeppelin before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are the supports
> > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eagerly waiting for.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at 8:23
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon soo Lee <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Alexander for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > resuming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's start a vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11:11
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PM Alexander
> > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Zeppelin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > developers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now, after number
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > releases
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and committers
> > > > > > > > > grew
> > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the re-new the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduating
> > > > > > > > > Zeppelin to
> > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there are on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > objections -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next step would be
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > start a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VOTE
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you guys
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Software Engeenier
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > javasc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > marta.tapia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * |
> > > > > > > > > > > victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <marta.tapia@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > > > Madhuka Udantha
> > > > > > > > > > > http://madhukaudantha.blogspot.com
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Felix Cheung <fe...@hotmail.com>.
Ok this has gone too far. You are putting words into my mouth that I have not said.
My work is my own and do not falsely accuse me, without facts, that I have stolen anything. I equally have records to prove that you have not been collaborative and my implementation is working before yours, and an user, who apparently you work with separately, has tested my working implementation before yours. Furthermore, I have no involvement in your PR since 1st week of Sept 2015 when I stopped helping you.
Personal attack is not the Apache Way, and I urge you to reconsider your approach. I am not going to reply or debate with you any further on email or any electronic medium. And you don't need to send me more SMS or call, you have been blocked.
Felix
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:44 PM -0800, "Amos Elberg" <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I met Felix first time in the meetup you always refering.
He told me he was friends with you in one of our first conversations on
the phone in July. Maybe he was lying -- he did also claim to be a PMC
member at the time, which wasn't true.
But you've never denied that in August you appointed him to "oversee"
and "supervise" the PR. Even though you say you knew he's not a
programmer and doesnt know how to write code?
I don't think you're being straight with everyone.
On Sat, 2016-02-06 at 00:19 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> Amos,
>
> I forgot to say thank you for you saying,
> 6 of committer affiliated in NFLabs and Felix is my friend.
>
> But here's some correction,
>
> As an employee of NFLabs,
> I hope more people from my company contribute more and become a
> Committer
> of Zeppelin. But so far 5 out of 8 affiliated NFLabs,
>
> And Zeppelin, as any another apache project does, taking diversity of
> committer really importantly. And i believe that's how project grow.
>
> If you say Felix is my friend, i say thank you. I met Felix first
> time in
> the meetup you always refering.
> Thank you Amos to make me friend of Felix.
>
> Best,
> moon
>
> On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 8:59 moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Amos,
> >
> > Thanks for opinion.
> >
> > I think CI stability is not a problem for graduation.
> > CI sometimes break, but always fixed and back online in a day. CI
> > has no
> > problem in general.
> >
> > I must say clearly, pr208 is not merged because of it does not pass
> > ci
> > test, not because of CI is broken. Please don't confuse.
> >
> >
> > I don't see anyone in the community try to steal your work. You
> > always
> > pointing Felix but he said he used his own work.
> >
> > Zeppelin community is not judging what happened in a 3rd party
> > meetup.
> >
> > Please go to law court with your evidence if you think someone
> > stole your
> > work for the presentation for the meetup. That's better instead of
> > complaining in graduation discussion thread.
> >
> > Best,
> > moon
> >
> > On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 7:44 Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The topic here is supposed to be an open, honest, objective
> > > evaluation
> > > of the project against the criteria in the checklist.
> > >
> > > I would like us to stick to the subject.
> > >
> > > > > > QU10 The project is open and honest about the quality of
> > > > > > its ...
> > > > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality,
> > > > > and
> > > > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI
> > > > > issues
> > > > > were first reported, the response for some three months was
> > > > > "there can't be anything wrong so we won't bother looking."
> > > > > ...
> > > > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > > > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always
> > > > try
> > > > to fix and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> > >
> > > The issue is whether the project is "open and honest" about code
> > > quality. Or defensive (and hostile).
> > >
> > > CI isn't broken? How many PRs have been merged in the last month
> > > with a
> > > note to not worry that they don't pass CI because its broken?
> > > More
> > > than a month ago Moon personally committed to fix it, and NFlabs
> > > has a
> > > project to completely replace it because its so unstable.
> > >
> > > I think Moon has just proven my point.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing
> > > > > > secure
> > > > > > software.
> > > > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi
> > > > -user
> > > > PR, too.
> > >
> > > Not really... Usually the answer was to refer people to NFlabs,
> > > or say
> > > its something that would be discussed in the future.
> > >
> > > There was an example on the User list yesterday.
> > >
> > > > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when
> > > > they
> > > > need authentication even before it is being merged.
> > >
> > > If that were true then why was the PR was ignored for so long?
> > > The
> > > excuse in December was that the PR was forgotten about.
> > >
> > > > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards
> > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > and aims to document any incompatible changes and provide
> > > > > > tools >
> > > > > and documentation to help users transition . . .
> > > > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to,
> > > > > e.g.,
> > > > > the. . . that broke code and broke installations, but were
> > > > > never documented.
> > > > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so
> > > > > there's
> > > > > nothing to document."
> > > > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > > > Integration since way Spark integration changes.
> > >
> > > That's not correct. In fact Moon and I had an e-mail exchange
> > > about this
> > > in August and September, and its been discussed several times in
> > > PR
> > > comments.
> > >
> > > This issue is *still* breaking builds for people, and it comes up
> > > on the
> > > user help list every few days. And that's just one issue.
> > >
> > > Moon has, again, made my point.
> > >
> > > > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug
> > > > > > reports in > >
> > > > timely manner.
> > > > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted
> > > > > in > >
> > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple people
> > > > > and the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > > > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes.
> > >
> > > Not correct. Fixes to typos and grammar errors in documentation,
> > > and
> > > changes to the shading of windows, are not "bug fixes."
> > >
> > > In the 0.5.6 vote I asked if there were any substantive changes
> > > or bug
> > > fixes in 0.5.6. The twitter-bug was the only example that anyone
> > > was able
> > > to produce.
> > >
> > > Anyway, the question is still why that PR and the bug reports
> > > were
> > > ignored in September, October, November, before twitter
> > > complained?
> > >
> > > The issue is whether *the project* is responding to bug reports
> > > in a
> > > timely manner. My example shows that it is not.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor
> > > > > > Agreement
> > > > > > (the "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are
> > > > > > allowed to
> > > > > > commit and how they need to identify code that is not their
> > > > > > own.
> > > > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent
> > > > > with
> > > > > the iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and
> > > > > didn't do
> > > > > anything about it.
> > > > If you want, you can always sign ICLA...
> > > > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > > > Committer, who already signed ICLA. So signing ICLA for
> > > > contributor
> > > > is not mandatory.
> > >
> > > Part of the iCLA is also *honesty* about the attribution of code.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > CO20 The community welcomes contributions from anyone who
> > > > > > acts in >
> > > > > good faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > > > > project.
> > > > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
> > >
> > > Is that a joke? One current member of the PMC tried to bully me
> > > into
> > > crediting him for work he hadn't done. Then tried to stall the PR
> > > while
> > > publicly claiming authorship. And another member of the PMC
> > > covered-up for
> > > him.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to
> > > > > > give
> > > > > > more rights and responsibilities to contributors who add
> > > > > > value to
> > > > > > the project.
> > > > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer
> > > > > who
> > > > > isn't an affiliate of NFLabs. That person is not a programmer
> > > > > and
> > > > > has made no contribution to the Zeppelin codebase.
> > > > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2
> > > > committers
> > > > are out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> > > > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
> > >
> > > Google says 6 are affiliated with NFLabs. Of the two who are not,
> > > one
> > > is Felix.
> > >
> > > > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs,
> > > > marketing,
> > > > etc). It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> > > > contribution.
> > >
> > > That is true. But the question is whether the project is a
> > > 'meritocracy.' In this case, the non-programmer committer is
> > > Felix, a
> > > personal friend of Moon's who has a record of dishonesty.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in
> > > > > > written
> > > > > > form on the project's main communications channel. Offline,
> > > > > > face
> > > -> > > to-face or private discussions that affect the project are
> > > also
> > > > > > documented on that channel.
> > > > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.>
> > > > > >
> > > > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish
> > > > result in
> > > > the mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline,
> > > > like
> > > > discussion in the meetup, discussion in the conference,
> > > > discussion in
> > > > personal email, we move that into the mailing list.
> > >
> > > There are examples mentioned already in this email chain...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 20:36 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:37 AM Amos Elberg <
> > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Since subtlety has not worked, I will now be blunter.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason PR 208 has been delayed since August is that Felix
> > > > > Cheung
> > > > > demanded that I credit him as a co-author even though he
> > > > > hadn't
> > > > > done
> > > > > any work.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I refused, Felix privately contacted Moon, who is his
> > > > > friend,
> > > > > and
> > > > > claimed the PR contained Felix' intellectual property. Moon
> > > > > then
> > > > > held
> > > > > the PR at Felix' request.
> > > > >
> > > > > I found out what happened after I pursued Moon to ask why the
> > > > > PR
> > > > > had
> > > > > been ignored. When he told me what happened, I had to offer
> > > > > e-mail
> > > > > chains and commit logs to prove that Felix was lying.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since then, its been one bogus, junk reason for delay after
> > > > > another.
> > > > > For a while, this seems to be because Moon wanted to give
> > > > > Felix
> > > > > time to
> > > > > produce a competing implementation. Except, Felix wasn't
> > > > > able to
> > > > > do
> > > > > it. I caught him trying to pass-off code he'd stolen as his
> > > > > own,
> > > > > with
> > > > > Moon (who should have known) present.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I confronted Moon he told me, basically, "don't rock our
> > > > > boat."
> > > > >
> > > > > If anyone has any doubt about whether what I've said is true,
> > > > > I
> > > > > have the
> > > > > email chains, the commit logs, the chat records...
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe the reason PRs have been delayed is that they
> > > > > conflicted
> > > > > with
> > > > > other goals of either NFLabs, or friends of committers. Such
> > > > > as
> > > > > security
> > > > > PRs, when NFlabs offers multi-user functionality commercially
> > > > > and
> > > > > outside
> > > > > the project.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Here are my comments on the draft checklist:
> > > > >
> > > > > > QU10The project is open and honest about the quality of its
> > > > > > code.
> > > > > > Various levels of quality and maturity for various modules
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > natural and acceptable as long as they are clearly
> > > > > > communicated.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality,
> > > > > and
> > > > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI
> > > > > issues
> > > > > were
> > > > > first reported, the response for some three months was "there
> > > > > can't
> > > > > be
> > > > > anything wrong so we won't bother looking." Now its
> > > > > acknowledged
> > > > > that
> > > > > CI is basically broken for the whole project.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are many such examples.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > > > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always
> > > > try
> > > > to fix
> > > > and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > QU20The project puts a very high priority on producing
> > > > > > secure
> > > > > > software.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > The evidence is otherwise.
> > > > >
> > > > > While many people ask about security features, the response
> > > > > has
> > > > > always
> > > > > been from the PMC "some day," with no progress made. When
> > > > > community
> > > > > members tried to contribute the code --- the Shiro PR was
> > > > > inexplicably
> > > > > delayed by 4+ months; and the reaction to the new multi-user
> > > > > PR
> > > > > already
> > > > > seems unusual, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe the project intends to make security a priority in the
> > > > > future.
> > > > > But so far it has not.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi
> > > > -user
> > > > PR,
> > > > too.
> > > > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when
> > > > they
> > > > need
> > > > authentication even before it is being merged.
> > > >
> > > > And SSL support, securing cross origin access, etc, there're
> > > > other
> > > > security
> > > > improvement effort that already been done and merged.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think project is not producing secure software.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards
> > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > documentation to help users transition to new features.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to,
> > > > > e.g.,
> > > > > the
> > > > > way Zeppelin has to be configured, the way Spark integrates
> > > > > with
> > > > > Zeppelin, etc., that broke code and broke installations, but
> > > > > were
> > > > > never
> > > > > documented.
> > > > >
> > > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so
> > > > there's
> > > > > nothing to document." But that is not the case.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > > > Integration
> > > > since way Spark integration changes. And it still does
> > > >
> > > > If you don't think it's enough, you can always contribute the
> > > > documentation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug
> > > > > > reports in a
> > > > > > timely manner.Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted
> > > > > in
> > > > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple
> > > > > people
> > > > > and
> > > > > the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is just one example.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes. see
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectI
> > > > d=1231
> > > > 6221&version=12334165
> > > > I don't think bug fixes are ignored.
> > > >
> > > > You can always help fix the bug. Project does not officially
> > > > discuss
> > > > on
> > > > twitter about the bug.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor
> > > > > > Agreement
> > > > > > (the
> > > > > > "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed to
> > > > > > commit
> > > > > > and how they need to identify code that is not their own.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent
> > > > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't
> > > > > do
> > > > > anything
> > > > > about it.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > If you want, you can always sign ICLA.
> > > > https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> > > >
> > > > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > > > Committer,
> > > > who already signed ICLA.
> > > > So signing ICLA for contributor is not mandatory.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > CO20
> > > > > > The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts
> > > > > > in good
> > > > > > faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > > > > project.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > See above.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to
> > > > > > give more
> > > > > > rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value
> > > > > > to the
> > > > > > project.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer
> > > > > who
> > > > > isn't
> > > > > an affiliate of NFLabs.
> > > > >
> > > > > That person is not a programmer and has made no contribution
> > > > > to the
> > > > > Zeppelin codebase.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2
> > > > committers
> > > > are
> > > > out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> > > >
> > > > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
> > > >
> > > > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs,
> > > > marketing,
> > > > etc).
> > > > It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> > > > contribution.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > CO50
> > > > > > The way in which contributors can be granted more rights
> > > > > > such as
> > > > > > commit access or decision power is clearly documented and
> > > > > > is the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > for all contributors.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > See above.
> > > > >
> > > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in
> > > > > written
> > > > > form
> > > > > > on the project's main communications channel. Offline, face
> > > > > > -to
> > > > > > -face
> > > > > > or private discussions that affect the project are also
> > > > > > documented on
> > > > > > that channel.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish
> > > > result in
> > > > the
> > > > mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline, like
> > > > discussion
> > > > in the meetup, discussion in the conference, discussion in
> > > > personal
> > > > email,
> > > > we move that into the mailing list.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > IN10The project is independent from any corporate or
> > > > > > organizational
> > > > > > influence.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not so sure...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 23:50 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > > > I have filled out all checklists and commented as much as i
> > > > > > can.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please review
> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache
> > > > > > +Zeppe
> > > > > > lin+
> > > > > > Project+Maturity+Model
> > > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Did i filled out correctly? Any feedback would be really
> > > > > > appreciated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > moon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:03 AM moon soo Lee <
> > > > > > moon@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have created
> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apac
> > > > > > > he+Zep
> > > > > > > peli
> > > > > > > n+Project+Maturity+Model and
> > > > > > > trying to fill out Apache Maturity Model checklist.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let me notify this thread when everything is filled out.
> > > > > > > And any comment, help would be appreciated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > fill
> > > > > > > > out the
> > > > > > > > Apache Maturity Model
> > > > > > > > checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Roman.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <
> > > > > > > > minalee@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for
> > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more
> > > > > > > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > > > Number of
> > > > > > > > > contributors has increased more than 7 times and
> > > > > > > > > three new
> > > > > > > > > committers
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling
> > > > > > > > > project. And
> > > > > > > > > release, vote
> > > > > > > > > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
> > > > > > > > > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big
> > > > > > > > > synergy
> > > > > > > > > with other
> > > > > > > > > apache projects by providing different back-end
> > > > > > > > > interpreters(ex
> > > > > > > > > spark,
> > > > > > > > > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > so +1 for graduation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <
> > > > > > > > madhukaudantha@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <
> > > > > > > > > > doanduyhai@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo
> > > > > > > > > > > about the
> > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > maturity model. (
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-m
> > > > > > > > aturit
> > > > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on
> > > > > > > > > > > > producing
> > > > > > > > > > > > secure
> > > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It's related to security and I know that there is
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > on Shiro
> > > > > > > > > > > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him
> > > > > > > > > > > by the
> > > > > > > > > > > way). There is
> > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about
> > > > > > > > > > > Kerberos (
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull
> > > > > > > > > > > /640).
> > > > > > > > > > > Don't know
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > chapter
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > security,
> > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > the works are being done and are on good way.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Under the Community topic, I think all the points
> > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > covered (for
> > > > > > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > > > > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > documented
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > CONTRIBUTING.md)
> > > > > > > > > > > as well as consensus (point CO60).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every
> > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > related to
> > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the
> > > > > > > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Now my personal opinion as a community member is
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > high
> > > > > > > > time for
> > > > > > > > > > > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel
> > > > > > > > > > > comfortable
> > > > > > > > advising
> > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production
> > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > lack of
> > > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > but since security support (at least for
> > > > > > > > > > > authentication) is
> > > > > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > trunk
> > > > > > > > > > > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > blocker anymore.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So a big +1 for me
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <
> > > > > > > > > > > ahyoungryu93@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think
> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, ++1 !
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<
> > > > > > > > > > > > anthonycorbacho@apache.org>님이
> > > > > > > > 작성한
> > > > > > > > > > 메시지:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (For
> > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for the
> > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as TLP),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > so for me its a big +1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Garcia <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > incubator.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > think we
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that also
> > > > > > > > will be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > greatly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jakob,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > > > > > (there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and get
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > oppinions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from other participants - that would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > awesome!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the next release here, but please feel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > free to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion on technical details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jghoman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey all-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A data point and observation from an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ASF
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member and
> > > > > > > > > > Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > PMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > community development and adherence to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Way,
> > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > entering
> > > > > > > > Incubator,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > releases,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finished
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incubation checklist
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/z
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eppeli
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > n.ht
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ml), has
> > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > position to
> > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from my perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handled
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a speedy
> > > > > > > > > > > matter,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > disagreement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that -
> > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jakob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we didn't
> > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *in* 208
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > functioning.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail. Now
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is broken
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > myself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proven
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the field:
> > > > > > > > > > > People
> > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in my repo
> > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > August, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's very
> > > > > > > > hard to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meetup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > September
> > > > > > > > > > where a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > variant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dealing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > significant
> > > > > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > outside the core development team.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Addressing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these issues
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > R,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maturity.
> > > > > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-beta release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > soo Lee
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sourav for interest in this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and very
> > > > > > > > > > > valuable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree how much R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication (which
> > > > > > > > i
> > > > > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in Zeppelin) will be useful for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > users.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believe me, I
> > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in Zeppelin more than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But at the same time we have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diversity of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user bases.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people might think supporting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JDBC is more
> > > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful feature, the other can think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > multi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -tenancy is the
> > > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, i believe Apache Top Level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > defined by how
> > > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > works,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not defined by what feature does
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > includes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding bringing R into main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tried to make
> > > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > passes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could able to make it pass 1 test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profile,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > couldn't
> > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other test profiles.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm suggesting split the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > smaller
> > > > > > > > peaces
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one. Like Hayssam did it for his
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Shiro
> > > > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (pr586). And I'm volunteering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > making
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into smaller
> > > > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This does make sense Moon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Completely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with you
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important for becoming a top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my opinion, from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > standpoint,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two features Zeppelin does not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > fledged
> > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious whether there are any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > technical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glitches which
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > impediment
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bringing these features to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wondering
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to get those problems fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > soo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee <
> > > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think any feature (R or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > prerequisites
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation. Especially when a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never setup
> > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation goal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Including specific features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valid concern for
> > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but i don't think it's related
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graduation is much more like if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is doing it in
> > > > > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding. Last time the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't go
> > > > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is, because of there were valid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > impasse.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since that, community improved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarified
> > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > guide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > process. And Zeppelin PPMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > members
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to help
> > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that they have been as a open
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long time.
> > > > > > > > > > > (Especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jongyoul
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Felix helped a lot)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, let's move discussions like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature should
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > included'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release / roadmap discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the graduation discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have an
> > > > > > > > > > > discussions,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evaluating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-m
> > > > > > > > aturit
> > > > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense for you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guys?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran, Sourav?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No Eran is right. The last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > passed-it
> > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > withdrawn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in favor of releasing 0.5.6.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there was
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors concerning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation, R,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some other
> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > last public discussion about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > until today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex if you disagree with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have links to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > emails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you're referring to.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexander
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eran,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for sharing your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oppinion!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please check my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reply about
> > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schedulle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know if that makes sense to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, please our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct me if I'm
> > > > > > > > wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > here,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reading [1] I was under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impression
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that project
> > > > > > > > does not
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pre-request
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding its code or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > order to undergo
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > formal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Polic
> > > > > > > > y.html
> > > > > > > > #Gra
> > > > > > > > duating+from+the+Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 20:04 Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Witkon <
> > > > > > > > > > > > eranwitkon@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I recall correctly R
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > pre-requisite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from day one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be added as
> > > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 20:24
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > javasc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Surely I vote for the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin is already
> > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > popular
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quarts of the Spark/Big
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group. High
> > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I shall
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggest to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the support for
> > > > > > > > R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to Zeppelin before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are the supports
> > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eagerly waiting for.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at 8:23
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon soo Lee <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Alexander for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > resuming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's start a vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11:11
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PM Alexander
> > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Zeppelin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > developers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now, after number
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > releases
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and committers
> > > > > > > > grew
> > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the re-new the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduating
> > > > > > > > Zeppelin to
> > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there are on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > objections -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next step would be
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > start a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VOTE
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you guys
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Software Engeenier
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > javasc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > marta.tapia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > * |
> > > > > > > > > > victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <marta.tapia@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > > Madhuka Udantha
> > > > > > > > > > http://madhukaudantha.blogspot.com
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
Felix was involving Zeppelin since last Feb. If he think i'm friend even
before i met him, i'm really happy.
Any problem?
Every apache project publish commiter and PMC list and announce when new
people invited. So anyone in the world freely access list of committer. So
please see this public official information.
I have asked Felix to help review in your PR. Actually not only Felix but
others, too. Hope that's not a problem for you, because of reviewing code
is open for everyone.
Thanks,
moon
On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 9:44 Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I met Felix first time in the meetup you always refering.
>
> He told me he was friends with you in one of our first conversations on
> the phone in July. Maybe he was lying -- he did also claim to be a PMC
> member at the time, which wasn't true.
>
> But you've never denied that in August you appointed him to "oversee"
> and "supervise" the PR. Even though you say you knew he's not a
> programmer and doesnt know how to write code?
>
> I don't think you're being straight with everyone.
>
>
> On Sat, 2016-02-06 at 00:19 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > Amos,
> >
> > I forgot to say thank you for you saying,
> > 6 of committer affiliated in NFLabs and Felix is my friend.
> >
> > But here's some correction,
> >
> > As an employee of NFLabs,
> > I hope more people from my company contribute more and become a
> > Committer
> > of Zeppelin. But so far 5 out of 8 affiliated NFLabs,
> >
> > And Zeppelin, as any another apache project does, taking diversity of
> > committer really importantly. And i believe that's how project grow.
> >
> > If you say Felix is my friend, i say thank you. I met Felix first
> > time in
> > the meetup you always refering.
> > Thank you Amos to make me friend of Felix.
> >
> > Best,
> > moon
> >
> > On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 8:59 moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Amos,
> > >
> > > Thanks for opinion.
> > >
> > > I think CI stability is not a problem for graduation.
> > > CI sometimes break, but always fixed and back online in a day. CI
> > > has no
> > > problem in general.
> > >
> > > I must say clearly, pr208 is not merged because of it does not pass
> > > ci
> > > test, not because of CI is broken. Please don't confuse.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't see anyone in the community try to steal your work. You
> > > always
> > > pointing Felix but he said he used his own work.
> > >
> > > Zeppelin community is not judging what happened in a 3rd party
> > > meetup.
> > >
> > > Please go to law court with your evidence if you think someone
> > > stole your
> > > work for the presentation for the meetup. That's better instead of
> > > complaining in graduation discussion thread.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > moon
> > >
> > > On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 7:44 Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The topic here is supposed to be an open, honest, objective
> > > > evaluation
> > > > of the project against the criteria in the checklist.
> > > >
> > > > I would like us to stick to the subject.
> > > >
> > > > > > > QU10 The project is open and honest about the quality of
> > > > > > > its ...
> > > > > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > were first reported, the response for some three months was
> > > > > > "there can't be anything wrong so we won't bother looking."
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > > > > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always
> > > > > try
> > > > > to fix and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > The issue is whether the project is "open and honest" about code
> > > > quality. Or defensive (and hostile).
> > > >
> > > > CI isn't broken? How many PRs have been merged in the last month
> > > > with a
> > > > note to not worry that they don't pass CI because its broken?
> > > > More
> > > > than a month ago Moon personally committed to fix it, and NFlabs
> > > > has a
> > > > project to completely replace it because its so unstable.
> > > >
> > > > I think Moon has just proven my point.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing
> > > > > > > secure
> > > > > > > software.
> > > > > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi
> > > > > -user
> > > > > PR, too.
> > > >
> > > > Not really... Usually the answer was to refer people to NFlabs,
> > > > or say
> > > > its something that would be discussed in the future.
> > > >
> > > > There was an example on the User list yesterday.
> > > >
> > > > > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when
> > > > > they
> > > > > need authentication even before it is being merged.
> > > >
> > > > If that were true then why was the PR was ignored for so long?
> > > > The
> > > > excuse in December was that the PR was forgotten about.
> > > >
> > > > > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards
> > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > and aims to document any incompatible changes and provide
> > > > > > > tools >
> > > > > > and documentation to help users transition . . .
> > > > > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to,
> > > > > > e.g.,
> > > > > > the. . . that broke code and broke installations, but were
> > > > > > never documented.
> > > > > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so
> > > > > > there's
> > > > > > nothing to document."
> > > > > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > > > > Integration since way Spark integration changes.
> > > >
> > > > That's not correct. In fact Moon and I had an e-mail exchange
> > > > about this
> > > > in August and September, and its been discussed several times in
> > > > PR
> > > > comments.
> > > >
> > > > This issue is *still* breaking builds for people, and it comes up
> > > > on the
> > > > user help list every few days. And that's just one issue.
> > > >
> > > > Moon has, again, made my point.
> > > >
> > > > > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug
> > > > > > > reports in > >
> > > > > timely manner.
> > > > > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted
> > > > > > in > >
> > > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple people
> > > > > > and the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > > > > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes.
> > > >
> > > > Not correct. Fixes to typos and grammar errors in documentation,
> > > > and
> > > > changes to the shading of windows, are not "bug fixes."
> > > >
> > > > In the 0.5.6 vote I asked if there were any substantive changes
> > > > or bug
> > > > fixes in 0.5.6. The twitter-bug was the only example that anyone
> > > > was able
> > > > to produce.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, the question is still why that PR and the bug reports
> > > > were
> > > > ignored in September, October, November, before twitter
> > > > complained?
> > > >
> > > > The issue is whether *the project* is responding to bug reports
> > > > in a
> > > > timely manner. My example shows that it is not.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor
> > > > > > > Agreement
> > > > > > > (the "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are
> > > > > > > allowed to
> > > > > > > commit and how they need to identify code that is not their
> > > > > > > own.
> > > > > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > the iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and
> > > > > > didn't do
> > > > > > anything about it.
> > > > > If you want, you can always sign ICLA...
> > > > > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > > > > Committer, who already signed ICLA. So signing ICLA for
> > > > > contributor
> > > > > is not mandatory.
> > > >
> > > > Part of the iCLA is also *honesty* about the attribution of code.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > CO20 The community welcomes contributions from anyone who
> > > > > > > acts in >
> > > > > > good faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > > > > > project.
> > > > > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
> > > >
> > > > Is that a joke? One current member of the PMC tried to bully me
> > > > into
> > > > crediting him for work he hadn't done. Then tried to stall the PR
> > > > while
> > > > publicly claiming authorship. And another member of the PMC
> > > > covered-up for
> > > > him.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to
> > > > > > > give
> > > > > > > more rights and responsibilities to contributors who add
> > > > > > > value to
> > > > > > > the project.
> > > > > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > isn't an affiliate of NFLabs. That person is not a programmer
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > has made no contribution to the Zeppelin codebase.
> > > > > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2
> > > > > committers
> > > > > are out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> > > > > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
> > > >
> > > > Google says 6 are affiliated with NFLabs. Of the two who are not,
> > > > one
> > > > is Felix.
> > > >
> > > > > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs,
> > > > > marketing,
> > > > > etc). It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> > > > > contribution.
> > > >
> > > > That is true. But the question is whether the project is a
> > > > 'meritocracy.' In this case, the non-programmer committer is
> > > > Felix, a
> > > > personal friend of Moon's who has a record of dishonesty.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in
> > > > > > > written
> > > > > > > form on the project's main communications channel. Offline,
> > > > > > > face
> > > > -> > > to-face or private discussions that affect the project are
> > > > also
> > > > > > > documented on that channel.
> > > > > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish
> > > > > result in
> > > > > the mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline,
> > > > > like
> > > > > discussion in the meetup, discussion in the conference,
> > > > > discussion in
> > > > > personal email, we move that into the mailing list.
> > > >
> > > > There are examples mentioned already in this email chain...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 20:36 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:37 AM Amos Elberg <
> > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Since subtlety has not worked, I will now be blunter.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reason PR 208 has been delayed since August is that Felix
> > > > > > Cheung
> > > > > > demanded that I credit him as a co-author even though he
> > > > > > hadn't
> > > > > > done
> > > > > > any work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I refused, Felix privately contacted Moon, who is his
> > > > > > friend,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > claimed the PR contained Felix' intellectual property. Moon
> > > > > > then
> > > > > > held
> > > > > > the PR at Felix' request.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I found out what happened after I pursued Moon to ask why the
> > > > > > PR
> > > > > > had
> > > > > > been ignored. When he told me what happened, I had to offer
> > > > > > e-mail
> > > > > > chains and commit logs to prove that Felix was lying.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since then, its been one bogus, junk reason for delay after
> > > > > > another.
> > > > > > For a while, this seems to be because Moon wanted to give
> > > > > > Felix
> > > > > > time to
> > > > > > produce a competing implementation. Except, Felix wasn't
> > > > > > able to
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > it. I caught him trying to pass-off code he'd stolen as his
> > > > > > own,
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > Moon (who should have known) present.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I confronted Moon he told me, basically, "don't rock our
> > > > > > boat."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If anyone has any doubt about whether what I've said is true,
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > have the
> > > > > > email chains, the commit logs, the chat records...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe the reason PRs have been delayed is that they
> > > > > > conflicted
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > other goals of either NFLabs, or friends of committers. Such
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > security
> > > > > > PRs, when NFlabs offers multi-user functionality commercially
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > outside
> > > > > > the project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here are my comments on the draft checklist:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > QU10The project is open and honest about the quality of its
> > > > > > > code.
> > > > > > > Various levels of quality and maturity for various modules
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > natural and acceptable as long as they are clearly
> > > > > > > communicated.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI
> > > > > > issues
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > first reported, the response for some three months was "there
> > > > > > can't
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > anything wrong so we won't bother looking." Now its
> > > > > > acknowledged
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > CI is basically broken for the whole project.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are many such examples.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > > > > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always
> > > > > try
> > > > > to fix
> > > > > and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > QU20The project puts a very high priority on producing
> > > > > > > secure
> > > > > > > software.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The evidence is otherwise.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While many people ask about security features, the response
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > always
> > > > > > been from the PMC "some day," with no progress made. When
> > > > > > community
> > > > > > members tried to contribute the code --- the Shiro PR was
> > > > > > inexplicably
> > > > > > delayed by 4+ months; and the reaction to the new multi-user
> > > > > > PR
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > seems unusual, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe the project intends to make security a priority in the
> > > > > > future.
> > > > > > But so far it has not.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi
> > > > > -user
> > > > > PR,
> > > > > too.
> > > > > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when
> > > > > they
> > > > > need
> > > > > authentication even before it is being merged.
> > > > >
> > > > > And SSL support, securing cross origin access, etc, there're
> > > > > other
> > > > > security
> > > > > improvement effort that already been done and merged.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think project is not producing secure software.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards
> > > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > documentation to help users transition to new features.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to,
> > > > > > e.g.,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > way Zeppelin has to be configured, the way Spark integrates
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > Zeppelin, etc., that broke code and broke installations, but
> > > > > > were
> > > > > > never
> > > > > > documented.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so
> > > > > there's
> > > > > > nothing to document." But that is not the case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > > > > Integration
> > > > > since way Spark integration changes. And it still does
> > > > >
> > > > > If you don't think it's enough, you can always contribute the
> > > > > documentation.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug
> > > > > > > reports in a
> > > > > > > timely manner.Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is just one example.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes. see
> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectI
> > > > > d=1231
> > > > > 6221&version=12334165
> > > > > I don't think bug fixes are ignored.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can always help fix the bug. Project does not officially
> > > > > discuss
> > > > > on
> > > > > twitter about the bug.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor
> > > > > > > Agreement
> > > > > > > (the
> > > > > > > "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed to
> > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > and how they need to identify code that is not their own.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > anything
> > > > > > about it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > If you want, you can always sign ICLA.
> > > > > https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> > > > >
> > > > > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > > > > Committer,
> > > > > who already signed ICLA.
> > > > > So signing ICLA for contributor is not mandatory.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > CO20
> > > > > > > The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts
> > > > > > > in good
> > > > > > > faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See above.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to
> > > > > > > give more
> > > > > > > rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value
> > > > > > > to the
> > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > isn't
> > > > > > an affiliate of NFLabs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That person is not a programmer and has made no contribution
> > > > > > to the
> > > > > > Zeppelin codebase.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2
> > > > > committers
> > > > > are
> > > > > out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
> > > > >
> > > > > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs,
> > > > > marketing,
> > > > > etc).
> > > > > It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> > > > > contribution.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > CO50
> > > > > > > The way in which contributors can be granted more rights
> > > > > > > such as
> > > > > > > commit access or decision power is clearly documented and
> > > > > > > is the
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > for all contributors.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See above.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in
> > > > > > written
> > > > > > form
> > > > > > > on the project's main communications channel. Offline, face
> > > > > > > -to
> > > > > > > -face
> > > > > > > or private discussions that affect the project are also
> > > > > > > documented on
> > > > > > > that channel.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish
> > > > > result in
> > > > > the
> > > > > mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline, like
> > > > > discussion
> > > > > in the meetup, discussion in the conference, discussion in
> > > > > personal
> > > > > email,
> > > > > we move that into the mailing list.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > IN10The project is independent from any corporate or
> > > > > > > organizational
> > > > > > > influence.
> > > > > > > Yes
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not so sure...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 23:50 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > > > > I have filled out all checklists and commented as much as i
> > > > > > > can.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please review
> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache
> > > > > > > +Zeppe
> > > > > > > lin+
> > > > > > > Project+Maturity+Model
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Did i filled out correctly? Any feedback would be really
> > > > > > > appreciated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:03 AM moon soo Lee <
> > > > > > > moon@apache.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I have created
> > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apac
> > > > > > > > he+Zep
> > > > > > > > peli
> > > > > > > > n+Project+Maturity+Model and
> > > > > > > > trying to fill out Apache Maturity Model checklist.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let me notify this thread when everything is filled out.
> > > > > > > > And any comment, help would be appreciated.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > fill
> > > > > > > > > out the
> > > > > > > > > Apache Maturity Model
> > > > > > > > > checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Roman.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <
> > > > > > > > > minalee@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for
> > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more
> > > > > > > > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > > > > Number of
> > > > > > > > > > contributors has increased more than 7 times and
> > > > > > > > > > three new
> > > > > > > > > > committers
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling
> > > > > > > > > > project. And
> > > > > > > > > > release, vote
> > > > > > > > > > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
> > > > > > > > > > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big
> > > > > > > > > > synergy
> > > > > > > > > > with other
> > > > > > > > > > apache projects by providing different back-end
> > > > > > > > > > interpreters(ex
> > > > > > > > > > spark,
> > > > > > > > > > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > so +1 for graduation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <
> > > > > > > > > madhukaudantha@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <
> > > > > > > > > > > doanduyhai@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo
> > > > > > > > > > > > about the
> > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > maturity model. (
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-m
> > > > > > > > > aturit
> > > > > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > producing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > secure
> > > > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It's related to security and I know that there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > > on Shiro
> > > > > > > > > > > > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him
> > > > > > > > > > > > by the
> > > > > > > > > > > > way). There is
> > > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about
> > > > > > > > > > > > Kerberos (
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull
> > > > > > > > > > > > /640).
> > > > > > > > > > > > Don't know
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > chapter
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > security,
> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > the works are being done and are on good way.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Under the Community topic, I think all the points
> > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > covered (for
> > > > > > > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > > > > > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > > documented
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > CONTRIBUTING.md)
> > > > > > > > > > > > as well as consensus (point CO60).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every
> > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > related to
> > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Now my personal opinion as a community member is
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > high
> > > > > > > > > time for
> > > > > > > > > > > > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel
> > > > > > > > > > > > comfortable
> > > > > > > > > advising
> > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production
> > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > lack of
> > > > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > but since security support (at least for
> > > > > > > > > > > > authentication) is
> > > > > > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > > trunk
> > > > > > > > > > > > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see
> > > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > blocker anymore.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So a big +1 for me
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <
> > > > > > > > > > > > ahyoungryu93@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, ++1 !
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<
> > > > > > > > > > > > > anthonycorbacho@apache.org>님이
> > > > > > > > > 작성한
> > > > > > > > > > > 메시지:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (For
> > > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for the
> > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as TLP),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > so for me its a big +1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Garcia <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incubator.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think we
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that also
> > > > > > > > > will be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > greatly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jakob,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > > > > > > (there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and get
> > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > oppinions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from other participants - that would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > awesome!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the next release here, but please feel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > free to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion on technical details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jghoman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey all-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A data point and observation from an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ASF
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member and
> > > > > > > > > > > Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > community development and adherence to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Way,
> > > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > entering
> > > > > > > > > Incubator,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > releases,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finished
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incubation checklist
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/z
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eppeli
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > n.ht
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ml), has
> > > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > position to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from my perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handled
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a speedy
> > > > > > > > > > > > matter,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > disagreement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that -
> > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jakob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we didn't
> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *in* 208
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > functioning.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail. Now
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is broken
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > myself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proven
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the field:
> > > > > > > > > > > > People
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in my repo
> > > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > August, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's very
> > > > > > > > > hard to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meetup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > September
> > > > > > > > > > > where a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > variant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dealing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > significant
> > > > > > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > outside the core development team.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Addressing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these issues
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > R,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maturity.
> > > > > > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-beta release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > soo Lee
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sourav for interest in this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and very
> > > > > > > > > > > > valuable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree how much R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication (which
> > > > > > > > > i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in Zeppelin) will be useful for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > users.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believe me, I
> > > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in Zeppelin more than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But at the same time we have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diversity of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user bases.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people might think supporting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JDBC is more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful feature, the other can think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > multi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -tenancy is the
> > > > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, i believe Apache Top Level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > defined by how
> > > > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > works,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not defined by what feature does
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > includes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding bringing R into main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tried to make
> > > > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > passes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could able to make it pass 1 test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profile,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > couldn't
> > > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other test profiles.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm suggesting split the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > smaller
> > > > > > > > > peaces
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one. Like Hayssam did it for his
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Shiro
> > > > > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (pr586). And I'm volunteering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > making
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into smaller
> > > > > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This does make sense Moon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Completely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with you
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important for becoming a top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my opinion, from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > > standpoint,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two features Zeppelin does not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > > fledged
> > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious whether there are any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > technical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glitches which
> > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impediment
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bringing these features to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wondering
> > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to get those problems fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > soo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee <
> > > > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think any feature (R or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > prerequisites
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation. Especially when a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never setup
> > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation goal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Including specific features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valid concern for
> > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but i don't think it's related
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graduation is much more like if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is doing it in
> > > > > > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding. Last time the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't go
> > > > > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is, because of there were valid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impasse.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since that, community improved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarified
> > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > guide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > process. And Zeppelin PPMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > members
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to help
> > > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that they have been as a open
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > (Especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jongyoul
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Felix helped a lot)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, let's move discussions like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature should
> > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > included'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release / roadmap discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the graduation discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have an
> > > > > > > > > > > > discussions,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evaluating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-m
> > > > > > > > > aturit
> > > > > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense for you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guys?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran, Sourav?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No Eran is right. The last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > passed-it
> > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > withdrawn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in favor of releasing 0.5.6.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there was
> > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors concerning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation, R,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some other
> > > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > last public discussion about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > until today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex if you disagree with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have links to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > emails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you're referring to.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexander
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eran,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for sharing your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oppinion!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please check my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reply about
> > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > schedulle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know if that makes sense to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, please our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct me if I'm
> > > > > > > > > wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > here,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reading [1] I was under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impression
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that project
> > > > > > > > > does not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pre-request
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding its code or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > order to undergo
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > formal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>.
> I met Felix first time in the meetup you always refering.
He told me he was friends with you in one of our first conversations on
the phone in July. Maybe he was lying -- he did also claim to be a PMC
member at the time, which wasn't true.
But you've never denied that in August you appointed him to "oversee"
and "supervise" the PR. Even though you say you knew he's not a
programmer and doesnt know how to write code?
I don't think you're being straight with everyone.
On Sat, 2016-02-06 at 00:19 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> Amos,
>
> I forgot to say thank you for you saying,
> 6 of committer affiliated in NFLabs and Felix is my friend.
>
> But here's some correction,
>
> As an employee of NFLabs,
> I hope more people from my company contribute more and become a
> Committer
> of Zeppelin. But so far 5 out of 8 affiliated NFLabs,
>
> And Zeppelin, as any another apache project does, taking diversity of
> committer really importantly. And i believe that's how project grow.
>
> If you say Felix is my friend, i say thank you. I met Felix first
> time in
> the meetup you always refering.
> Thank you Amos to make me friend of Felix.
>
> Best,
> moon
>
> On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 8:59 moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Amos,
> >
> > Thanks for opinion.
> >
> > I think CI stability is not a problem for graduation.
> > CI sometimes break, but always fixed and back online in a day. CI
> > has no
> > problem in general.
> >
> > I must say clearly, pr208 is not merged because of it does not pass
> > ci
> > test, not because of CI is broken. Please don't confuse.
> >
> >
> > I don't see anyone in the community try to steal your work. You
> > always
> > pointing Felix but he said he used his own work.
> >
> > Zeppelin community is not judging what happened in a 3rd party
> > meetup.
> >
> > Please go to law court with your evidence if you think someone
> > stole your
> > work for the presentation for the meetup. That's better instead of
> > complaining in graduation discussion thread.
> >
> > Best,
> > moon
> >
> > On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 7:44 Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The topic here is supposed to be an open, honest, objective
> > > evaluation
> > > of the project against the criteria in the checklist.
> > >
> > > I would like us to stick to the subject.
> > >
> > > > > > QU10 The project is open and honest about the quality of
> > > > > > its ...
> > > > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality,
> > > > > and
> > > > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI
> > > > > issues
> > > > > were first reported, the response for some three months was
> > > > > "there can't be anything wrong so we won't bother looking."
> > > > > ...
> > > > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > > > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always
> > > > try
> > > > to fix and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> > >
> > > The issue is whether the project is "open and honest" about code
> > > quality. Or defensive (and hostile).
> > >
> > > CI isn't broken? How many PRs have been merged in the last month
> > > with a
> > > note to not worry that they don't pass CI because its broken?
> > > More
> > > than a month ago Moon personally committed to fix it, and NFlabs
> > > has a
> > > project to completely replace it because its so unstable.
> > >
> > > I think Moon has just proven my point.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing
> > > > > > secure
> > > > > > software.
> > > > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi
> > > > -user
> > > > PR, too.
> > >
> > > Not really... Usually the answer was to refer people to NFlabs,
> > > or say
> > > its something that would be discussed in the future.
> > >
> > > There was an example on the User list yesterday.
> > >
> > > > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when
> > > > they
> > > > need authentication even before it is being merged.
> > >
> > > If that were true then why was the PR was ignored for so long?
> > > The
> > > excuse in December was that the PR was forgotten about.
> > >
> > > > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards
> > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > and aims to document any incompatible changes and provide
> > > > > > tools >
> > > > > and documentation to help users transition . . .
> > > > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to,
> > > > > e.g.,
> > > > > the. . . that broke code and broke installations, but were
> > > > > never documented.
> > > > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so
> > > > > there's
> > > > > nothing to document."
> > > > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > > > Integration since way Spark integration changes.
> > >
> > > That's not correct. In fact Moon and I had an e-mail exchange
> > > about this
> > > in August and September, and its been discussed several times in
> > > PR
> > > comments.
> > >
> > > This issue is *still* breaking builds for people, and it comes up
> > > on the
> > > user help list every few days. And that's just one issue.
> > >
> > > Moon has, again, made my point.
> > >
> > > > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug
> > > > > > reports in > >
> > > > timely manner.
> > > > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted
> > > > > in > >
> > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple people
> > > > > and the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > > > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes.
> > >
> > > Not correct. Fixes to typos and grammar errors in documentation,
> > > and
> > > changes to the shading of windows, are not "bug fixes."
> > >
> > > In the 0.5.6 vote I asked if there were any substantive changes
> > > or bug
> > > fixes in 0.5.6. The twitter-bug was the only example that anyone
> > > was able
> > > to produce.
> > >
> > > Anyway, the question is still why that PR and the bug reports
> > > were
> > > ignored in September, October, November, before twitter
> > > complained?
> > >
> > > The issue is whether *the project* is responding to bug reports
> > > in a
> > > timely manner. My example shows that it is not.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor
> > > > > > Agreement
> > > > > > (the "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are
> > > > > > allowed to
> > > > > > commit and how they need to identify code that is not their
> > > > > > own.
> > > > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent
> > > > > with
> > > > > the iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and
> > > > > didn't do
> > > > > anything about it.
> > > > If you want, you can always sign ICLA...
> > > > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > > > Committer, who already signed ICLA. So signing ICLA for
> > > > contributor
> > > > is not mandatory.
> > >
> > > Part of the iCLA is also *honesty* about the attribution of code.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > CO20 The community welcomes contributions from anyone who
> > > > > > acts in >
> > > > > good faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > > > > project.
> > > > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
> > >
> > > Is that a joke? One current member of the PMC tried to bully me
> > > into
> > > crediting him for work he hadn't done. Then tried to stall the PR
> > > while
> > > publicly claiming authorship. And another member of the PMC
> > > covered-up for
> > > him.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to
> > > > > > give
> > > > > > more rights and responsibilities to contributors who add
> > > > > > value to
> > > > > > the project.
> > > > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer
> > > > > who
> > > > > isn't an affiliate of NFLabs. That person is not a programmer
> > > > > and
> > > > > has made no contribution to the Zeppelin codebase.
> > > > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2
> > > > committers
> > > > are out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> > > > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
> > >
> > > Google says 6 are affiliated with NFLabs. Of the two who are not,
> > > one
> > > is Felix.
> > >
> > > > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs,
> > > > marketing,
> > > > etc). It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> > > > contribution.
> > >
> > > That is true. But the question is whether the project is a
> > > 'meritocracy.' In this case, the non-programmer committer is
> > > Felix, a
> > > personal friend of Moon's who has a record of dishonesty.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in
> > > > > > written
> > > > > > form on the project's main communications channel. Offline,
> > > > > > face
> > > -> > > to-face or private discussions that affect the project are
> > > also
> > > > > > documented on that channel.
> > > > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.>
> > > > > >
> > > > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish
> > > > result in
> > > > the mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline,
> > > > like
> > > > discussion in the meetup, discussion in the conference,
> > > > discussion in
> > > > personal email, we move that into the mailing list.
> > >
> > > There are examples mentioned already in this email chain...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 20:36 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:37 AM Amos Elberg <
> > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Since subtlety has not worked, I will now be blunter.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason PR 208 has been delayed since August is that Felix
> > > > > Cheung
> > > > > demanded that I credit him as a co-author even though he
> > > > > hadn't
> > > > > done
> > > > > any work.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I refused, Felix privately contacted Moon, who is his
> > > > > friend,
> > > > > and
> > > > > claimed the PR contained Felix' intellectual property. Moon
> > > > > then
> > > > > held
> > > > > the PR at Felix' request.
> > > > >
> > > > > I found out what happened after I pursued Moon to ask why the
> > > > > PR
> > > > > had
> > > > > been ignored. When he told me what happened, I had to offer
> > > > > e-mail
> > > > > chains and commit logs to prove that Felix was lying.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since then, its been one bogus, junk reason for delay after
> > > > > another.
> > > > > For a while, this seems to be because Moon wanted to give
> > > > > Felix
> > > > > time to
> > > > > produce a competing implementation. Except, Felix wasn't
> > > > > able to
> > > > > do
> > > > > it. I caught him trying to pass-off code he'd stolen as his
> > > > > own,
> > > > > with
> > > > > Moon (who should have known) present.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I confronted Moon he told me, basically, "don't rock our
> > > > > boat."
> > > > >
> > > > > If anyone has any doubt about whether what I've said is true,
> > > > > I
> > > > > have the
> > > > > email chains, the commit logs, the chat records...
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe the reason PRs have been delayed is that they
> > > > > conflicted
> > > > > with
> > > > > other goals of either NFLabs, or friends of committers. Such
> > > > > as
> > > > > security
> > > > > PRs, when NFlabs offers multi-user functionality commercially
> > > > > and
> > > > > outside
> > > > > the project.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Here are my comments on the draft checklist:
> > > > >
> > > > > > QU10The project is open and honest about the quality of its
> > > > > > code.
> > > > > > Various levels of quality and maturity for various modules
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > natural and acceptable as long as they are clearly
> > > > > > communicated.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality,
> > > > > and
> > > > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI
> > > > > issues
> > > > > were
> > > > > first reported, the response for some three months was "there
> > > > > can't
> > > > > be
> > > > > anything wrong so we won't bother looking." Now its
> > > > > acknowledged
> > > > > that
> > > > > CI is basically broken for the whole project.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are many such examples.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > > > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always
> > > > try
> > > > to fix
> > > > and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > QU20The project puts a very high priority on producing
> > > > > > secure
> > > > > > software.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > The evidence is otherwise.
> > > > >
> > > > > While many people ask about security features, the response
> > > > > has
> > > > > always
> > > > > been from the PMC "some day," with no progress made. When
> > > > > community
> > > > > members tried to contribute the code --- the Shiro PR was
> > > > > inexplicably
> > > > > delayed by 4+ months; and the reaction to the new multi-user
> > > > > PR
> > > > > already
> > > > > seems unusual, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe the project intends to make security a priority in the
> > > > > future.
> > > > > But so far it has not.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi
> > > > -user
> > > > PR,
> > > > too.
> > > > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when
> > > > they
> > > > need
> > > > authentication even before it is being merged.
> > > >
> > > > And SSL support, securing cross origin access, etc, there're
> > > > other
> > > > security
> > > > improvement effort that already been done and merged.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think project is not producing secure software.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards
> > > > > > compatibility
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > documentation to help users transition to new features.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to,
> > > > > e.g.,
> > > > > the
> > > > > way Zeppelin has to be configured, the way Spark integrates
> > > > > with
> > > > > Zeppelin, etc., that broke code and broke installations, but
> > > > > were
> > > > > never
> > > > > documented.
> > > > >
> > > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so
> > > > there's
> > > > > nothing to document." But that is not the case.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > > > Integration
> > > > since way Spark integration changes. And it still does
> > > >
> > > > If you don't think it's enough, you can always contribute the
> > > > documentation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug
> > > > > > reports in a
> > > > > > timely manner.Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted
> > > > > in
> > > > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple
> > > > > people
> > > > > and
> > > > > the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is just one example.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes. see
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectI
> > > > d=1231
> > > > 6221&version=12334165
> > > > I don't think bug fixes are ignored.
> > > >
> > > > You can always help fix the bug. Project does not officially
> > > > discuss
> > > > on
> > > > twitter about the bug.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor
> > > > > > Agreement
> > > > > > (the
> > > > > > "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed to
> > > > > > commit
> > > > > > and how they need to identify code that is not their own.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent
> > > > > with
> > > > > the
> > > > > iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't
> > > > > do
> > > > > anything
> > > > > about it.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > If you want, you can always sign ICLA.
> > > > https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> > > >
> > > > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > > > Committer,
> > > > who already signed ICLA.
> > > > So signing ICLA for contributor is not mandatory.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > CO20
> > > > > > The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts
> > > > > > in good
> > > > > > faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > > > > project.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > See above.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to
> > > > > > give more
> > > > > > rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value
> > > > > > to the
> > > > > > project.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer
> > > > > who
> > > > > isn't
> > > > > an affiliate of NFLabs.
> > > > >
> > > > > That person is not a programmer and has made no contribution
> > > > > to the
> > > > > Zeppelin codebase.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2
> > > > committers
> > > > are
> > > > out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> > > >
> > > > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
> > > >
> > > > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs,
> > > > marketing,
> > > > etc).
> > > > It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> > > > contribution.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > CO50
> > > > > > The way in which contributors can be granted more rights
> > > > > > such as
> > > > > > commit access or decision power is clearly documented and
> > > > > > is the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > for all contributors.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > See above.
> > > > >
> > > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in
> > > > > written
> > > > > form
> > > > > > on the project's main communications channel. Offline, face
> > > > > > -to
> > > > > > -face
> > > > > > or private discussions that affect the project are also
> > > > > > documented on
> > > > > > that channel.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish
> > > > result in
> > > > the
> > > > mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline, like
> > > > discussion
> > > > in the meetup, discussion in the conference, discussion in
> > > > personal
> > > > email,
> > > > we move that into the mailing list.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > IN10The project is independent from any corporate or
> > > > > > organizational
> > > > > > influence.
> > > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not so sure...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 23:50 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > > > I have filled out all checklists and commented as much as i
> > > > > > can.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please review
> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache
> > > > > > +Zeppe
> > > > > > lin+
> > > > > > Project+Maturity+Model
> > > > > > .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Did i filled out correctly? Any feedback would be really
> > > > > > appreciated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > moon
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:03 AM moon soo Lee <
> > > > > > moon@apache.org>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have created
> > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apac
> > > > > > > he+Zep
> > > > > > > peli
> > > > > > > n+Project+Maturity+Model and
> > > > > > > trying to fill out Apache Maturity Model checklist.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let me notify this thread when everything is filled out.
> > > > > > > And any comment, help would be appreciated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > fill
> > > > > > > > out the
> > > > > > > > Apache Maturity Model
> > > > > > > > checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Roman.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <
> > > > > > > > minalee@apache.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for
> > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more
> > > > > > > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > > > Number of
> > > > > > > > > contributors has increased more than 7 times and
> > > > > > > > > three new
> > > > > > > > > committers
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling
> > > > > > > > > project. And
> > > > > > > > > release, vote
> > > > > > > > > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
> > > > > > > > > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big
> > > > > > > > > synergy
> > > > > > > > > with other
> > > > > > > > > apache projects by providing different back-end
> > > > > > > > > interpreters(ex
> > > > > > > > > spark,
> > > > > > > > > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > so +1 for graduation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <
> > > > > > > > madhukaudantha@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <
> > > > > > > > > > doanduyhai@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo
> > > > > > > > > > > about the
> > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > maturity model. (
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-m
> > > > > > > > aturit
> > > > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on
> > > > > > > > > > > > producing
> > > > > > > > > > > > secure
> > > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > It's related to security and I know that there is
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > > > on Shiro
> > > > > > > > > > > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him
> > > > > > > > > > > by the
> > > > > > > > > > > way). There is
> > > > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about
> > > > > > > > > > > Kerberos (
> > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull
> > > > > > > > > > > /640).
> > > > > > > > > > > Don't know
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > chapter
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > security,
> > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > the works are being done and are on good way.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Under the Community topic, I think all the points
> > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > covered (for
> > > > > > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > > > > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > documented
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > CONTRIBUTING.md)
> > > > > > > > > > > as well as consensus (point CO60).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every
> > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > related to
> > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the
> > > > > > > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Now my personal opinion as a community member is
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > high
> > > > > > > > time for
> > > > > > > > > > > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel
> > > > > > > > > > > comfortable
> > > > > > > > advising
> > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production
> > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > lack of
> > > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > but since security support (at least for
> > > > > > > > > > > authentication) is
> > > > > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > > > trunk
> > > > > > > > > > > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see
> > > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > blocker anymore.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So a big +1 for me
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <
> > > > > > > > > > > ahyoungryu93@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think
> > > > > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, ++1 !
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<
> > > > > > > > > > > > anthonycorbacho@apache.org>님이
> > > > > > > > 작성한
> > > > > > > > > > 메시지:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (For
> > > > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > requirement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for the
> > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as TLP),
> > > > > > > > > > > > > so for me its a big +1.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Garcia <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > incubator.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > think we
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that also
> > > > > > > > will be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > greatly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > improve the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jakob,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > > > > > (there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and get
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > oppinions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from other participants - that would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > awesome!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the next release here, but please feel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > free to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion on technical details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jghoman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey all-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A data point and observation from an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ASF
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member and
> > > > > > > > > > Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > PMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > community development and adherence to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Way,
> > > > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > entering
> > > > > > > > Incubator,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > releases,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > finished
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > incubation checklist
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/z
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eppeli
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > n.ht
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ml), has
> > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > position to
> > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from my perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > handled
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a speedy
> > > > > > > > > > > matter,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > disagreement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that -
> > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jakob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we didn't
> > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *in* 208
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > functioning.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fail. Now
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is broken
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > myself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > proven
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the field:
> > > > > > > > > > > People
> > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > version of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in my repo
> > > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > August, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's very
> > > > > > > > hard to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meetup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > September
> > > > > > > > > > where a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > variant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > dealing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > significant
> > > > > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > outside the core development team.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Addressing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these issues
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > R,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > maturity.
> > > > > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > supposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-beta release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > soo Lee
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sourav for interest in this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and very
> > > > > > > > > > > valuable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree how much R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication (which
> > > > > > > > i
> > > > > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in Zeppelin) will be useful for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > users.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believe me, I
> > > > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in Zeppelin more than
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But at the same time we have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diversity of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user bases.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people might think supporting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JDBC is more
> > > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful feature, the other can think
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > multi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -tenancy is the
> > > > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, i believe Apache Top Level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > defined by how
> > > > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > works,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not defined by what feature does
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > includes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding bringing R into main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tried to make
> > > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > passes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could able to make it pass 1 test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profile,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > couldn't
> > > > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other test profiles.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm suggesting split the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > smaller
> > > > > > > > peaces
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one. Like Hayssam did it for his
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Shiro
> > > > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (pr586). And I'm volunteering
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > making
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into smaller
> > > > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This does make sense Moon.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Completely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with you
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important for becoming a top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my opinion, from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > > > standpoint,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two features Zeppelin does not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > look to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > > > > > fledged
> > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious whether there are any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > technical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glitches which
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > impediment
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bringing these features to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wondering
> > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to get those problems fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > soo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee <
> > > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think any feature (R or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > prerequisites
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation. Especially when a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never setup
> > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation goal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Including specific features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valid concern for
> > > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but i don't think it's related
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graduation is much more like if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is doing it in
> > > > > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding. Last time the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't go
> > > > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is, because of there were valid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > impasse.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since that, community improved
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarified
> > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > guide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > process. And Zeppelin PPMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > members
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to help
> > > > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that they have been as a open
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PR for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long time.
> > > > > > > > > > > (Especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jongyoul
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Felix helped a lot)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, let's move discussions like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature should
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > included'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release / roadmap discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the graduation discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have an
> > > > > > > > > > > discussions,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evaluating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-m
> > > > > > > > aturit
> > > > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense for you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > guys?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran, Sourav?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No Eran is right. The last
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > passed-it
> > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > withdrawn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in favor of releasing 0.5.6.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there was
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors concerning
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation, R,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some other
> > > > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > last public discussion about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > until today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex if you disagree with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have links to
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > emails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you're referring to.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexander
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eran,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for sharing your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > oppinion!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please check my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reply about
> > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > schedulle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know if that makes sense to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, please our
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct me if I'm
> > > > > > > > wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > here,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reading [1] I was under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impression
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that project
> > > > > > > > does not
> > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pre-request
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding its code or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > order to undergo
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > formal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Polic
> > > > > > > > y.html
> > > > > > > > #Gra
> > > > > > > > duating+from+the+Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 20:04 Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Witkon <
> > > > > > > > > > > > eranwitkon@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I recall correctly R
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > pre-requisite
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from day one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be added as
> > > > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 20:24
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > javasc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Surely I vote for the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > same.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin is already
> > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > > > popular
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quarts of the Spark/Big
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group. High
> > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I shall
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggest to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the support for
> > > > > > > > R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to Zeppelin before
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are the supports
> > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eagerly waiting for.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at 8:23
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon soo Lee <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Alexander for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > resuming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's start a vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11:11
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PM Alexander
> > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Zeppelin
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > developers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now, after number
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > releases
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and committers
> > > > > > > > grew
> > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the re-new the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduating
> > > > > > > > Zeppelin to
> > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there are on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > objections -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next step would be
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > start a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > VOTE
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you guys
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Software Engeenier
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > javasc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;> <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > marta.tapia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > * |
> > > > > > > > > > victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <marta.tapia@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > > Madhuka Udantha
> > > > > > > > > > http://madhukaudantha.blogspot.com
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
Amos,
I forgot to say thank you for you saying,
6 of committer affiliated in NFLabs and Felix is my friend.
But here's some correction,
As an employee of NFLabs,
I hope more people from my company contribute more and become a Committer
of Zeppelin. But so far 5 out of 8 affiliated NFLabs,
And Zeppelin, as any another apache project does, taking diversity of
committer really importantly. And i believe that's how project grow.
If you say Felix is my friend, i say thank you. I met Felix first time in
the meetup you always refering.
Thank you Amos to make me friend of Felix.
Best,
moon
On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 8:59 moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Amos,
>
> Thanks for opinion.
>
> I think CI stability is not a problem for graduation.
> CI sometimes break, but always fixed and back online in a day. CI has no
> problem in general.
>
> I must say clearly, pr208 is not merged because of it does not pass ci
> test, not because of CI is broken. Please don't confuse.
>
>
> I don't see anyone in the community try to steal your work. You always
> pointing Felix but he said he used his own work.
>
> Zeppelin community is not judging what happened in a 3rd party meetup.
>
> Please go to law court with your evidence if you think someone stole your
> work for the presentation for the meetup. That's better instead of
> complaining in graduation discussion thread.
>
> Best,
> moon
>
> On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 7:44 Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The topic here is supposed to be an open, honest, objective evaluation
>> of the project against the criteria in the checklist.
>>
>> I would like us to stick to the subject.
>>
>> > > > QU10 The project is open and honest about the quality of its ...
>> > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality, and
>> > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI issues
>> > > were first reported, the response for some three months was
>> > > "there can't be anything wrong so we won't bother looking." ...
>> > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
>> > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always try
>> > to fix and contribute. that will be appreciated.
>>
>> The issue is whether the project is "open and honest" about code
>> quality. Or defensive (and hostile).
>>
>> CI isn't broken? How many PRs have been merged in the last month with a
>> note to not worry that they don't pass CI because its broken? More
>> than a month ago Moon personally committed to fix it, and NFlabs has a
>> project to completely replace it because its so unstable.
>>
>> I think Moon has just proven my point.
>>
>>
>> > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing secure
>> > > > software.
>> > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi-user
>> > PR, too.
>>
>> Not really... Usually the answer was to refer people to NFlabs, or say
>> its something that would be discussed in the future.
>>
>> There was an example on the User list yesterday.
>>
>> > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when they
>> > need authentication even before it is being merged.
>>
>> If that were true then why was the PR was ignored for so long? The
>> excuse in December was that the PR was forgotten about.
>>
>> > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards compatibility
>> > > > and aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools >
>> > > and documentation to help users transition . . .
>> > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to, e.g.,
>> > > the. . . that broke code and broke installations, but were
>> > > never documented.
>> > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so there's
>> > > nothing to document."
>> > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
>> > Integration since way Spark integration changes.
>>
>> That's not correct. In fact Moon and I had an e-mail exchange about this
>> in August and September, and its been discussed several times in PR
>> comments.
>>
>> This issue is *still* breaking builds for people, and it comes up on the
>> user help list every few days. And that's just one issue.
>>
>> Moon has, again, made my point.
>>
>> > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in > >
>> > timely manner.
>> > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted in > >
>> *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple people
>> > > and the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
>> > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes.
>>
>> Not correct. Fixes to typos and grammar errors in documentation, and
>> changes to the shading of windows, are not "bug fixes."
>>
>> In the 0.5.6 vote I asked if there were any substantive changes or bug
>> fixes in 0.5.6. The twitter-bug was the only example that anyone was able
>> to produce.
>>
>> Anyway, the question is still why that PR and the bug reports were
>> ignored in September, October, November, before twitter complained?
>>
>> The issue is whether *the project* is responding to bug reports in a
>> timely manner. My example shows that it is not.
>>
>>
>>
>> > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor Agreement
>> > > > (the "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed to
>> > > > commit and how they need to identify code that is not their own.
>> > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent with
>> > > the iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't do
>> > > anything about it.
>> > If you want, you can always sign ICLA...
>> > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
>> > Committer, who already signed ICLA. So signing ICLA for contributor
>> > is not mandatory.
>>
>> Part of the iCLA is also *honesty* about the attribution of code.
>>
>>
>> > > > CO20 The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts in >
>> > > good faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
>> > > > project.
>> > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
>>
>> Is that a joke? One current member of the PMC tried to bully me into
>> crediting him for work he hadn't done. Then tried to stall the PR while
>> publicly claiming authorship. And another member of the PMC covered-up for
>> him.
>>
>>
>> > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to give
>> > > > more rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value to
>> > > > the project.
>> > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer who
>> > > isn't an affiliate of NFLabs. That person is not a programmer and
>> > > has made no contribution to the Zeppelin codebase.
>> > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2 committers
>> > are out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
>> > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
>>
>> Google says 6 are affiliated with NFLabs. Of the two who are not, one
>> is Felix.
>>
>> > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs, marketing,
>> > etc). It's even possible to become a committer with out code
>> > contribution.
>>
>> That is true. But the question is whether the project is a
>> 'meritocracy.' In this case, the non-programmer committer is Felix, a
>> personal friend of Moon's who has a record of dishonesty.
>>
>>
>>
>> > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in written
>> > > > form on the project's main communications channel. Offline, face
>> -> > > to-face or private discussions that affect the project are also
>> > > > documented on that channel.
>> > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.> >
>> > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish result in
>> > the mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline, like
>> > discussion in the meetup, discussion in the conference, discussion in
>> > personal email, we move that into the mailing list.
>>
>> There are examples mentioned already in this email chain...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 20:36 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
>> > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:37 AM Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Since subtlety has not worked, I will now be blunter.
>> > >
>> > > The reason PR 208 has been delayed since August is that Felix
>> > > Cheung
>> > > demanded that I credit him as a co-author even though he hadn't
>> > > done
>> > > any work.
>> > >
>> > > When I refused, Felix privately contacted Moon, who is his friend,
>> > > and
>> > > claimed the PR contained Felix' intellectual property. Moon then
>> > > held
>> > > the PR at Felix' request.
>> > >
>> > > I found out what happened after I pursued Moon to ask why the PR
>> > > had
>> > > been ignored. When he told me what happened, I had to offer e-mail
>> > > chains and commit logs to prove that Felix was lying.
>> > >
>> > > Since then, its been one bogus, junk reason for delay after
>> > > another.
>> > > For a while, this seems to be because Moon wanted to give Felix
>> > > time to
>> > > produce a competing implementation. Except, Felix wasn't able to
>> > > do
>> > > it. I caught him trying to pass-off code he'd stolen as his own,
>> > > with
>> > > Moon (who should have known) present.
>> > >
>> > > When I confronted Moon he told me, basically, "don't rock our
>> > > boat."
>> > >
>> > > If anyone has any doubt about whether what I've said is true, I
>> > > have the
>> > > email chains, the commit logs, the chat records...
>> > >
>> > > I believe the reason PRs have been delayed is that they conflicted
>> > > with
>> > > other goals of either NFLabs, or friends of committers. Such as
>> > > security
>> > > PRs, when NFlabs offers multi-user functionality commercially and
>> > > outside
>> > > the project.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Here are my comments on the draft checklist:
>> > >
>> > > > QU10The project is open and honest about the quality of its code.
>> > > > Various levels of quality and maturity for various modules are
>> > > > natural and acceptable as long as they are clearly communicated.
>> > > > Yes
>> > >
>> > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality, and
>> > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI issues
>> > > were
>> > > first reported, the response for some three months was "there can't
>> > > be
>> > > anything wrong so we won't bother looking." Now its acknowledged
>> > > that
>> > > CI is basically broken for the whole project.
>> > >
>> > > There are many such examples.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
>> > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always try
>> > to fix
>> > and contribute. that will be appreciated.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > > QU20The project puts a very high priority on producing secure
>> > > > software.
>> > > > Yes
>> > >
>> > > The evidence is otherwise.
>> > >
>> > > While many people ask about security features, the response has
>> > > always
>> > > been from the PMC "some day," with no progress made. When
>> > > community
>> > > members tried to contribute the code --- the Shiro PR was
>> > > inexplicably
>> > > delayed by 4+ months; and the reaction to the new multi-user PR
>> > > already
>> > > seems unusual, etc.
>> > >
>> > > Maybe the project intends to make security a priority in the
>> > > future.
>> > > But so far it has not.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi-user
>> > PR,
>> > too.
>> > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when they
>> > need
>> > authentication even before it is being merged.
>> >
>> > And SSL support, securing cross origin access, etc, there're other
>> > security
>> > improvement effort that already been done and merged.
>> >
>> > I don't think project is not producing secure software.
>> >
>> >
>> > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards compatibility
>> > > > and
>> > > > aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools and
>> > > > documentation to help users transition to new features.
>> > > > Yes
>> > >
>> > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to, e.g.,
>> > > the
>> > > way Zeppelin has to be configured, the way Spark integrates with
>> > > Zeppelin, etc., that broke code and broke installations, but were
>> > > never
>> > > documented.
>> > >
>> > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so there's
>> > > nothing to document." But that is not the case.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
>> > Integration
>> > since way Spark integration changes. And it still does
>> >
>> > If you don't think it's enough, you can always contribute the
>> > documentation.
>> >
>> >
>> > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in a
>> > > > timely manner.Yes
>> > >
>> > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted in
>> > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple people
>> > > and
>> > > the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
>> > >
>> > > This is just one example.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes. see
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=1231
>> > 6221&version=12334165
>> > I don't think bug fixes are ignored.
>> >
>> > You can always help fix the bug. Project does not officially discuss
>> > on
>> > twitter about the bug.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor Agreement
>> > > > (the
>> > > > "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed to
>> > > > commit
>> > > > and how they need to identify code that is not their own.
>> > > > Yes
>> > >
>> > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent with
>> > > the
>> > > iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't do
>> > > anything
>> > > about it.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > If you want, you can always sign ICLA.
>> > https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>> >
>> > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
>> > Committer,
>> > who already signed ICLA.
>> > So signing ICLA for contributor is not mandatory.
>> >
>> >
>> > > > CO20
>> > > > The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts in good
>> > > > faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the project.
>> > > > Yes
>> > >
>> > > See above.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to give more
>> > > > rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value to the
>> > > > project.
>> > > > Yes
>> > >
>> > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer who
>> > > isn't
>> > > an affiliate of NFLabs.
>> > >
>> > > That person is not a programmer and has made no contribution to the
>> > > Zeppelin codebase.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2 committers
>> > are
>> > out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
>> >
>> > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
>> >
>> > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs, marketing,
>> > etc).
>> > It's even possible to become a committer with out code contribution.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > > CO50
>> > > > The way in which contributors can be granted more rights such as
>> > > > commit access or decision power is clearly documented and is the
>> > > > same
>> > > > for all contributors.
>> > > > Yes
>> > >
>> > > See above.
>> > >
>> > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in written
>> > > form
>> > > > on the project's main communications channel. Offline, face-to
>> > > > -face
>> > > > or private discussions that affect the project are also
>> > > > documented on
>> > > > that channel.
>> > > > Yes
>> > >
>> > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish result in
>> > the
>> > mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline, like
>> > discussion
>> > in the meetup, discussion in the conference, discussion in personal
>> > email,
>> > we move that into the mailing list.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > > IN10The project is independent from any corporate or
>> > > > organizational
>> > > > influence.
>> > > > Yes
>> > >
>> > > I'm not so sure...
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 23:50 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
>> > > > I have filled out all checklists and commented as much as i can.
>> > > >
>> > > > Please review
>> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Zeppe
>> > > > lin+
>> > > > Project+Maturity+Model
>> > > > .
>> > > >
>> > > > Did i filled out correctly? Any feedback would be really
>> > > > appreciated.
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks,
>> > > > moon
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:03 AM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I have created
>> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Zep
>> > > > > peli
>> > > > > n+Project+Maturity+Model and
>> > > > > trying to fill out Apache Maturity Model checklist.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Let me notify this thread when everything is filled out.
>> > > > > And any comment, help would be appreciated.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > moon
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
>> > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org>
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were to
>> > > > > > fill
>> > > > > > out the
>> > > > > > Apache Maturity Model
>> > > > > > checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > Roman.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <minalee@apache.org
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for graduation.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more
>> > > > > > > diverse.
>> > > > > > > Number of
>> > > > > > > contributors has increased more than 7 times and three new
>> > > > > > > committers
>> > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling project. And
>> > > > > > > release, vote
>> > > > > > > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
>> > > > > > > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big synergy
>> > > > > > > with other
>> > > > > > > apache projects by providing different back-end
>> > > > > > > interpreters(ex
>> > > > > > > spark,
>> > > > > > > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > so +1 for graduation.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <
>> > > > > > madhukaudantha@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <
>> > > > > > > > doanduyhai@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo about the
>> > > > > > > > > Apache
>> > > > > > project
>> > > > > > > > > maturity model. (
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturit
>> > > > > > y-mo
>> > > > > > del.html
>> > > > > > )
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on
>> > > > > > > > > > producing
>> > > > > > > > > > secure
>> > > > > > software
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > It's related to security and I know that there is a
>> > > > > > > > > commit
>> > > > > > > > > on Shiro
>> > > > > > > > > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him by the
>> > > > > > > > > way). There is
>> > > > > > > > also
>> > > > > > > > > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about Kerberos (
>> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/640).
>> > > > > > > > > Don't know
>> > > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > > there
>> > > > > > > > > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on the
>> > > > > > > > > chapter
>> > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > security,
>> > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > > > > the works are being done and are on good way.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Under the Community topic, I think all the points are
>> > > > > > > > > covered (for
>> > > > > > > > example,
>> > > > > > > > > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly documented
>> > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > CONTRIBUTING.md)
>> > > > > > > > > as well as consensus (point CO60).
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every discussion
>> > > > > > > > > related to
>> > > > > > release
>> > > > > > > > > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the
>> > > > > > > > > mailing
>> > > > > > > > > list.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Now my personal opinion as a community member is that
>> > > > > > > > > it's
>> > > > > > > > > high
>> > > > > > time for
>> > > > > > > > > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel
>> > > > > > > > > comfortable
>> > > > > > advising
>> > > > > > > > > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production because
>> > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > lack of
>> > > > > > > > security
>> > > > > > > > > but since security support (at least for
>> > > > > > > > > authentication) is
>> > > > > > > > > in the
>> > > > > > trunk
>> > > > > > > > > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see any
>> > > > > > > > > blocker anymore.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > So a big +1 for me
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <
>> > > > > > > > > ahyoungryu93@gmail.com>
>> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think it's
>> > > > > > > > > > time to
>> > > > > > > > > > graduate
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > step
>> > > > > > > > > > forward.
>> > > > > > > > > > So, ++1 !
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<
>> > > > > > > > > > anthonycorbacho@apache.org>님이
>> > > > > > 작성한
>> > > > > > > > 메시지:
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a
>> > > > > > > > > > > vote.
>> > > > > > > > > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any specific
>> > > > > > > > > > > features
>> > > > > > > > > > > (For
>> > > > > > specific
>> > > > > > > > > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a
>> > > > > > > > > > > requirement
>> > > > > > > > > > > for the
>> > > > > > first
>> > > > > > > > > > release
>> > > > > > > > > > > as TLP),
>> > > > > > > > > > > so for me its a big +1.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel
>> > > > > > > > > > > Garcia <
>> > > > > > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the incubator.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > I
>> > > > > > > > > > > > think we
>> > > > > > all
>> > > > > > > > well
>> > > > > > > > > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new features
>> > > > > > > > > > > > that also
>> > > > > > will be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > greatly
>> > > > > > > > > > > > improve the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jakob,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is exactly
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > describe
>> > > > > > > > > (there
>> > > > > > > > > > > > were
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > and get
>> > > > > > more
>> > > > > > > > > > > oppinions
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > from other participants - that would awesome!
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to help
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > particular
>> > > > > > > > > features
>> > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > the next release here, but please feel free to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > fork
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > thread
>> > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > further
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion on technical details.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > jghoman@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey all-
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > A data point and observation from an ASF
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member and
>> > > > > > > > Incubator
>> > > > > > > > > > PMC
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member...
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a
>> > > > > > function
>> > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > community development and adherence to the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Way,
>> > > > > > rather
>> > > > > > > > any
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones. Since
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > entering
>> > > > > > Incubator,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > finished
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > incubation checklist
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppeli
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > n.ht
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ml), has
>> > > > > > > > added
>> > > > > > > > > > new
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > good
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > position to
>> > > > > > > > > > graduate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from my perspective.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handled
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a speedy
>> > > > > > > > > matter,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that -
>> > > > > > just
>> > > > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > > > > work
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jakob
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B. Elberg <
>> > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it. The
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we didn't
>> > > > > > > > merge
>> > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *in* 208
>> > > > > > from
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > functioning.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is broken
>> > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > project
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I would
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
>> > > > > > myself.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been proven
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the field:
>> > > > > > > > > People
>> > > > > > > > > > > who
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the version of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 208
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in my repo
>> > > > > > > > > because
>> > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since August, and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's very
>> > > > > > hard to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > understand
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a Meetup
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > September
>> > > > > > > > where a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > variant
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstration
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > Zeppelin's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is dealing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
>> > > > > > significant
>> > > > > > > > PRs
>> > > > > > > > > > > from
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > outside the core development team.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Addressing
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > these issues
>> > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > R,
>> > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > maturity.
>> > > > > > These
>> > > > > > > > > > were
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were supposed
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > included
>> > > > > > > > before
>> > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > first
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-beta release.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
>> > > > > > moon@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sourav for interest in this
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and very
>> > > > > > > > > valuable
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > opinion.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree how much R and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication (which
>> > > > > > i
>> > > > > > > > > > believe
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in Zeppelin) will be useful for users.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believe me, I
>> > > > > > > > want
>> > > > > > > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But at the same time we have diversity of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user bases.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people might think supporting
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > general
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JDBC is more
>> > > > > > > > > > practical
>> > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful feature, the other can think multi
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -tenancy is the
>> > > > > > > > most
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > important,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc, etc.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, i believe Apache Top Level project is
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > defined by how
>> > > > > > > > > > community
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > works,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not defined by what feature does the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > includes.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding bringing R into main branch, I
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tried to make
>> > > > > > pr208
>> > > > > > > > > > > passes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could able to make it pass 1 test
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profile,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > couldn't
>> > > > > > > > make
>> > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > pass
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other test profiles.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm suggesting split the contribution
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > smaller
>> > > > > > peaces
>> > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > merge
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > one
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one. Like Hayssam did it for his
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Shiro
>> > > > > > > > > security
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integration
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (pr586). And I'm volunteering making
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pr208
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into smaller
>> > > > > > PRs.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This does make sense Moon. Completely
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with you
>> > > > > > that
>> > > > > > > > > > > features
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important for becoming a top level
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my opinion, from the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > practical
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage
>> > > > > > > > standpoint,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > without
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two features Zeppelin does not look to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full
>> > > > > > fledged
>> > > > > > > > top
>> > > > > > > > > > > level
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious whether there are any technical
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glitches which
>> > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > > > impediment
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bringing these features to the main
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wondering
>> > > > > > if
>> > > > > > > > any
>> > > > > > > > > > help
>> > > > > > > > > > > > can
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to get those problems fixed.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > soo
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee <
>> > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think any feature (R or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
>> > > > > > > > > > > prerequisites
>> > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation. Especially when a project
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never setup
>> > > > > > those
>> > > > > > > > > > features
>> > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation goal.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Including specific features could be
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valid concern for
>> > > > > > > > > release
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but i don't think it's related to a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graduation is much more like if
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is doing it in
>> > > > > > > > > apache
>> > > > > > > > > > > way,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > my
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding. Last time the reason
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why i
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't go
>> > > > > > for a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is, because of there were valid
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concern
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
>> > > > > > contribution
>> > > > > > > > > > > > impasse.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since that, community improved /
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarified
>> > > > > > contribution
>> > > > > > > > > guide
>> > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > review
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > process. And Zeppelin PPMC members
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to help
>> > > > > > > > many
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that they have been as a open PR for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long time.
>> > > > > > > > > (Especially
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jongyoul
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Felix helped a lot)
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, let's move discussions like
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'which
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature should
>> > > > > > be
>> > > > > > > > > > > included'
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release / roadmap discussion.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the graduation discussion, i'd
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have an
>> > > > > > > > > discussions,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > such
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evaluating
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturit
>> > > > > > y-mo
>> > > > > > del.html
>> > > > > > ,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense for you guys?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran, Sourav?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No Eran is right. The last vote for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
>> > > > > > passed-it
>> > > > > > > > > was
>> > > > > > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > withdrawn
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > passed
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there was
>> > > > > > some
>> > > > > > > > > > > > feedback
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors concerning graduation, R,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some other
>> > > > > > issues.
>> > > > > > > > > And
>> > > > > > > > > > > > that's
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > last public discussion about
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > until today.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex if you disagree with that do
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have links to
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > emails
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you're referring to.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexander
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eran,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for sharing your oppinion!
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please check my
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reply about
>> > > > > > release
>> > > > > > > > > > > schedulle
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know if that makes sense to you?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, please our mentors
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct me if I'm
>> > > > > > wrong
>> > > > > > > > > here,
>> > > > > > > > > > > but
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reading [1] I was under
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impression
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that project
>> > > > > > does not
>> > > > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pre-request
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding its code or features in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > order to undergo
>> > > > > > this
>> > > > > > > > > > formal
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > procedure
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html
>> > > > > > #Gra
>> > > > > > duating+from+the+Incubator
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Witkon <
>> > > > > > > > > > eranwitkon@gmail.com
>> > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I recall correctly R support
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one of the
>> > > > > > > > > > pre-requisite
>> > > > > > > > > > > > for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from day one.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Authentication
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be added as
>> > > > > > well.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation after we add
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javasc
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ript
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Surely I vote for the same.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin is already
>> > > > > > very
>> > > > > > > > > > popular
>> > > > > > > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quarts of the Spark/Big Data
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group. High
>> > > > > > time to
>> > > > > > > > > > > graduate
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I shall suggest to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the support for
>> > > > > > R and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > added
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to Zeppelin before that.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are the supports
>> > > > > > most
>> > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > people
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eagerly waiting for.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AM,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon soo Lee <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Alexander for
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > resuming
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the discussion.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's start a vote.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11:11
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PM Alexander
>> > > > > > Bezzubov <
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Zeppelin developers,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now, after number of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > releases
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and committers
>> > > > > > grew
>> > > > > > > > more
>> > > > > > > > > > I'd
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > like
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggest
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the re-new the discussion
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduating
>> > > > > > Zeppelin to
>> > > > > > > > > top
>> > > > > > > > > > > > level
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there are on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > objections -
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next step would be
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > > > > start a
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > VOTE
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you guys think?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
>> > > > > > > > > > > > *Software Engeenier
>> > > > > > > > > > > > *
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javasc
>> > > > > > > > > > > > ript
>> > > > > > > > > > > > :;> <
>> > > > > > > > > > > marta.tapia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
>> > > > > > > > > > > > * |
>> > > > > > > > victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
>> > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > <marta.tapia@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > --
>> > > > > > > > Cheers,
>> > > > > > > > Madhuka Udantha
>> > > > > > > > http://madhukaudantha.blogspot.com
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
Amos,
Thanks for opinion.
I think CI stability is not a problem for graduation.
CI sometimes break, but always fixed and back online in a day. CI has no
problem in general.
I must say clearly, pr208 is not merged because of it does not pass ci
test, not because of CI is broken. Please don't confuse.
I don't see anyone in the community try to steal your work. You always
pointing Felix but he said he used his own work.
Zeppelin community is not judging what happened in a 3rd party meetup.
Please go to law court with your evidence if you think someone stole your
work for the presentation for the meetup. That's better instead of
complaining in graduation discussion thread.
Best,
moon
On 2016년 2월 6일 (토) at 오전 7:44 Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The topic here is supposed to be an open, honest, objective evaluation
> of the project against the criteria in the checklist.
>
> I would like us to stick to the subject.
>
> > > > QU10 The project is open and honest about the quality of its ...
> > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality, and
> > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI issues
> > > were first reported, the response for some three months was
> > > "there can't be anything wrong so we won't bother looking." ...
> > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always try
> > to fix and contribute. that will be appreciated.
>
> The issue is whether the project is "open and honest" about code
> quality. Or defensive (and hostile).
>
> CI isn't broken? How many PRs have been merged in the last month with a
> note to not worry that they don't pass CI because its broken? More
> than a month ago Moon personally committed to fix it, and NFlabs has a
> project to completely replace it because its so unstable.
>
> I think Moon has just proven my point.
>
>
> > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing secure
> > > > software.
> > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi-user
> > PR, too.
>
> Not really... Usually the answer was to refer people to NFlabs, or say
> its something that would be discussed in the future.
>
> There was an example on the User list yesterday.
>
> > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when they
> > need authentication even before it is being merged.
>
> If that were true then why was the PR was ignored for so long? The
> excuse in December was that the PR was forgotten about.
>
> > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards compatibility
> > > > and aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools >
> > > and documentation to help users transition . . .
> > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to, e.g.,
> > > the. . . that broke code and broke installations, but were
> > > never documented.
> > > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so there's
> > > nothing to document."
> > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > Integration since way Spark integration changes.
>
> That's not correct. In fact Moon and I had an e-mail exchange about this
> in August and September, and its been discussed several times in PR
> comments.
>
> This issue is *still* breaking builds for people, and it comes up on the
> user help list every few days. And that's just one issue.
>
> Moon has, again, made my point.
>
> > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in > >
> > timely manner.
> > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted in > >
> *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple people
> > > and the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes.
>
> Not correct. Fixes to typos and grammar errors in documentation, and
> changes to the shading of windows, are not "bug fixes."
>
> In the 0.5.6 vote I asked if there were any substantive changes or bug
> fixes in 0.5.6. The twitter-bug was the only example that anyone was able
> to produce.
>
> Anyway, the question is still why that PR and the bug reports were ignored
> in September, October, November, before twitter complained?
>
> The issue is whether *the project* is responding to bug reports in a
> timely manner. My example shows that it is not.
>
>
>
> > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor Agreement
> > > > (the "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed to
> > > > commit and how they need to identify code that is not their own.
> > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent with
> > > the iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't do
> > > anything about it.
> > If you want, you can always sign ICLA...
> > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > Committer, who already signed ICLA. So signing ICLA for contributor
> > is not mandatory.
>
> Part of the iCLA is also *honesty* about the attribution of code.
>
>
> > > > CO20 The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts in >
> > > good faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > > project.
> > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
>
> Is that a joke? One current member of the PMC tried to bully me into
> crediting him for work he hadn't done. Then tried to stall the PR while
> publicly claiming authorship. And another member of the PMC covered-up for
> him.
>
>
> > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to give
> > > > more rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value to
> > > > the project.
> > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer who
> > > isn't an affiliate of NFLabs. That person is not a programmer and
> > > has made no contribution to the Zeppelin codebase.
> > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2 committers
> > are out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
>
> Google says 6 are affiliated with NFLabs. Of the two who are not, one
> is Felix.
>
> > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs, marketing,
> > etc). It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> > contribution.
>
> That is true. But the question is whether the project is a
> 'meritocracy.' In this case, the non-programmer committer is Felix, a
> personal friend of Moon's who has a record of dishonesty.
>
>
>
> > > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in written
> > > > form on the project's main communications channel. Offline, face
> -> > > to-face or private discussions that affect the project are also
> > > > documented on that channel.
> > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.> >
> > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish result in
> > the mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline, like
> > discussion in the meetup, discussion in the conference, discussion in
> > personal email, we move that into the mailing list.
>
> There are examples mentioned already in this email chain...
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 20:36 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:37 AM Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Since subtlety has not worked, I will now be blunter.
> > >
> > > The reason PR 208 has been delayed since August is that Felix
> > > Cheung
> > > demanded that I credit him as a co-author even though he hadn't
> > > done
> > > any work.
> > >
> > > When I refused, Felix privately contacted Moon, who is his friend,
> > > and
> > > claimed the PR contained Felix' intellectual property. Moon then
> > > held
> > > the PR at Felix' request.
> > >
> > > I found out what happened after I pursued Moon to ask why the PR
> > > had
> > > been ignored. When he told me what happened, I had to offer e-mail
> > > chains and commit logs to prove that Felix was lying.
> > >
> > > Since then, its been one bogus, junk reason for delay after
> > > another.
> > > For a while, this seems to be because Moon wanted to give Felix
> > > time to
> > > produce a competing implementation. Except, Felix wasn't able to
> > > do
> > > it. I caught him trying to pass-off code he'd stolen as his own,
> > > with
> > > Moon (who should have known) present.
> > >
> > > When I confronted Moon he told me, basically, "don't rock our
> > > boat."
> > >
> > > If anyone has any doubt about whether what I've said is true, I
> > > have the
> > > email chains, the commit logs, the chat records...
> > >
> > > I believe the reason PRs have been delayed is that they conflicted
> > > with
> > > other goals of either NFLabs, or friends of committers. Such as
> > > security
> > > PRs, when NFlabs offers multi-user functionality commercially and
> > > outside
> > > the project.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Here are my comments on the draft checklist:
> > >
> > > > QU10The project is open and honest about the quality of its code.
> > > > Various levels of quality and maturity for various modules are
> > > > natural and acceptable as long as they are clearly communicated.
> > > > Yes
> > >
> > > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality, and
> > > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI issues
> > > were
> > > first reported, the response for some three months was "there can't
> > > be
> > > anything wrong so we won't bother looking." Now its acknowledged
> > > that
> > > CI is basically broken for the whole project.
> > >
> > > There are many such examples.
> > >
> > >
> > 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> > If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always try
> > to fix
> > and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > QU20The project puts a very high priority on producing secure
> > > > software.
> > > > Yes
> > >
> > > The evidence is otherwise.
> > >
> > > While many people ask about security features, the response has
> > > always
> > > been from the PMC "some day," with no progress made. When
> > > community
> > > members tried to contribute the code --- the Shiro PR was
> > > inexplicably
> > > delayed by 4+ months; and the reaction to the new multi-user PR
> > > already
> > > seems unusual, etc.
> > >
> > > Maybe the project intends to make security a priority in the
> > > future.
> > > But so far it has not.
> > >
> >
> > I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi-user
> > PR,
> > too.
> > And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when they
> > need
> > authentication even before it is being merged.
> >
> > And SSL support, securing cross origin access, etc, there're other
> > security
> > improvement effort that already been done and merged.
> >
> > I don't think project is not producing secure software.
> >
> >
> > > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards compatibility
> > > > and
> > > > aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools and
> > > > documentation to help users transition to new features.
> > > > Yes
> > >
> > > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to, e.g.,
> > > the
> > > way Zeppelin has to be configured, the way Spark integrates with
> > > Zeppelin, etc., that broke code and broke installations, but were
> > > never
> > > documented.
> > >
> > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so there's
> > > nothing to document." But that is not the case.
> > >
> > >
> > No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> > Integration
> > since way Spark integration changes. And it still does
> >
> > If you don't think it's enough, you can always contribute the
> > documentation.
> >
> >
> > > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in a
> > > > timely manner.Yes
> > >
> > > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted in
> > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple people
> > > and
> > > the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> > >
> > > This is just one example.
> > >
> > >
> > 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes. see
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=1231
> > 6221&version=12334165
> > I don't think bug fixes are ignored.
> >
> > You can always help fix the bug. Project does not officially discuss
> > on
> > twitter about the bug.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor Agreement
> > > > (the
> > > > "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed to
> > > > commit
> > > > and how they need to identify code that is not their own.
> > > > Yes
> > >
> > > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent with
> > > the
> > > iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't do
> > > anything
> > > about it.
> > >
> > >
> > If you want, you can always sign ICLA.
> > https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
> >
> > But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> > Committer,
> > who already signed ICLA.
> > So signing ICLA for contributor is not mandatory.
> >
> >
> > > > CO20
> > > > The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts in good
> > > > faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the project.
> > > > Yes
> > >
> > > See above.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to give more
> > > > rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value to the
> > > > project.
> > > > Yes
> > >
> > > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer who
> > > isn't
> > > an affiliate of NFLabs.
> > >
> > > That person is not a programmer and has made no contribution to the
> > > Zeppelin codebase.
> > >
> > >
> > We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2 committers
> > are
> > out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> >
> > Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
> >
> > And non-code contribution is also very important (docs, marketing,
> > etc).
> > It's even possible to become a committer with out code contribution.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > CO50
> > > > The way in which contributors can be granted more rights such as
> > > > commit access or decision power is clearly documented and is the
> > > > same
> > > > for all contributors.
> > > > Yes
> > >
> > > See above.
> > >
> > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in written
> > > form
> > > > on the project's main communications channel. Offline, face-to
> > > > -face
> > > > or private discussions that affect the project are also
> > > > documented on
> > > > that channel.
> > > > Yes
> > >
> > > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.
> > >
> > >
> > We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish result in
> > the
> > mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline, like
> > discussion
> > in the meetup, discussion in the conference, discussion in personal
> > email,
> > we move that into the mailing list.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > IN10The project is independent from any corporate or
> > > > organizational
> > > > influence.
> > > > Yes
> > >
> > > I'm not so sure...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 23:50 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > > I have filled out all checklists and commented as much as i can.
> > > >
> > > > Please review
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Zeppe
> > > > lin+
> > > > Project+Maturity+Model
> > > > .
> > > >
> > > > Did i filled out correctly? Any feedback would be really
> > > > appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > moon
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:03 AM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I have created
> > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Zep
> > > > > peli
> > > > > n+Project+Maturity+Model and
> > > > > trying to fill out Apache Maturity Model checklist.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let me notify this thread when everything is filled out.
> > > > > And any comment, help would be appreciated.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > moon
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > > roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were to
> > > > > > fill
> > > > > > out the
> > > > > > Apache Maturity Model
> > > > > > checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Roman.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <minalee@apache.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for graduation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more
> > > > > > > diverse.
> > > > > > > Number of
> > > > > > > contributors has increased more than 7 times and three new
> > > > > > > committers
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling project. And
> > > > > > > release, vote
> > > > > > > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
> > > > > > > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big synergy
> > > > > > > with other
> > > > > > > apache projects by providing different back-end
> > > > > > > interpreters(ex
> > > > > > > spark,
> > > > > > > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > so +1 for graduation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <
> > > > > > madhukaudantha@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <
> > > > > > > > doanduyhai@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo about the
> > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > maturity model. (
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturit
> > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > )
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on
> > > > > > > > > > producing
> > > > > > > > > > secure
> > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's related to security and I know that there is a
> > > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > > on Shiro
> > > > > > > > > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him by the
> > > > > > > > > way). There is
> > > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about Kerberos (
> > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/640).
> > > > > > > > > Don't know
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on the
> > > > > > > > > chapter
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > security,
> > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > the works are being done and are on good way.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Under the Community topic, I think all the points are
> > > > > > > > > covered (for
> > > > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly documented
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > CONTRIBUTING.md)
> > > > > > > > > as well as consensus (point CO60).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every discussion
> > > > > > > > > related to
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the
> > > > > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Now my personal opinion as a community member is that
> > > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > > high
> > > > > > time for
> > > > > > > > > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel
> > > > > > > > > comfortable
> > > > > > advising
> > > > > > > > > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production because
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > lack of
> > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > but since security support (at least for
> > > > > > > > > authentication) is
> > > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > > trunk
> > > > > > > > > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see any
> > > > > > > > > blocker anymore.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So a big +1 for me
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <
> > > > > > > > > ahyoungryu93@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think it's
> > > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > > > > So, ++1 !
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<
> > > > > > > > > > anthonycorbacho@apache.org>님이
> > > > > > 작성한
> > > > > > > > 메시지:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a
> > > > > > > > > > > vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any specific
> > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > (For
> > > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a
> > > > > > > > > > > requirement
> > > > > > > > > > > for the
> > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > as TLP),
> > > > > > > > > > > so for me its a big +1.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel
> > > > > > > > > > > Garcia <
> > > > > > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the incubator.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > think we
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new features
> > > > > > > > > > > > that also
> > > > > > will be
> > > > > > > > > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > greatly
> > > > > > > > > > > > improve the
> > > > > > > > > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary for
> > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jakob,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > describe
> > > > > > > > > (there
> > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and get
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > oppinions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from other participants - that would awesome!
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the next release here, but please feel free to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion on technical details.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > jghoman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey all-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > A data point and observation from an ASF
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member and
> > > > > > > > Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > PMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Member...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > > function
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > community development and adherence to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Way,
> > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones. Since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > entering
> > > > > > Incubator,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > finished
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > incubation checklist
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppeli
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > n.ht
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ml), has
> > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > position to
> > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from my perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > handled
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in a speedy
> > > > > > > > > matter,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that -
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jakob
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B. Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > we didn't
> > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > *in* 208
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > functioning.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > is broken
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > myself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been proven
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the field:
> > > > > > > > > People
> > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the version of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in my repo
> > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since August, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's very
> > > > > > hard to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a Meetup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > September
> > > > > > > > where a
> > > > > > > > > > > > variant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is dealing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > significant
> > > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > outside the core development team.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Addressing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > these issues
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > R,
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > maturity.
> > > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were supposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > non-beta release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sourav for interest in this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and very
> > > > > > > > > valuable
> > > > > > > > > > > > > opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree how much R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication (which
> > > > > > i
> > > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in Zeppelin) will be useful for users.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believe me, I
> > > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But at the same time we have diversity of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user bases.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people might think supporting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JDBC is more
> > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful feature, the other can think multi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -tenancy is the
> > > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > > important,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, i believe Apache Top Level project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > defined by how
> > > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > works,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not defined by what feature does the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > includes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding bringing R into main branch, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tried to make
> > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > passes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could able to make it pass 1 test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profile,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > couldn't
> > > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other test profiles.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm suggesting split the contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > smaller
> > > > > > peaces
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one. Like Hayssam did it for his
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Shiro
> > > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (pr586). And I'm volunteering making
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into smaller
> > > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This does make sense Moon. Completely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with you
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important for becoming a top level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my opinion, from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > > standpoint,
> > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two features Zeppelin does not look to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > > > fledged
> > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious whether there are any technical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glitches which
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > impediment
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bringing these features to the main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wondering
> > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to get those problems fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > soo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee <
> > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think any feature (R or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > > > > prerequisites
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation. Especially when a project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never setup
> > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation goal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Including specific features could be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valid concern for
> > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but i don't think it's related to a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graduation is much more like if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is doing it in
> > > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding. Last time the reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't go
> > > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is, because of there were valid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > impasse.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since that, community improved /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarified
> > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > guide
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > process. And Zeppelin PPMC members
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to help
> > > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that they have been as a open PR for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long time.
> > > > > > > > > (Especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Jongyoul
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Felix helped a lot)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, let's move discussions like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature should
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > included'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release / roadmap discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the graduation discussion, i'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have an
> > > > > > > > > discussions,
> > > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evaluating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturit
> > > > > > y-mo
> > > > > > del.html
> > > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense for you guys?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran, Sourav?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No Eran is right. The last vote for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > passed-it
> > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > withdrawn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there was
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors concerning graduation, R,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some other
> > > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > last public discussion about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > until today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex if you disagree with that do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have links to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > emails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you're referring to.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexander
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eran,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please check my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reply about
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > schedulle
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know if that makes sense to you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, please our mentors
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct me if I'm
> > > > > > wrong
> > > > > > > > > here,
> > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reading [1] I was under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impression
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that project
> > > > > > does not
> > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pre-request
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding its code or features in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > order to undergo
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > formal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html
> > > > > > #Gra
> > > > > > duating+from+the+Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Witkon <
> > > > > > > > > > eranwitkon@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I recall correctly R support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one of the
> > > > > > > > > > pre-requisite
> > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from day one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be added as
> > > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation after we add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javasc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Surely I vote for the same.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin is already
> > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > popular
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quarts of the Spark/Big Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group. High
> > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I shall suggest to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the support for
> > > > > > R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to Zeppelin before that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are the supports
> > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eagerly waiting for.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon soo Lee <
> > > > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Alexander for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > resuming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's start a vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11:11
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PM Alexander
> > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Zeppelin developers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now, after number of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > releases
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and committers
> > > > > > grew
> > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the re-new the discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduating
> > > > > > Zeppelin to
> > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there are on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > objections -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next step would be
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > start a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > VOTE
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you guys think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > > > > > > > > > > > *Software Engeenier
> > > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javasc
> > > > > > > > > > > > ript
> > > > > > > > > > > > :;> <
> > > > > > > > > > > marta.tapia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > > > > * |
> > > > > > > > victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> > > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > > <marta.tapia@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > Madhuka Udantha
> > > > > > > > http://madhukaudantha.blogspot.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>.
The topic here is supposed to be an open, honest, objective evaluation
of the project against the criteria in the checklist.
I would like us to stick to the subject.
> > > QU10 The project is open and honest about the quality of its ...
> > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality, and
> > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI issues
> > were first reported, the response for some three months was
> > "there can't be anything wrong so we won't bother looking." ...
> 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always try
> to fix and contribute. that will be appreciated.
The issue is whether the project is "open and honest" about code
quality. Or defensive (and hostile).
CI isn't broken? How many PRs have been merged in the last month with a
note to not worry that they don't pass CI because its broken? More
than a month ago Moon personally committed to fix it, and NFlabs has a
project to completely replace it because its so unstable.
I think Moon has just proven my point.
> > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing secure
> > > software.
> I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi-user
> PR, too.
Not really... Usually the answer was to refer people to NFlabs, or say
its something that would be discussed in the future.
There was an example on the User list yesterday.
> And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when they
> need authentication even before it is being merged.
If that were true then why was the PR was ignored for so long? The
excuse in December was that the PR was forgotten about.
> > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards compatibility
> > > and aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools >
> > and documentation to help users transition . . .
> > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to, e.g.,
> > the. . . that broke code and broke installations, but were
> > never documented.
> > I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so there's
> > nothing to document."
> No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> Integration since way Spark integration changes.
That's not correct. In fact Moon and I had an e-mail exchange about this in August and September, and its been discussed several times in PR comments.
This issue is *still* breaking builds for people, and it comes up on the user help list every few days. And that's just one issue.
Moon has, again, made my point.
> > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in > > > timely manner.
> > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted in > > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple people
> > and the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes.
Not correct. Fixes to typos and grammar errors in documentation, and changes to the shading of windows, are not "bug fixes."
In the 0.5.6 vote I asked if there were any substantive changes or bug fixes in 0.5.6. The twitter-bug was the only example that anyone was able to produce.
Anyway, the question is still why that PR and the bug reports were ignored in September, October, November, before twitter complained?
The issue is whether *the project* is responding to bug reports in a timely manner. My example shows that it is not.
> > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor Agreement
> > > (the "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed to
> > > commit and how they need to identify code that is not their own.
> > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent with
> > the iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't do
> > anything about it.
> If you want, you can always sign ICLA...
> But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> Committer, who already signed ICLA. So signing ICLA for contributor
> is not mandatory.
Part of the iCLA is also *honesty* about the attribution of code.
> > > CO20 The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts in > > > good faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the
> > > project.
> Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
Is that a joke? One current member of the PMC tried to bully me into crediting him for work he hadn't done. Then tried to stall the PR while publicly claiming authorship. And another member of the PMC covered-up for him.
> > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to give
> > > more rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value to
> > > the project.
> > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer who
> > isn't an affiliate of NFLabs. That person is not a programmer and
> > has made no contribution to the Zeppelin codebase.
> We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2 committers
> are out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
> Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
Google says 6 are affiliated with NFLabs. Of the two who are not, one
is Felix.
> And non-code contribution is also very important (docs, marketing,
> etc). It's even possible to become a committer with out code
> contribution.
That is true. But the question is whether the project is a
'meritocracy.' In this case, the non-programmer committer is Felix, a
personal friend of Moon's who has a record of dishonesty.
> > > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in written
> > > form on the project's main communications channel. Offline, face
-> > > to-face or private discussions that affect the project are also
> > > documented on that channel.
> > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.> >
> We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish result in
> the mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline, like
> discussion in the meetup, discussion in the conference, discussion in
> personal email, we move that into the mailing list.
There are examples mentioned already in this email chain...
On Fri, 2016-02-05 at 20:36 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:37 AM Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Since subtlety has not worked, I will now be blunter.
> >
> > The reason PR 208 has been delayed since August is that Felix
> > Cheung
> > demanded that I credit him as a co-author even though he hadn't
> > done
> > any work.
> >
> > When I refused, Felix privately contacted Moon, who is his friend,
> > and
> > claimed the PR contained Felix' intellectual property. Moon then
> > held
> > the PR at Felix' request.
> >
> > I found out what happened after I pursued Moon to ask why the PR
> > had
> > been ignored. When he told me what happened, I had to offer e-mail
> > chains and commit logs to prove that Felix was lying.
> >
> > Since then, its been one bogus, junk reason for delay after
> > another.
> > For a while, this seems to be because Moon wanted to give Felix
> > time to
> > produce a competing implementation. Except, Felix wasn't able to
> > do
> > it. I caught him trying to pass-off code he'd stolen as his own,
> > with
> > Moon (who should have known) present.
> >
> > When I confronted Moon he told me, basically, "don't rock our
> > boat."
> >
> > If anyone has any doubt about whether what I've said is true, I
> > have the
> > email chains, the commit logs, the chat records...
> >
> > I believe the reason PRs have been delayed is that they conflicted
> > with
> > other goals of either NFLabs, or friends of committers. Such as
> > security
> > PRs, when NFlabs offers multi-user functionality commercially and
> > outside
> > the project.
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
> > Here are my comments on the draft checklist:
> >
> > > QU10The project is open and honest about the quality of its code.
> > > Various levels of quality and maturity for various modules are
> > > natural and acceptable as long as they are clearly communicated.
> > > Yes
> >
> > The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality, and
> > everything else really. As just one example, when the CI issues
> > were
> > first reported, the response for some three months was "there can't
> > be
> > anything wrong so we won't bother looking." Now its acknowledged
> > that
> > CI is basically broken for the whole project.
> >
> > There are many such examples.
> >
> >
> 9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
> If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always try
> to fix
> and contribute. that will be appreciated.
>
>
>
> > > QU20The project puts a very high priority on producing secure
> > > software.
> > > Yes
> >
> > The evidence is otherwise.
> >
> > While many people ask about security features, the response has
> > always
> > been from the PMC "some day," with no progress made. When
> > community
> > members tried to contribute the code --- the Shiro PR was
> > inexplicably
> > delayed by 4+ months; and the reaction to the new multi-user PR
> > already
> > seems unusual, etc.
> >
> > Maybe the project intends to make security a priority in the
> > future.
> > But so far it has not.
> >
>
> I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi-user
> PR,
> too.
> And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when they
> need
> authentication even before it is being merged.
>
> And SSL support, securing cross origin access, etc, there're other
> security
> improvement effort that already been done and merged.
>
> I don't think project is not producing secure software.
>
>
> > > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards compatibility
> > > and
> > > aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools and
> > > documentation to help users transition to new features.
> > > Yes
> >
> > There is no such documentation. There have been changes to, e.g.,
> > the
> > way Zeppelin has to be configured, the way Spark integrates with
> > Zeppelin, etc., that broke code and broke installations, but were
> > never
> > documented.
> >
> I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so there's
> > nothing to document." But that is not the case.
> >
> >
> No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark
> Integration
> since way Spark integration changes. And it still does
>
> If you don't think it's enough, you can always contribute the
> documentation.
>
>
> > > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in a
> > > timely manner.Yes
> >
> > 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted in
> > *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple people
> > and
> > the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
> >
> > This is just one example.
> >
> >
> 0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes. see
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=1231
> 6221&version=12334165
> I don't think bug fixes are ignored.
>
> You can always help fix the bug. Project does not officially discuss
> on
> twitter about the bug.
>
>
>
> > > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor Agreement
> > > (the
> > > "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed to
> > > commit
> > > and how they need to identify code that is not their own.
> > > Yes
> >
> > There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent with
> > the
> > iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't do
> > anything
> > about it.
> >
> >
> If you want, you can always sign ICLA.
> https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
>
> But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin
> Committer,
> who already signed ICLA.
> So signing ICLA for contributor is not mandatory.
>
>
> > > CO20
> > > The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts in good
> > > faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the project.
> > > Yes
> >
> > See above.
> >
>
> Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
>
>
> >
> > > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to give more
> > > rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value to the
> > > project.
> > > Yes
> >
> > Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer who
> > isn't
> > an affiliate of NFLabs.
> >
> > That person is not a programmer and has made no contribution to the
> > Zeppelin codebase.
> >
> >
> We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2 committers
> are
> out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
>
> Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
>
> And non-code contribution is also very important (docs, marketing,
> etc).
> It's even possible to become a committer with out code contribution.
>
>
>
> > > CO50
> > > The way in which contributors can be granted more rights such as
> > > commit access or decision power is clearly documented and is the
> > > same
> > > for all contributors.
> > > Yes
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in written
> > form
> > > on the project's main communications channel. Offline, face-to
> > > -face
> > > or private discussions that affect the project are also
> > > documented on
> > > that channel.
> > > Yes
> >
> > Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.
> >
> >
> We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish result in
> the
> mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline, like
> discussion
> in the meetup, discussion in the conference, discussion in personal
> email,
> we move that into the mailing list.
>
>
>
> > > IN10The project is independent from any corporate or
> > > organizational
> > > influence.
> > > Yes
> >
> > I'm not so sure...
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 23:50 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > > I have filled out all checklists and commented as much as i can.
> > >
> > > Please review
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Zeppe
> > > lin+
> > > Project+Maturity+Model
> > > .
> > >
> > > Did i filled out correctly? Any feedback would be really
> > > appreciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > moon
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:03 AM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I have created
> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Zep
> > > > peli
> > > > n+Project+Maturity+Model and
> > > > trying to fill out Apache Maturity Model checklist.
> > > >
> > > > Let me notify this thread when everything is filled out.
> > > > And any comment, help would be appreciated.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > moon
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > > roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were to
> > > > > fill
> > > > > out the
> > > > > Apache Maturity Model
> > > > > checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Roman.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <minalee@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for graduation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more
> > > > > > diverse.
> > > > > > Number of
> > > > > > contributors has increased more than 7 times and three new
> > > > > > committers
> > > > > are
> > > > > > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling project. And
> > > > > > release, vote
> > > > > > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
> > > > > > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big synergy
> > > > > > with other
> > > > > > apache projects by providing different back-end
> > > > > > interpreters(ex
> > > > > > spark,
> > > > > > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so +1 for graduation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <
> > > > > madhukaudantha@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <
> > > > > > > doanduyhai@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo about the
> > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > project
> > > > > > > > maturity model. (
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturit
> > > > > y-mo
> > > > > del.html
> > > > > )
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on
> > > > > > > > > producing
> > > > > > > > > secure
> > > > > software
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's related to security and I know that there is a
> > > > > > > > commit
> > > > > > > > on Shiro
> > > > > > > > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him by the
> > > > > > > > way). There is
> > > > > > > also
> > > > > > > > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about Kerberos (
> > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/640).
> > > > > > > > Don't know
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on the
> > > > > > > > chapter
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > security,
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > the works are being done and are on good way.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Under the Community topic, I think all the points are
> > > > > > > > covered (for
> > > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly documented
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > CONTRIBUTING.md)
> > > > > > > > as well as consensus (point CO60).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every discussion
> > > > > > > > related to
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the
> > > > > > > > mailing
> > > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now my personal opinion as a community member is that
> > > > > > > > it's
> > > > > > > > high
> > > > > time for
> > > > > > > > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel
> > > > > > > > comfortable
> > > > > advising
> > > > > > > > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production because
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > lack of
> > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > but since security support (at least for
> > > > > > > > authentication) is
> > > > > > > > in the
> > > > > trunk
> > > > > > > > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see any
> > > > > > > > blocker anymore.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So a big +1 for me
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <
> > > > > > > > ahyoungryu93@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think it's
> > > > > > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > > > So, ++1 !
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<
> > > > > > > > > anthonycorbacho@apache.org>님이
> > > > > 작성한
> > > > > > > 메시지:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a
> > > > > > > > > > vote.
> > > > > > > > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any specific
> > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > (For
> > > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a
> > > > > > > > > > requirement
> > > > > > > > > > for the
> > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > as TLP),
> > > > > > > > > > so for me its a big +1.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel
> > > > > > > > > > Garcia <
> > > > > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the incubator.
> > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > think we
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new features
> > > > > > > > > > > that also
> > > > > will be
> > > > > > > > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to
> > > > > > > > > > > greatly
> > > > > > > > > > > improve the
> > > > > > > > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary for
> > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jakob,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is exactly
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > describe
> > > > > > > > (there
> > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on
> > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > and get
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > oppinions
> > > > > > > > > > > > from other participants - that would awesome!
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to help
> > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > the next release here, but please feel free to
> > > > > > > > > > > > fork
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > thread
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > > discussion on technical details.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <
> > > > > > > > > > > > jghoman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey all-
> > > > > > > > > > > > > A data point and observation from an ASF
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Member and
> > > > > > > Incubator
> > > > > > > > > PMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Member...
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > > function
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > community development and adherence to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Way,
> > > > > rather
> > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones. Since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > entering
> > > > > Incubator,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > finished
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > incubation checklist
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppeli
> > > > > > > > > > > > > n.ht
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ml), has
> > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > good
> > > > > > > > > > > > > position to
> > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from my perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > handled
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in a speedy
> > > > > > > > matter,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that -
> > > > > just
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -Jakob
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B. Elberg <
> > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > we didn't
> > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > > *in* 208
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > functioning.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now
> > > > > > > > > > > > > CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is broken
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > myself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been proven
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the field:
> > > > > > > > People
> > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the version of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in my repo
> > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since August, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's very
> > > > > hard to
> > > > > > > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a Meetup
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > September
> > > > > > > where a
> > > > > > > > > > > variant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is dealing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > significant
> > > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > outside the core development team.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Addressing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > these issues
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > R,
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > maturity.
> > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were supposed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > > non-beta release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <
> > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sourav for interest in this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and very
> > > > > > > > valuable
> > > > > > > > > > > > opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree how much R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication (which
> > > > > i
> > > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in Zeppelin) will be useful for users.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > believe me, I
> > > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But at the same time we have diversity of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user bases.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people might think supporting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JDBC is more
> > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful feature, the other can think multi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -tenancy is the
> > > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > > important,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, i believe Apache Top Level project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > defined by how
> > > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > > works,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not defined by what feature does the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > includes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding bringing R into main branch, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tried to make
> > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > passes
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could able to make it pass 1 test
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profile,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > couldn't
> > > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other test profiles.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm suggesting split the contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > smaller
> > > > > peaces
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one. Like Hayssam did it for his
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Shiro
> > > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (pr586). And I'm volunteering making
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into smaller
> > > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This does make sense Moon. Completely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agree
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with you
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important for becoming a top level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my opinion, from the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > > standpoint,
> > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two features Zeppelin does not look to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > me a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > > fledged
> > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious whether there are any technical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glitches which
> > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > impediment
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bringing these features to the main
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wondering
> > > > > if
> > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to get those problems fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > soo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee <
> > > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think any feature (R or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > > > prerequisites
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation. Especially when a project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never setup
> > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation goal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Including specific features could be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valid concern for
> > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but i don't think it's related to a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graduation is much more like if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is doing it in
> > > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding. Last time the reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > why i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't go
> > > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is, because of there were valid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > impasse.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since that, community improved /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarified
> > > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > guide
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > process. And Zeppelin PPMC members
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to help
> > > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that they have been as a open PR for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long time.
> > > > > > > > (Especially
> > > > > > > > > > > > Jongyoul
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Felix helped a lot)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, let's move discussions like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature should
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > included'
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release / roadmap discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the graduation discussion, i'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have an
> > > > > > > > discussions,
> > > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evaluating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturit
> > > > > y-mo
> > > > > del.html
> > > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense for you guys?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amos,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran, Sourav?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No Eran is right. The last vote for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > passed-it
> > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > withdrawn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > passed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there was
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors concerning graduation, R,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some other
> > > > > issues.
> > > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > last public discussion about
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > until today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex if you disagree with that do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have links to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > emails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you're referring to.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alexander
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eran,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please check my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reply about
> > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > schedulle
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know if that makes sense to you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, please our mentors
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct me if I'm
> > > > > wrong
> > > > > > > > here,
> > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reading [1] I was under
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > impression
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that project
> > > > > does not
> > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pre-request
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding its code or features in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > order to undergo
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > formal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html
> > > > > #Gra
> > > > > duating+from+the+Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Witkon <
> > > > > > > > > eranwitkon@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I recall correctly R support
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one of the
> > > > > > > > > pre-requisite
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from day one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be added as
> > > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation after we add
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javasc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Surely I vote for the same.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin is already
> > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > popular
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quarts of the Spark/Big Data
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group. High
> > > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I shall suggest to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the support for
> > > > > R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to Zeppelin before that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > These
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are the supports
> > > > > most
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eagerly waiting for.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon soo Lee <
> > > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Alexander for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > resuming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's start a vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 11:11
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PM Alexander
> > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Zeppelin developers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now, after number of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > releases
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and committers
> > > > > grew
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the re-new the discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduating
> > > > > Zeppelin to
> > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there are on
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > objections -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next step would be
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > start a
> > > > > > > > > > > > VOTE
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you guys think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > > > > > > > > > > *Software Engeenier
> > > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javasc
> > > > > > > > > > > ript
> > > > > > > > > > > :;> <
> > > > > > > > > > marta.tapia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > > > * |
> > > > > > > victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> > > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > <marta.tapia@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Madhuka Udantha
> > > > > > > http://madhukaudantha.blogspot.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 2:37 AM Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Since subtlety has not worked, I will now be blunter.
>
> The reason PR 208 has been delayed since August is that Felix Cheung
> demanded that I credit him as a co-author even though he hadn't done
> any work.
>
> When I refused, Felix privately contacted Moon, who is his friend, and
> claimed the PR contained Felix' intellectual property. Moon then held
> the PR at Felix' request.
>
> I found out what happened after I pursued Moon to ask why the PR had
> been ignored. When he told me what happened, I had to offer e-mail
> chains and commit logs to prove that Felix was lying.
>
> Since then, its been one bogus, junk reason for delay after another.
> For a while, this seems to be because Moon wanted to give Felix time to
> produce a competing implementation. Except, Felix wasn't able to do
> it. I caught him trying to pass-off code he'd stolen as his own, with
> Moon (who should have known) present.
>
> When I confronted Moon he told me, basically, "don't rock our boat."
>
> If anyone has any doubt about whether what I've said is true, I have the
> email chains, the commit logs, the chat records...
>
> I believe the reason PRs have been delayed is that they conflicted with
> other goals of either NFLabs, or friends of committers. Such as security
> PRs, when NFlabs offers multi-user functionality commercially and outside
> the project.
>
>
>
>
> Here are my comments on the draft checklist:
>
> > QU10The project is open and honest about the quality of its code.
> > Various levels of quality and maturity for various modules are
> > natural and acceptable as long as they are clearly communicated.
> > Yes
>
> The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality, and
> everything else really. As just one example, when the CI issues were
> first reported, the response for some three months was "there can't be
> anything wrong so we won't bother looking." Now its acknowledged that
> CI is basically broken for the whole project.
>
> There are many such examples.
>
>
9/10 latest PR passes the CI. I don't think CI is broken.
If you think CI is broken for the whole project, you can always try to fix
and contribute. that will be appreciated.
> > QU20The project puts a very high priority on producing secure
> > software.
> > Yes
>
> The evidence is otherwise.
>
> While many people ask about security features, the response has always
> been from the PMC "some day," with no progress made. When community
> members tried to contribute the code --- the Shiro PR was inexplicably
> delayed by 4+ months; and the reaction to the new multi-user PR already
> seems unusual, etc.
>
> Maybe the project intends to make security a priority in the future.
> But so far it has not.
>
I always asked people to contribute the security feature. multi-user PR,
too.
And i always introduced and directed people to Shiro PR when they need
authentication even before it is being merged.
And SSL support, securing cross origin access, etc, there're other security
improvement effort that already been done and merged.
I don't think project is not producing secure software.
> > QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards compatibility and
> > aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools and
> > documentation to help users transition to new features.
> > Yes
>
> There is no such documentation. There have been changes to, e.g., the
> way Zeppelin has to be configured, the way Spark integrates with
> Zeppelin, etc., that broke code and broke installations, but were never
> documented.
>
I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so there's
> nothing to document." But that is not the case.
>
>
No. configuration always includes both old, new way of Spark Integration
since way Spark integration changes. And it still does
If you don't think it's enough, you can always contribute the documentation.
> > QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in a
> > timely manner.Yes
>
> 0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted in
> *September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple people and
> the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
>
> This is just one example.
>
>
0.5.6 for example includes 78 bug fixes. see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12316221&version=12334165
I don't think bug fixes are ignored.
You can always help fix the bug. Project does not officially discuss on
twitter about the bug.
> > LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor Agreement (the
> > "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed to commit
> > and how they need to identify code that is not their own.
> > Yes
>
> There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent with the
> iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't do anything
> about it.
>
>
If you want, you can always sign ICLA.
https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt
But basically, contributed code is committed by one of Zeppelin Committer,
who already signed ICLA.
So signing ICLA for contributor is not mandatory.
> > CO20
> > The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts in good
> > faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the project.
> > Yes
>
> See above.
>
Yes, acts in good faith and in a respectful manner.
>
> > CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to give more
> > rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value to the
> > project.
> > Yes
>
> Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer who isn't
> an affiliate of NFLabs.
>
> That person is not a programmer and has made no contribution to the
> Zeppelin codebase.
>
>
We have invited 3 committer after incubation started and 2 committers are
out side of NFLabs and 1 committer from NFLabs.
Total 8 committers so far, from 4 different affiliation.
And non-code contribution is also very important (docs, marketing, etc).
It's even possible to become a committer with out code contribution.
> > CO50
> > The way in which contributors can be granted more rights such as
> > commit access or decision power is clearly documented and is the same
> > for all contributors.
> > Yes
>
> See above.
>
> CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in written form
> > on the project's main communications channel. Offline, face-to-face
> > or private discussions that affect the project are also documented on
> > that channel.
> > Yes
>
> Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.
>
>
We do every discussion is in the mailing list. And publish result in the
mailing list. Even if there're discussion in the offline, like discussion
in the meetup, discussion in the conference, discussion in personal email,
we move that into the mailing list.
> > IN10The project is independent from any corporate or organizational
> > influence.
> > Yes
>
> I'm not so sure...
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 23:50 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> > I have filled out all checklists and commented as much as i can.
> >
> > Please review
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Zeppelin+
> > Project+Maturity+Model
> > .
> >
> > Did i filled out correctly? Any feedback would be really appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > moon
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:03 AM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I have created
> > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Zeppeli
> > > n+Project+Maturity+Model and
> > > trying to fill out Apache Maturity Model checklist.
> > >
> > > Let me notify this thread when everything is filled out.
> > > And any comment, help would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > moon
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > > roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were to fill
> > > > out the
> > > > Apache Maturity Model
> > > > checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Roman.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <mi...@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for graduation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more diverse.
> > > > > Number of
> > > > > contributors has increased more than 7 times and three new
> > > > > committers
> > > > are
> > > > > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling project. And
> > > > > release, vote
> > > > > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
> > > > > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big synergy
> > > > > with other
> > > > > apache projects by providing different back-end interpreters(ex
> > > > > spark,
> > > > > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
> > > > >
> > > > > so +1 for graduation.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <
> > > > madhukaudantha@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <
> > > > > > doanduyhai@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo about the
> > > > > > > Apache
> > > > project
> > > > > > > maturity model. (
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-mo
> > > > del.html
> > > > )
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing
> > > > > > > > secure
> > > > software
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's related to security and I know that there is a commit
> > > > > > > on Shiro
> > > > > > > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him by the
> > > > > > > way). There is
> > > > > > also
> > > > > > > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about Kerberos (
> > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/640).
> > > > > > > Don't know
> > > > if
> > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on the chapter
> > > > > > > of
> > > > security,
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > the works are being done and are on good way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Under the Community topic, I think all the points are
> > > > > > > covered (for
> > > > > > example,
> > > > > > > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly documented in
> > > > > > CONTRIBUTING.md)
> > > > > > > as well as consensus (point CO60).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every discussion
> > > > > > > related to
> > > > release
> > > > > > > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the mailing
> > > > > > > list.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now my personal opinion as a community member is that it's
> > > > > > > high
> > > > time for
> > > > > > > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel
> > > > > > > comfortable
> > > > advising
> > > > > > > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production because of
> > > > > > > lack of
> > > > > > security
> > > > > > > but since security support (at least for authentication) is
> > > > > > > in the
> > > > trunk
> > > > > > > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see any
> > > > > > > blocker anymore.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So a big +1 for me
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <
> > > > > > > ahyoungryu93@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think it's time to
> > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > and
> > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > > So, ++1 !
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<
> > > > > > > > anthonycorbacho@apache.org>님이
> > > > 작성한
> > > > > > 메시지:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a vote.
> > > > > > > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any specific features
> > > > > > > > > (For
> > > > specific
> > > > > > > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a requirement
> > > > > > > > > for the
> > > > first
> > > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > as TLP),
> > > > > > > > > so for me its a big +1.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> > > > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the incubator. I
> > > > > > > > > > think we
> > > > all
> > > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new features
> > > > > > > > > > that also
> > > > will be
> > > > > > > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to greatly
> > > > > > > > > > improve the
> > > > > > > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary for
> > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Jakob,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is exactly as
> > > > > > > > > > > you
> > > > describe
> > > > > > > (there
> > > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > and get
> > > > more
> > > > > > > > > oppinions
> > > > > > > > > > > from other participants - that would awesome!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to help with
> > > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > the next release here, but please feel free to fork
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > thread
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > > discussion on technical details.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <
> > > > > > > > > > > jghoman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hey all-
> > > > > > > > > > > > A data point and observation from an ASF
> > > > > > > > > > > > Member and
> > > > > > Incubator
> > > > > > > > PMC
> > > > > > > > > > > > Member...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > is a
> > > > function
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > community development and adherence to the Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > > Way,
> > > > rather
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones. Since
> > > > > > > > > > > > entering
> > > > Incubator,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases, has
> > > > > > > > > > > > finished
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > incubation checklist
> > > > > > > > > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.ht
> > > > > > > > > > > > ml), has
> > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a good
> > > > > > > > > > > > position to
> > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > > from my perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be handled
> > > > > > > > > > > > in a speedy
> > > > > > > matter,
> > > > > > > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement to
> > > > > > > > > > > > that -
> > > > just
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -Jakob
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B. Elberg <
> > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it. The reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > > we didn't
> > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented the tests
> > > > > > > > > > > > *in* 208
> > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > functioning.
> > > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now CI
> > > > > > > > > > > > is broken
> > > > for
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I would do
> > > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > myself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been proven in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the field:
> > > > > > > People
> > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the version of 208
> > > > > > > > > > > > in my repo
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since August, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > it's very
> > > > hard to
> > > > > > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a Meetup in
> > > > > > > > > > > > September
> > > > > > where a
> > > > > > > > > > variant
> > > > > > > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a demonstration
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is dealing with
> > > > significant
> > > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > outside the core development team. Addressing
> > > > > > > > > > > > these issues
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > R,
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of project
> > > > > > > > > > > > maturity.
> > > > These
> > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were supposed to be
> > > > > > > > > > > > included
> > > > > > before
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > > non-beta release.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee <
> > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and very
> > > > > > > valuable
> > > > > > > > > > > opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree how much R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication (which
> > > > i
> > > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > believe me, I
> > > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > But at the same time we have diversity of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > user bases.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people might think supporting general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > JDBC is more
> > > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > useful feature, the other can think multi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -tenancy is the
> > > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > > important,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, i believe Apache Top Level project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > defined by how
> > > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > > works,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > not defined by what feature does the software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > includes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding bringing R into main branch, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > tried to make
> > > > pr208
> > > > > > > > > passes
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I could able to make it pass 1 test profile,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > > couldn't
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > other test profiles.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm suggesting split the contribution into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > smaller
> > > > peaces
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of Shiro
> > > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > (pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > into smaller
> > > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This does make sense Moon. Completely agree
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with you
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > important for becoming a top level project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my opinion, from the practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > > standpoint,
> > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > two features Zeppelin does not look to me a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > full
> > > > fledged
> > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious whether there are any technical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > glitches which
> > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > impediment
> > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bringing these features to the main branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wondering
> > > > if
> > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to get those problems fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee <
> > > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think any feature (R or whatever)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > > prerequisites
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation. Especially when a project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never setup
> > > > those
> > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation goal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Including specific features could be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valid concern for
> > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but i don't think it's related to a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graduation is much more like if project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is doing it in
> > > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding. Last time the reason why i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't go
> > > > for a
> > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is, because of there were valid concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > > impasse.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since that, community improved /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarified
> > > > contribution
> > > > > > > guide
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to help
> > > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that they have been as a open PR for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long time.
> > > > > > > (Especially
> > > > > > > > > > > Jongyoul
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Felix helped a lot)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, let's move discussions like 'which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > included'
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release / roadmap discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the graduation discussion, i'd like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have an
> > > > > > > discussions,
> > > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evaluating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-mo
> > > > del.html
> > > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense for you guys? Amos,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran, Sourav?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No Eran is right. The last vote for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > passed-it
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > withdrawn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there was
> > > > some
> > > > > > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors concerning graduation, R, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some other
> > > > issues.
> > > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > last public discussion about graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > until today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex if you disagree with that do you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have links to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > emails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you're referring to.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eran,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please check my previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reply about
> > > > release
> > > > > > > > > schedulle
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know if that makes sense to you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, please our mentors
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct me if I'm
> > > > wrong
> > > > > > > here,
> > > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reading [1] I was under impression
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that project
> > > > does not
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pre-request
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding its code or features in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > order to undergo
> > > > this
> > > > > > > > formal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Gra
> > > > duating+from+the+Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Witkon <
> > > > > > > > eranwitkon@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I recall correctly R support was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one of the
> > > > > > > > pre-requisite
> > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from day one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Authentication should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be added as
> > > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation after we add both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Surely I vote for the same.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin is already
> > > > very
> > > > > > > > popular
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quarts of the Spark/Big Data user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group. High
> > > > time to
> > > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I shall suggest to have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the support for
> > > > R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to Zeppelin before that. These
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are the supports
> > > > most
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eagerly waiting for.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon soo Lee <
> > > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Alexander for resuming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's start a vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PM Alexander
> > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Zeppelin developers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now, after number of releases
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and committers
> > > > grew
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the re-new the discussion of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduating
> > > > Zeppelin to
> > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there are on objections -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next step would be
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > start a
> > > > > > > > > > > VOTE
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you guys think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > > > > > > > > > *Software Engeenier
> > > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript
> > > > > > > > > > :;> <
> > > > > > > > > marta.tapia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > > * |
> > > > > > victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> > > > > > > > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > <marta.tapia@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Madhuka Udantha
> > > > > > http://madhukaudantha.blogspot.com
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Amos Elberg <am...@gmail.com>.
Since subtlety has not worked, I will now be blunter.
The reason PR 208 has been delayed since August is that Felix Cheung
demanded that I credit him as a co-author even though he hadn't done
any work.
When I refused, Felix privately contacted Moon, who is his friend, and
claimed the PR contained Felix' intellectual property. Moon then held
the PR at Felix' request.
I found out what happened after I pursued Moon to ask why the PR had
been ignored. When he told me what happened, I had to offer e-mail
chains and commit logs to prove that Felix was lying.
Since then, its been one bogus, junk reason for delay after another.
For a while, this seems to be because Moon wanted to give Felix time to
produce a competing implementation. Except, Felix wasn't able to do
it. I caught him trying to pass-off code he'd stolen as his own, with
Moon (who should have known) present.
When I confronted Moon he told me, basically, "don't rock our boat."
If anyone has any doubt about whether what I've said is true, I have the email chains, the commit logs, the chat records...
I believe the reason PRs have been delayed is that they conflicted with other goals of either NFLabs, or friends of committers. Such as security PRs, when NFlabs offers multi-user functionality commercially and outside the project.
Here are my comments on the draft checklist:
> QU10The project is open and honest about the quality of its code.
> Various levels of quality and maturity for various modules are
> natural and acceptable as long as they are clearly communicated.
> Yes
The project has been quite defensive concerning code quality, and
everything else really. As just one example, when the CI issues were
first reported, the response for some three months was "there can't be
anything wrong so we won't bother looking." Now its acknowledged that
CI is basically broken for the whole project.
There are many such examples.
> QU20The project puts a very high priority on producing secure
> software.
> Yes
The evidence is otherwise.
While many people ask about security features, the response has always
been from the PMC "some day," with no progress made. When community
members tried to contribute the code --- the Shiro PR was inexplicably
delayed by 4+ months; and the reaction to the new multi-user PR already
seems unusual, etc.
Maybe the project intends to make security a priority in the future.
But so far it has not.
> QU40The project puts a high priority on backwards compatibility and
> aims to document any incompatible changes and provide tools and
> documentation to help users transition to new features.
> Yes
There is no such documentation. There have been changes to, e.g., the
way Zeppelin has to be configured, the way Spark integrates with
Zeppelin, etc., that broke code and broke installations, but were never
documented.
I think the belief is "there are no incompatibilities so there's
nothing to document." But that is not the case.
> QU50The project strives to respond to documented bug reports in a
> timely manner.Yes
0.5.6 contained a patch for a bug where the PR was submitted in
*September*, before even 0.5.5. Bug reports from multiple people and
the PR were ignored -- until Twitter complained.
This is just one example.
> LC40 Committers are bound by an Individual Contributor Agreement (the
> "Apache iCLA") that defines which code they are allowed to commit
> and how they need to identify code that is not their own.
> Yes
There is no way that Felix's conduct about 208 is consistent with the
iCLA. In addition, Moon knew about that conduct, and didn't do anything
about it.
> CO20
> The community welcomes contributions from anyone who acts in good
> faith and in a respectful manner and adds value to the project.
> Yes
See above.
> CO40The community is meritocratic and over time aims to give more
> rights and responsibilities to contributors who add value to the
> project.
> Yes
Since incubation began, the PMC has added only one committer who isn't
an affiliate of NFLabs.
That person is not a programmer and has made no contribution to the
Zeppelin codebase.
> CO50
> The way in which contributors can be granted more rights such as
> commit access or decision power is clearly documented and is the same
> for all contributors.
> Yes
See above.
> CS50All "important" discussions happen asynchronously in written form
> on the project's main communications channel. Offline, face-to-face
> or private discussions that affect the project are also documented on
> that channel.
> Yes
Absolutely not the case. Email chains available on request.
> IN10The project is independent from any corporate or organizational
> influence.
> Yes
I'm not so sure...
On Thu, 2016-02-04 at 23:50 +0000, moon soo Lee wrote:
> I have filled out all checklists and commented as much as i can.
>
> Please review
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Zeppelin+
> Project+Maturity+Model
> .
>
> Did i filled out correctly? Any feedback would be really appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> moon
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:03 AM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > I have created
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Zeppeli
> > n+Project+Maturity+Model and
> > trying to fill out Apache Maturity Model checklist.
> >
> > Let me notify this thread when everything is filled out.
> > And any comment, help would be appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > moon
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM Roman Shaposhnik <
> > roman@shaposhnik.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were to fill
> > > out the
> > > Apache Maturity Model
> > > checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Roman.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <mi...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for graduation.
> > > >
> > > > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more diverse.
> > > > Number of
> > > > contributors has increased more than 7 times and three new
> > > > committers
> > > are
> > > > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling project. And
> > > > release, vote
> > > > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
> > > > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big synergy
> > > > with other
> > > > apache projects by providing different back-end interpreters(ex
> > > > spark,
> > > > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
> > > >
> > > > so +1 for graduation.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <
> > > madhukaudantha@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <
> > > > > doanduyhai@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo about the
> > > > > > Apache
> > > project
> > > > > > maturity model. (
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-mo
> > > del.html
> > > )
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing
> > > > > > > secure
> > > software
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's related to security and I know that there is a commit
> > > > > > on Shiro
> > > > > > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him by the
> > > > > > way). There is
> > > > > also
> > > > > > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about Kerberos (
> > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/640).
> > > > > > Don't know
> > > if
> > > > > > there
> > > > > > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on the chapter
> > > > > > of
> > > security,
> > > > > all
> > > > > > the works are being done and are on good way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Under the Community topic, I think all the points are
> > > > > > covered (for
> > > > > example,
> > > > > > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly documented in
> > > > > CONTRIBUTING.md)
> > > > > > as well as consensus (point CO60).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every discussion
> > > > > > related to
> > > release
> > > > > > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the mailing
> > > > > > list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now my personal opinion as a community member is that it's
> > > > > > high
> > > time for
> > > > > > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel
> > > > > > comfortable
> > > advising
> > > > > > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production because of
> > > > > > lack of
> > > > > security
> > > > > > but since security support (at least for authentication) is
> > > > > > in the
> > > trunk
> > > > > > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see any
> > > > > > blocker anymore.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So a big +1 for me
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <
> > > > > > ahyoungryu93@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think it's time to
> > > > > > > graduate
> > > and
> > > > > > step
> > > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > So, ++1 !
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<
> > > > > > > anthonycorbacho@apache.org>님이
> > > 작성한
> > > > > 메시지:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a vote.
> > > > > > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any specific features
> > > > > > > > (For
> > > specific
> > > > > > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a requirement
> > > > > > > > for the
> > > first
> > > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > as TLP),
> > > > > > > > so for me its a big +1.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> > > > > > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the incubator. I
> > > > > > > > > think we
> > > all
> > > > > well
> > > > > > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new features
> > > > > > > > > that also
> > > will be
> > > > > > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to greatly
> > > > > > > > > improve the
> > > > > > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary for
> > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org
> > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Jakob,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is exactly as
> > > > > > > > > > you
> > > describe
> > > > > > (there
> > > > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on graduation
> > > > > > > > > > and get
> > > more
> > > > > > > > oppinions
> > > > > > > > > > from other participants - that would awesome!
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to help with
> > > > > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > the next release here, but please feel free to fork
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > thread
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > further
> > > > > > > > > > discussion on technical details.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <
> > > > > > > > > > jghoman@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hey all-
> > > > > > > > > > > A data point and observation from an ASF
> > > > > > > > > > > Member and
> > > > > Incubator
> > > > > > > PMC
> > > > > > > > > > > Member...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > is a
> > > function
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > community development and adherence to the Apache
> > > > > > > > > > > Way,
> > > rather
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones. Since
> > > > > > > > > > > entering
> > > Incubator,
> > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases, has
> > > > > > > > > > > finished
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > incubation checklist
> > > > > > > > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.ht
> > > > > > > > > > > ml), has
> > > > > added
> > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a good
> > > > > > > > > > > position to
> > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > > from my perspective.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be handled
> > > > > > > > > > > in a speedy
> > > > > > matter,
> > > > > > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement to
> > > > > > > > > > > that -
> > > just
> > > > > some
> > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -Jakob
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B. Elberg <
> > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it. The reason
> > > > > > > > > > > > we didn't
> > > > > merge
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented the tests
> > > > > > > > > > > *in* 208
> > > from
> > > > > > > > > > functioning.
> > > > > > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now CI
> > > > > > > > > > > is broken
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > project
> > > > > > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I would do
> > > > > > > > > > > that
> > > myself.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been proven in
> > > > > > > > > > > > the field:
> > > > > > People
> > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the version of 208
> > > > > > > > > > > in my repo
> > > > > > because
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since August, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > it's very
> > > hard to
> > > > > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a Meetup in
> > > > > > > > > > > September
> > > > > where a
> > > > > > > > > variant
> > > > > > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a demonstration
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is dealing with
> > > significant
> > > > > PRs
> > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > outside the core development team. Addressing
> > > > > > > > > > > these issues
> > > > > for
> > > > > > R,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of project
> > > > > > > > > > > maturity.
> > > These
> > > > > > > were
> > > > > > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were supposed to be
> > > > > > > > > > > included
> > > > > before
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > > > non-beta release.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee <
> > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > and very
> > > > > > valuable
> > > > > > > > > > opinion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I completely agree how much R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication (which
> > > i
> > > > > > > believe
> > > > > > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And
> > > > > > > > > > > > > believe me, I
> > > > > want
> > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > But at the same time we have diversity of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > user bases.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Some people might think supporting general
> > > > > > > > > > > > > JDBC is more
> > > > > > > practical
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > useful feature, the other can think multi
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -tenancy is the
> > > > > most
> > > > > > > > > > important,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > etc, etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > So, i believe Apache Top Level project is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > defined by how
> > > > > > > community
> > > > > > > > > > > works,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > not defined by what feature does the software
> > > > > > > > > > > > > includes.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding bringing R into main branch, I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > tried to make
> > > pr208
> > > > > > > > passes
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > CI.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I could able to make it pass 1 test profile,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but
> > > couldn't
> > > > > make
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > pass
> > > > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > other test profiles.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm suggesting split the contribution into
> > > > > > > > > > > > > smaller
> > > peaces
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > merge
> > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution
> > > > > > > > > > > > > of Shiro
> > > > > > security
> > > > > > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > > > > > > > (pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208
> > > > > > > > > > > > > into smaller
> > > PRs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > This does make sense Moon. Completely agree
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > with you
> > > that
> > > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > important for becoming a top level project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, in my opinion, from the practical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > usage
> > > > > standpoint,
> > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > two features Zeppelin does not look to me a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > full
> > > fledged
> > > > > top
> > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Curious whether there are any technical
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > glitches which
> > > are
> > > > > > > > > impediment
> > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bringing these features to the main branch.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wondering
> > > if
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to get those problems fixed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee <
> > > > > > moon@apache.org
> > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think any feature (R or whatever)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should be
> > > > > > > > prerequisites
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation. Especially when a project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never setup
> > > those
> > > > > > > features
> > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation goal.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Including specific features could be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > valid concern for
> > > > > > release
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > discussion,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but i don't think it's related to a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Graduation is much more like if project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is doing it in
> > > > > > apache
> > > > > > > > way,
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding. Last time the reason why i
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't go
> > > for a
> > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is, because of there were valid concern
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > about
> > > contribution
> > > > > > > > > impasse.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since that, community improved /
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clarified
> > > contribution
> > > > > > guide
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > trying to help
> > > > > many
> > > > > > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that they have been as a open PR for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > long time.
> > > > > > (Especially
> > > > > > > > > > Jongyoul
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Felix helped a lot)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, let's move discussions like 'which
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature should
> > > be
> > > > > > > > included'
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > release / roadmap discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In the graduation discussion, i'd like to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have an
> > > > > > discussions,
> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > evaluating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-mo
> > > del.html
> > > ,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense for you guys? Amos,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran, Sourav?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Elberg <
> > > > > > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No Eran is right. The last vote for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > passed-it
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > withdrawn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and there was
> > > some
> > > > > > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mentors concerning graduation, R, and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > some other
> > > issues.
> > > > > > And
> > > > > > > > > that's
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > last public discussion about graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > until today.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex if you disagree with that do you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have links to
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > emails
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you're referring to.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Eran,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please check my previous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reply about
> > > release
> > > > > > > > schedulle
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > let
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know if that makes sense to you?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > By the way, please our mentors
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correct me if I'm
> > > wrong
> > > > > > here,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reading [1] I was under impression
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that project
> > > does not
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pre-request
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > regarding its code or features in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > order to undergo
> > > this
> > > > > > > formal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > procedure
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Gra
> > > duating+from+the+Incubator
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Witkon <
> > > > > > > eranwitkon@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I recall correctly R support was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > one of the
> > > > > > > pre-requisite
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > from day one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that Authentication should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be added as
> > > well.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 for graduation after we add both
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eran
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mazumder <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Surely I vote for the same.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zeppelin is already
> > > very
> > > > > > > popular
> > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > quarts of the Spark/Big Data user
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > group. High
> > > time to
> > > > > > > > graduate
> > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > level.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I shall suggest to have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the support for
> > > R and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Authentication
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > added
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to Zeppelin before that. These
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are the supports
> > > most
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > eagerly waiting for.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sourav
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon soo Lee <
> > > > > > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Alexander for resuming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the discussion.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let's start a vote.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moon
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PM Alexander
> > > Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Zeppelin developers,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now, after number of releases
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and committers
> > > grew
> > > > > more
> > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the re-new the discussion of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > graduating
> > > Zeppelin to
> > > > > > top
> > > > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there are on objections -
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > next step would be
> > > to
> > > > > > > start a
> > > > > > > > > > VOTE
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thread
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > here.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you guys think?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > > > > > > > > *Software Engeenier
> > > > > > > > > *
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript
> > > > > > > > > :;> <
> > > > > > > > marta.tapia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > > * |
> > > > > victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> > > > > > > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > > > <marta.tapia@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Madhuka Udantha
> > > > > http://madhukaudantha.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > >
> >
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
I have filled out all checklists and commented as much as i can.
Please review
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Zeppelin+Project+Maturity+Model
.
Did i filled out correctly? Any feedback would be really appreciated.
Thanks,
moon
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 8:03 AM moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> I have created
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Zeppelin+Project+Maturity+Model and
> trying to fill out Apache Maturity Model checklist.
>
> Let me notify this thread when everything is filled out.
> And any comment, help would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> moon
>
> On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
>
>> In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were to fill out the
>> Apache Maturity Model
>> checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for graduation.
>> >
>> > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more diverse. Number of
>> > contributors has increased more than 7 times and three new committers
>> are
>> > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling project. And release, vote
>> > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
>> > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big synergy with other
>> > apache projects by providing different back-end interpreters(ex spark,
>> > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
>> >
>> > so +1 for graduation.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <
>> madhukaudantha@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> +1 for graduation
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <do...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo about the Apache
>> project
>> >> > maturity model. (
>> >> >
>> >>
>> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
>> )
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing secure
>> software
>> >> >
>> >> > It's related to security and I know that there is a commit on Shiro
>> >> > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him by the way). There is
>> >> also
>> >> > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about Kerberos (
>> >> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/640). Don't know
>> if
>> >> > there
>> >> > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on the chapter of
>> security,
>> >> all
>> >> > the works are being done and are on good way.
>> >> >
>> >> > Under the Community topic, I think all the points are covered (for
>> >> example,
>> >> > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly documented in
>> >> CONTRIBUTING.md)
>> >> > as well as consensus (point CO60).
>> >> >
>> >> > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every discussion related to
>> release
>> >> > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the mailing list.
>> >> >
>> >> > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now my personal opinion as a community member is that it's high
>> time for
>> >> > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel comfortable
>> advising
>> >> > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production because of lack of
>> >> security
>> >> > but since security support (at least for authentication) is in the
>> trunk
>> >> > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see any blocker anymore.
>> >> >
>> >> > So a big +1 for me
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <ah...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think it's time to graduate
>> and
>> >> > step
>> >> > > forward.
>> >> > > So, ++1 !
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<an...@apache.org>님이
>> 작성한
>> >> 메시지:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Hi,
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a vote.
>> >> > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any specific features (For
>> specific
>> >> > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a requirement for the
>> first
>> >> > > release
>> >> > > > as TLP),
>> >> > > > so for me its a big +1.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
>> >> > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > Hi guys,
>> >> > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the incubator. I think we
>> all
>> >> well
>> >> > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new features that also
>> will be
>> >> > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to greatly improve the
>> >> > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary for graduation.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > +1 for graduation
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov <bzz@apache.org
>> >> > > > <javascript:;>>:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Jakob,
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is exactly as you
>> describe
>> >> > (there
>> >> > > > > were
>> >> > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on graduation and get
>> more
>> >> > > > oppinions
>> >> > > > > > from other participants - that would awesome!
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to help with particular
>> >> > features
>> >> > > > for
>> >> > > > > > the next release here, but please feel free to fork the
>> thread
>> >> for
>> >> > > > > further
>> >> > > > > > discussion on technical details.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > --
>> >> > > > > > Alex
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <jghoman@gmail.com
>> >> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Hey all-
>> >> > > > > > > A data point and observation from an ASF Member and
>> >> Incubator
>> >> > > PMC
>> >> > > > > > > Member...
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for graduation is a
>> function
>> >> of
>> >> > > > > > > community development and adherence to the Apache Way,
>> rather
>> >> any
>> >> > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones. Since entering
>> Incubator,
>> >> > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases, has finished
>> the
>> >> > > > > > > incubation checklist
>> >> > > > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html), has
>> >> added
>> >> > > new
>> >> > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a good position to
>> >> > > graduate
>> >> > > > > > > from my perspective.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be handled in a speedy
>> >> > matter,
>> >> > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement to that -
>> just
>> >> some
>> >> > > > work
>> >> > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > -Jakob
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B. Elberg <
>> >> > amos.elberg@gmail.com
>> >> > > > <javascript:;>>
>> >> > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it. The reason we didn't
>> >> merge
>> >> > > in
>> >> > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented the tests *in* 208
>> from
>> >> > > > > > functioning.
>> >> > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now CI is broken
>> for
>> >> the
>> >> > > > > project
>> >> > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I would do that
>> myself.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been proven in the field:
>> >> > People
>> >> > > > who
>> >> > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the version of 208 in my repo
>> >> > because
>> >> > > it
>> >> > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since August, and it's very
>> hard to
>> >> > > > > > understand
>> >> > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a Meetup in September
>> >> where a
>> >> > > > > variant
>> >> > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a demonstration of
>> Zeppelin's
>> >> > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is dealing with
>> significant
>> >> PRs
>> >> > > > from
>> >> > > > > > > outside the core development team. Addressing these issues
>> >> for
>> >> > R,
>> >> > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of project maturity.
>> These
>> >> > > were
>> >> > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were supposed to be included
>> >> before
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > > > > first
>> >> > > > > > > non-beta release.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >> On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee <
>> moon@apache.org
>> >> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > >> Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion and very
>> >> > valuable
>> >> > > > > > opinion.
>> >> > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > >> I completely agree how much R and Authentication (which
>> i
>> >> > > believe
>> >> > > > > > > already
>> >> > > > > > > >> in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And believe me, I
>> >> want
>> >> > > > these
>> >> > > > > > > >> features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
>> >> > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > >> But at the same time we have diversity of user bases.
>> >> > > > > > > >> Some people might think supporting general JDBC is more
>> >> > > practical
>> >> > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > more
>> >> > > > > > > >> useful feature, the other can think multi-tenancy is the
>> >> most
>> >> > > > > > important,
>> >> > > > > > > >> etc, etc.
>> >> > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > >> So, i believe Apache Top Level project is defined by how
>> >> > > community
>> >> > > > > > > works,
>> >> > > > > > > >> not defined by what feature does the software includes.
>> >> > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > >> Regarding bringing R into main branch, I tried to make
>> pr208
>> >> > > > passes
>> >> > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > CI.
>> >> > > > > > > >> I could able to make it pass 1 test profile, but
>> couldn't
>> >> make
>> >> > > it
>> >> > > > > pass
>> >> > > > > > > all
>> >> > > > > > > >> other test profiles.
>> >> > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > >> I'm suggesting split the contribution into smaller
>> peaces
>> >> and
>> >> > > > merge
>> >> > > > > > one
>> >> > > > > > > by
>> >> > > > > > > >> one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution of Shiro
>> >> > security
>> >> > > > > > > integration
>> >> > > > > > > >> (pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208 into smaller
>> PRs.
>> >> > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > >> Best,
>> >> > > > > > > >> moon
>> >> > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav Mazumder <
>> >> > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
>> >> > > > > > > >> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > >>
>> >> > > > > > > >>> This does make sense Moon. Completely agree with you
>> that
>> >> > > > features
>> >> > > > > > are
>> >> > > > > > > not
>> >> > > > > > > >>> important for becoming a top level project
>> >> > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>> However, in my opinion, from the practical usage
>> >> standpoint,
>> >> > > > > without
>> >> > > > > > > these
>> >> > > > > > > >>> two features Zeppelin does not look to me a full
>> fledged
>> >> top
>> >> > > > level
>> >> > > > > > > project.
>> >> > > > > > > >>> Curious whether there are any technical glitches which
>> are
>> >> > > > > impediment
>> >> > > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > >>> bringing these features to the main branch. Wondering
>> if
>> >> any
>> >> > > help
>> >> > > > > can
>> >> > > > > > > help
>> >> > > > > > > >>> to get those problems fixed.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>> Regards,
>> >> > > > > > > >>> Sourav
>> >> > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo Lee <
>> >> > moon@apache.org
>> >> > > > <javascript:;>>
>> >> > > > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> Hi guys,
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be
>> >> > > > prerequisites
>> >> > > > > of
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> graduation. Especially when a project never setup
>> those
>> >> > > features
>> >> > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > a
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> graduation goal.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> Including specific features could be valid concern for
>> >> > release
>> >> > > > > > > >>> discussion,
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in
>> >> > apache
>> >> > > > way,
>> >> > > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > my
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go
>> for a
>> >> > > > > graduation
>> >> > > > > > > vote
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> is, because of there were valid concern about
>> contribution
>> >> > > > > impasse.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> Since that, community improved / clarified
>> contribution
>> >> > guide
>> >> > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > review
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help
>> >> many
>> >> > > > > > > contributions
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> that they have been as a open PR for a long time.
>> >> > (Especially
>> >> > > > > > Jongyoul
>> >> > > > > > > >>> and
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> Felix helped a lot)
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should
>> be
>> >> > > > included'
>> >> > > > > > to
>> >> > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> release / roadmap discussion.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an
>> >> > discussions,
>> >> > > > > such
>> >> > > > > > as
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> evaluating
>> >> > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
>> ,
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> etc.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> moon
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <
>> >> > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation
>> passed-it
>> >> > was
>> >> > > > not
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> withdrawn
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was
>> some
>> >> > > > > feedback
>> >> > > > > > > from
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> the
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other
>> issues.
>> >> > And
>> >> > > > > that's
>> >> > > > > > > the
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> last public discussion about graduation until today.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to
>> the
>> >> > > > > discussion
>> >> > > > > > > >>> emails
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> that you're referring to.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <
>> >> > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Eran,
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Could you please check my previous reply about
>> release
>> >> > > > schedulle
>> >> > > > > > and
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> let
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> us
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> know if that makes sense to you?
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm
>> wrong
>> >> > here,
>> >> > > > but
>> >> > > > > > > >>> after
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project
>> does not
>> >> > > have
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> pre-request
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo
>> this
>> >> > > formal
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> procedure
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> of
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> graduation.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
>> >> > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <
>> >> > > eranwitkon@gmail.com
>> >> > > > <javascript:;>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the
>> >> > > pre-requisite
>> >> > > > > for
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> graduation
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> from day one.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as
>> well.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Eran
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already
>> very
>> >> > > popular
>> >> > > > > in
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> different
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High
>> time to
>> >> > > > graduate
>> >> > > > > > it
>> >> > > > > > > >>> to
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>> top
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> level.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for
>> R and
>> >> > > > > > > >>> Authentication
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> added
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports
>> most
>> >> of
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > > > > people
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> are
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> eagerly waiting for.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Regards,
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Sourav
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <
>> >> > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Let's start a vote.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Best,
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> moon
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander
>> Bezzubov <
>> >> > > > > > > >>> bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers
>> grew
>> >> more
>> >> > > I'd
>> >> > > > > > like
>> >> > > > > > > >>> to
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> suggest
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating
>> Zeppelin to
>> >> > top
>> >> > > > > level
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> project.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be
>> to
>> >> > > start a
>> >> > > > > > VOTE
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> thread
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> here.
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
>> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex
>> >> > > > > > > >>>
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > --
>> >> > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
>> >> > > > > *Software Engeenier
>> >> > > > > *
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <
>> >> > > > marta.tapia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
>> >> > > > > * |
>> >> victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
>> >> > > > <javascript:;>
>> >> > > > > <marta.tapia@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Madhuka Udantha
>> >> http://madhukaudantha.blogspot.com
>> >>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
I have created
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/ZEPPELIN/Apache+Zeppelin+Project+Maturity+Model
and
trying to fill out Apache Maturity Model checklist.
Let me notify this thread when everything is filled out.
And any comment, help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
moon
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:55 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
wrote:
> In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were to fill out the
> Apache Maturity Model
> checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> > I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for graduation.
> >
> > Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more diverse. Number of
> > contributors has increased more than 7 times and three new committers are
> > admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling project. And release, vote
> > related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
> > Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big synergy with other
> > apache projects by providing different back-end interpreters(ex spark,
> > hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
> >
> > so +1 for graduation.
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <
> madhukaudantha@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> +1 for graduation
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <do...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo about the Apache project
> >> > maturity model. (
> >> >
> >>
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing secure
> software
> >> >
> >> > It's related to security and I know that there is a commit on Shiro
> >> > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him by the way). There is
> >> also
> >> > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about Kerberos (
> >> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/640). Don't know if
> >> > there
> >> > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on the chapter of
> security,
> >> all
> >> > the works are being done and are on good way.
> >> >
> >> > Under the Community topic, I think all the points are covered (for
> >> example,
> >> > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly documented in
> >> CONTRIBUTING.md)
> >> > as well as consensus (point CO60).
> >> >
> >> > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every discussion related to
> release
> >> > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the mailing list.
> >> >
> >> > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
> >> >
> >> > Now my personal opinion as a community member is that it's high time
> for
> >> > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel comfortable advising
> >> > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production because of lack of
> >> security
> >> > but since security support (at least for authentication) is in the
> trunk
> >> > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see any blocker anymore.
> >> >
> >> > So a big +1 for me
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <ah...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think it's time to graduate
> and
> >> > step
> >> > > forward.
> >> > > So, ++1 !
> >> > >
> >> > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<an...@apache.org>님이 작성한
> >> 메시지:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Hi,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a vote.
> >> > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any specific features (For
> specific
> >> > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a requirement for the
> first
> >> > > release
> >> > > > as TLP),
> >> > > > so for me its a big +1.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> >> > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Hi guys,
> >> > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the incubator. I think we all
> >> well
> >> > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new features that also
> will be
> >> > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to greatly improve the
> >> > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary for graduation.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > +1 for graduation
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov <bzz@apache.org
> >> > > > <javascript:;>>:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > Jakob,
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is exactly as you describe
> >> > (there
> >> > > > > were
> >> > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on graduation and get
> more
> >> > > > oppinions
> >> > > > > > from other participants - that would awesome!
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to help with particular
> >> > features
> >> > > > for
> >> > > > > > the next release here, but please feel free to fork the thread
> >> for
> >> > > > > further
> >> > > > > > discussion on technical details.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > --
> >> > > > > > Alex
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <jghoman@gmail.com
> >> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Hey all-
> >> > > > > > > A data point and observation from an ASF Member and
> >> Incubator
> >> > > PMC
> >> > > > > > > Member...
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for graduation is a
> function
> >> of
> >> > > > > > > community development and adherence to the Apache Way,
> rather
> >> any
> >> > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones. Since entering
> Incubator,
> >> > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases, has finished
> the
> >> > > > > > > incubation checklist
> >> > > > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html), has
> >> added
> >> > > new
> >> > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a good position to
> >> > > graduate
> >> > > > > > > from my perspective.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be handled in a speedy
> >> > matter,
> >> > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement to that - just
> >> some
> >> > > > work
> >> > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > -Jakob
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B. Elberg <
> >> > amos.elberg@gmail.com
> >> > > > <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it. The reason we didn't
> >> merge
> >> > > in
> >> > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented the tests *in* 208
> from
> >> > > > > > functioning.
> >> > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now CI is broken
> for
> >> the
> >> > > > > project
> >> > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I would do that myself.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been proven in the field:
> >> > People
> >> > > > who
> >> > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the version of 208 in my repo
> >> > because
> >> > > it
> >> > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since August, and it's very
> hard to
> >> > > > > > understand
> >> > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a Meetup in September
> >> where a
> >> > > > > variant
> >> > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a demonstration of
> Zeppelin's
> >> > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is dealing with
> significant
> >> PRs
> >> > > > from
> >> > > > > > > outside the core development team. Addressing these issues
> >> for
> >> > R,
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of project maturity.
> These
> >> > > were
> >> > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were supposed to be included
> >> before
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > first
> >> > > > > > > non-beta release.
> >> > > > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > >> On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee <
> moon@apache.org
> >> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion and very
> >> > valuable
> >> > > > > > opinion.
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> I completely agree how much R and Authentication (which i
> >> > > believe
> >> > > > > > > already
> >> > > > > > > >> in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And believe me, I
> >> want
> >> > > > these
> >> > > > > > > >> features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> But at the same time we have diversity of user bases.
> >> > > > > > > >> Some people might think supporting general JDBC is more
> >> > > practical
> >> > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > more
> >> > > > > > > >> useful feature, the other can think multi-tenancy is the
> >> most
> >> > > > > > important,
> >> > > > > > > >> etc, etc.
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> So, i believe Apache Top Level project is defined by how
> >> > > community
> >> > > > > > > works,
> >> > > > > > > >> not defined by what feature does the software includes.
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> Regarding bringing R into main branch, I tried to make
> pr208
> >> > > > passes
> >> > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > CI.
> >> > > > > > > >> I could able to make it pass 1 test profile, but couldn't
> >> make
> >> > > it
> >> > > > > pass
> >> > > > > > > all
> >> > > > > > > >> other test profiles.
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> I'm suggesting split the contribution into smaller peaces
> >> and
> >> > > > merge
> >> > > > > > one
> >> > > > > > > by
> >> > > > > > > >> one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution of Shiro
> >> > security
> >> > > > > > > integration
> >> > > > > > > >> (pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208 into smaller
> PRs.
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> Best,
> >> > > > > > > >> moon
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav Mazumder <
> >> > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>
> >> > > > > > > >>> This does make sense Moon. Completely agree with you
> that
> >> > > > features
> >> > > > > > are
> >> > > > > > > not
> >> > > > > > > >>> important for becoming a top level project
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > >>> However, in my opinion, from the practical usage
> >> standpoint,
> >> > > > > without
> >> > > > > > > these
> >> > > > > > > >>> two features Zeppelin does not look to me a full fledged
> >> top
> >> > > > level
> >> > > > > > > project.
> >> > > > > > > >>> Curious whether there are any technical glitches which
> are
> >> > > > > impediment
> >> > > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > >>> bringing these features to the main branch. Wondering if
> >> any
> >> > > help
> >> > > > > can
> >> > > > > > > help
> >> > > > > > > >>> to get those problems fixed.
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > >>> Regards,
> >> > > > > > > >>> Sourav
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo Lee <
> >> > moon@apache.org
> >> > > > <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Hi guys,
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be
> >> > > > prerequisites
> >> > > > > of
> >> > > > > > > >>>> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those
> >> > > features
> >> > > > > as
> >> > > > > > a
> >> > > > > > > >>>> graduation goal.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Including specific features could be valid concern for
> >> > release
> >> > > > > > > >>> discussion,
> >> > > > > > > >>>> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in
> >> > apache
> >> > > > way,
> >> > > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > my
> >> > > > > > > >>>> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go
> for a
> >> > > > > graduation
> >> > > > > > > vote
> >> > > > > > > >>>> is, because of there were valid concern about
> contribution
> >> > > > > impasse.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution
> >> > guide
> >> > > > and
> >> > > > > > > review
> >> > > > > > > >>>> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help
> >> many
> >> > > > > > > contributions
> >> > > > > > > >>>> that they have been as a open PR for a long time.
> >> > (Especially
> >> > > > > > Jongyoul
> >> > > > > > > >>> and
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Felix helped a lot)
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should
> be
> >> > > > included'
> >> > > > > > to
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > >>>> release / roadmap discussion.
> >> > > > > > > >>>> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an
> >> > discussions,
> >> > > > > such
> >> > > > > > as
> >> > > > > > > >>>> evaluating
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
> >> > > > > > > >>>> etc.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> >> > > > > > > >>>> moon
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <
> >> > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation
> passed-it
> >> > was
> >> > > > not
> >> > > > > > > >>>> withdrawn
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was
> some
> >> > > > > feedback
> >> > > > > > > from
> >> > > > > > > >>>> the
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other
> issues.
> >> > And
> >> > > > > that's
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> last public discussion about graduation until today.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to
> the
> >> > > > > discussion
> >> > > > > > > >>> emails
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> that you're referring to.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <
> >> > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Eran,
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> Could you please check my previous reply about
> release
> >> > > > schedulle
> >> > > > > > and
> >> > > > > > > >>>> let
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> us
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> know if that makes sense to you?
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm
> wrong
> >> > here,
> >> > > > but
> >> > > > > > > >>> after
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does
> not
> >> > > have
> >> > > > > > > >>>> pre-request
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo
> this
> >> > > formal
> >> > > > > > > >>>> procedure
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> of
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> graduation.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <
> >> > > eranwitkon@gmail.com
> >> > > > <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the
> >> > > pre-requisite
> >> > > > > for
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> graduation
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> from day one.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Eran
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already
> very
> >> > > popular
> >> > > > > in
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> different
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time
> to
> >> > > > graduate
> >> > > > > > it
> >> > > > > > > >>> to
> >> > > > > > > >>>>> top
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> level.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R
> and
> >> > > > > > > >>> Authentication
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> added
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports
> most
> >> of
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > people
> >> > > > > > > >>>> are
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> eagerly waiting for.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Regards,
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Sourav
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <
> >> > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Let's start a vote.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Best,
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> moon
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander
> Bezzubov <
> >> > > > > > > >>> bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew
> >> more
> >> > > I'd
> >> > > > > > like
> >> > > > > > > >>> to
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> suggest
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin
> to
> >> > top
> >> > > > > level
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> project.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be
> to
> >> > > start a
> >> > > > > > VOTE
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>> thread
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> here.
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> >> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex
> >> > > > > > > >>>
> >> > > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > --
> >> > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> >> > > > > *Software Engeenier
> >> > > > > *
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <
> >> > > > marta.tapia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> >> > > > > * |
> >> victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> >> > > > <javascript:;>
> >> > > > > <marta.tapia@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> >> > > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >> Madhuka Udantha
> >> http://madhukaudantha.blogspot.com
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
In general I agree. That said, if one of you guys were to fill out the
Apache Maturity Model
checklist that would help frame the IPMC discussion.
Thanks,
Roman.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Mina Lee <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for graduation.
>
> Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more diverse. Number of
> contributors has increased more than 7 times and three new committers are
> admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling project. And release, vote
> related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
> Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big synergy with other
> apache projects by providing different back-end interpreters(ex spark,
> hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
>
> so +1 for graduation.
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <ma...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 for graduation
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <do...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo about the Apache project
>> > maturity model. (
>> >
>> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html)
>> >
>> >
>> > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing secure software
>> >
>> > It's related to security and I know that there is a commit on Shiro
>> > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him by the way). There is
>> also
>> > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about Kerberos (
>> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/640). Don't know if
>> > there
>> > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on the chapter of security,
>> all
>> > the works are being done and are on good way.
>> >
>> > Under the Community topic, I think all the points are covered (for
>> example,
>> > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly documented in
>> CONTRIBUTING.md)
>> > as well as consensus (point CO60).
>> >
>> > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every discussion related to release
>> > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the mailing list.
>> >
>> > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
>> >
>> > Now my personal opinion as a community member is that it's high time for
>> > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel comfortable advising
>> > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production because of lack of
>> security
>> > but since security support (at least for authentication) is in the trunk
>> > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see any blocker anymore.
>> >
>> > So a big +1 for me
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <ah...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think it's time to graduate and
>> > step
>> > > forward.
>> > > So, ++1 !
>> > >
>> > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<an...@apache.org>님이 작성한
>> 메시지:
>> > >
>> > > > Hi,
>> > > >
>> > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a vote.
>> > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any specific features (For specific
>> > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a requirement for the first
>> > > release
>> > > > as TLP),
>> > > > so for me its a big +1.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
>> > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hi guys,
>> > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the incubator. I think we all
>> well
>> > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new features that also will be
>> > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to greatly improve the
>> > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary for graduation.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > +1 for graduation
>> > > > >
>> > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov <bzz@apache.org
>> > > > <javascript:;>>:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Jakob,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is exactly as you describe
>> > (there
>> > > > > were
>> > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on graduation and get more
>> > > > oppinions
>> > > > > > from other participants - that would awesome!
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to help with particular
>> > features
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > the next release here, but please feel free to fork the thread
>> for
>> > > > > further
>> > > > > > discussion on technical details.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --
>> > > > > > Alex
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <jghoman@gmail.com
>> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Hey all-
>> > > > > > > A data point and observation from an ASF Member and
>> Incubator
>> > > PMC
>> > > > > > > Member...
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for graduation is a function
>> of
>> > > > > > > community development and adherence to the Apache Way, rather
>> any
>> > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones. Since entering Incubator,
>> > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases, has finished the
>> > > > > > > incubation checklist
>> > > > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html), has
>> added
>> > > new
>> > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a good position to
>> > > graduate
>> > > > > > > from my perspective.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be handled in a speedy
>> > matter,
>> > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement to that - just
>> some
>> > > > work
>> > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > -Jakob
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B. Elberg <
>> > amos.elberg@gmail.com
>> > > > <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it. The reason we didn't
>> merge
>> > > in
>> > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented the tests *in* 208 from
>> > > > > > functioning.
>> > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now CI is broken for
>> the
>> > > > > project
>> > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I would do that myself.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been proven in the field:
>> > People
>> > > > who
>> > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the version of 208 in my repo
>> > because
>> > > it
>> > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since August, and it's very hard to
>> > > > > > understand
>> > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a Meetup in September
>> where a
>> > > > > variant
>> > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a demonstration of Zeppelin's
>> > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is dealing with significant
>> PRs
>> > > > from
>> > > > > > > outside the core development team. Addressing these issues
>> for
>> > R,
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of project maturity. These
>> > > were
>> > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were supposed to be included
>> before
>> > > the
>> > > > > > first
>> > > > > > > non-beta release.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >> On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee <moon@apache.org
>> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion and very
>> > valuable
>> > > > > > opinion.
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> I completely agree how much R and Authentication (which i
>> > > believe
>> > > > > > > already
>> > > > > > > >> in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And believe me, I
>> want
>> > > > these
>> > > > > > > >> features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> But at the same time we have diversity of user bases.
>> > > > > > > >> Some people might think supporting general JDBC is more
>> > > practical
>> > > > > and
>> > > > > > > more
>> > > > > > > >> useful feature, the other can think multi-tenancy is the
>> most
>> > > > > > important,
>> > > > > > > >> etc, etc.
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> So, i believe Apache Top Level project is defined by how
>> > > community
>> > > > > > > works,
>> > > > > > > >> not defined by what feature does the software includes.
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> Regarding bringing R into main branch, I tried to make pr208
>> > > > passes
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > CI.
>> > > > > > > >> I could able to make it pass 1 test profile, but couldn't
>> make
>> > > it
>> > > > > pass
>> > > > > > > all
>> > > > > > > >> other test profiles.
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> I'm suggesting split the contribution into smaller peaces
>> and
>> > > > merge
>> > > > > > one
>> > > > > > > by
>> > > > > > > >> one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution of Shiro
>> > security
>> > > > > > > integration
>> > > > > > > >> (pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208 into smaller PRs.
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> Best,
>> > > > > > > >> moon
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav Mazumder <
>> > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > >> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > >>> This does make sense Moon. Completely agree with you that
>> > > > features
>> > > > > > are
>> > > > > > > not
>> > > > > > > >>> important for becoming a top level project
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > >>> However, in my opinion, from the practical usage
>> standpoint,
>> > > > > without
>> > > > > > > these
>> > > > > > > >>> two features Zeppelin does not look to me a full fledged
>> top
>> > > > level
>> > > > > > > project.
>> > > > > > > >>> Curious whether there are any technical glitches which are
>> > > > > impediment
>> > > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > >>> bringing these features to the main branch. Wondering if
>> any
>> > > help
>> > > > > can
>> > > > > > > help
>> > > > > > > >>> to get those problems fixed.
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > >>> Regards,
>> > > > > > > >>> Sourav
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo Lee <
>> > moon@apache.org
>> > > > <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> Hi guys,
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be
>> > > > prerequisites
>> > > > > of
>> > > > > > > >>>> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those
>> > > features
>> > > > > as
>> > > > > > a
>> > > > > > > >>>> graduation goal.
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> Including specific features could be valid concern for
>> > release
>> > > > > > > >>> discussion,
>> > > > > > > >>>> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in
>> > apache
>> > > > way,
>> > > > > > in
>> > > > > > > my
>> > > > > > > >>>> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a
>> > > > > graduation
>> > > > > > > vote
>> > > > > > > >>>> is, because of there were valid concern about contribution
>> > > > > impasse.
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution
>> > guide
>> > > > and
>> > > > > > > review
>> > > > > > > >>>> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help
>> many
>> > > > > > > contributions
>> > > > > > > >>>> that they have been as a open PR for a long time.
>> > (Especially
>> > > > > > Jongyoul
>> > > > > > > >>> and
>> > > > > > > >>>> Felix helped a lot)
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be
>> > > > included'
>> > > > > > to
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > >>>> release / roadmap discussion.
>> > > > > > > >>>> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an
>> > discussions,
>> > > > > such
>> > > > > > as
>> > > > > > > >>>> evaluating
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
>> > > > > > > >>>> etc.
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
>> > > > > > > >>>> moon
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <
>> > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it
>> > was
>> > > > not
>> > > > > > > >>>> withdrawn
>> > > > > > > >>>>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some
>> > > > > feedback
>> > > > > > > from
>> > > > > > > >>>> the
>> > > > > > > >>>>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues.
>> > And
>> > > > > that's
>> > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > >>>>> last public discussion about graduation until today.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the
>> > > > > discussion
>> > > > > > > >>> emails
>> > > > > > > >>>>> that you're referring to.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <
>> > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Eran,
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> Could you please check my previous reply about release
>> > > > schedulle
>> > > > > > and
>> > > > > > > >>>> let
>> > > > > > > >>>>> us
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> know if that makes sense to you?
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong
>> > here,
>> > > > but
>> > > > > > > >>> after
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not
>> > > have
>> > > > > > > >>>> pre-request
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this
>> > > formal
>> > > > > > > >>>> procedure
>> > > > > > > >>>>> of
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> graduation.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <
>> > > eranwitkon@gmail.com
>> > > > <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the
>> > > pre-requisite
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > > >>>>> graduation
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> from day one.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Eran
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
>> > > > > > > >>>>> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very
>> > > popular
>> > > > > in
>> > > > > > > >>>>> different
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to
>> > > > graduate
>> > > > > > it
>> > > > > > > >>> to
>> > > > > > > >>>>> top
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> level.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and
>> > > > > > > >>> Authentication
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> added
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most
>> of
>> > > the
>> > > > > > people
>> > > > > > > >>>> are
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> eagerly waiting for.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Regards,
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Sourav
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <
>> > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>>
>> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Let's start a vote.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Best,
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> moon
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <
>> > > > > > > >>> bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew
>> more
>> > > I'd
>> > > > > > like
>> > > > > > > >>> to
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> suggest
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to
>> > top
>> > > > > level
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> project.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to
>> > > start a
>> > > > > > VOTE
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> thread
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> here.
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex
>> > > > > > > >>>
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
>> > > > > *Software Engeenier
>> > > > > *
>> > > > >
>> > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <
>> > > > marta.tapia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
>> > > > > * |
>> victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
>> > > > <javascript:;>
>> > > > > <marta.tapia@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Madhuka Udantha
>> http://madhukaudantha.blogspot.com
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Mina Lee <mi...@apache.org>.
I think Zeppelin meets the requirements for graduation.
Zeppelin community is growing fast and getting more diverse. Number of
contributors has increased more than 7 times and three new committers are
admitted since Zeppelin became Apache podling project. And release, vote
related discussions have adopted ASF way so far.
Also Zeppelin is the one of the projects making big synergy with other
apache projects by providing different back-end interpreters(ex spark,
hive, flink, hbase, cassandra, etc)
so +1 for graduation.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:13 AM, madhuka udantha <ma...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1 for graduation
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <do...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo about the Apache project
> > maturity model. (
> >
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html)
> >
> >
> > > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing secure software
> >
> > It's related to security and I know that there is a commit on Shiro
> > authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him by the way). There is
> also
> > some JIRA ticket to add documentation about Kerberos (
> > https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/640). Don't know if
> > there
> > is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on the chapter of security,
> all
> > the works are being done and are on good way.
> >
> > Under the Community topic, I think all the points are covered (for
> example,
> > becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly documented in
> CONTRIBUTING.md)
> > as well as consensus (point CO60).
> >
> > Under the Consensus Building chapter, every discussion related to release
> > or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the mailing list.
> >
> > As far as I see, all the points are covered.
> >
> > Now my personal opinion as a community member is that it's high time for
> > the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel comfortable advising
> > Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production because of lack of
> security
> > but since security support (at least for authentication) is in the trunk
> > and the improvements are on the way, I don't see any blocker anymore.
> >
> > So a big +1 for me
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <ah...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think it's time to graduate and
> > step
> > > forward.
> > > So, ++1 !
> > >
> > > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<an...@apache.org>님이 작성한
> 메시지:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a vote.
> > > > unlike release, it doesnt require any specific features (For specific
> > > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a requirement for the first
> > > release
> > > > as TLP),
> > > > so for me its a big +1.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> > > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the incubator. I think we all
> well
> > > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new features that also will be
> > > > > improved or adding . For example we need to greatly improve the
> > > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary for graduation.
> > > > >
> > > > > +1 for graduation
> > > > >
> > > > > congrats for the work...!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov <bzz@apache.org
> > > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Jakob,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is exactly as you describe
> > (there
> > > > > were
> > > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on graduation and get more
> > > > oppinions
> > > > > > from other participants - that would awesome!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to help with particular
> > features
> > > > for
> > > > > > the next release here, but please feel free to fork the thread
> for
> > > > > further
> > > > > > discussion on technical details.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Alex
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <jghoman@gmail.com
> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hey all-
> > > > > > > A data point and observation from an ASF Member and
> Incubator
> > > PMC
> > > > > > > Member...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for graduation is a function
> of
> > > > > > > community development and adherence to the Apache Way, rather
> any
> > > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones. Since entering Incubator,
> > > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases, has finished the
> > > > > > > incubation checklist
> > > > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html), has
> added
> > > new
> > > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a good position to
> > > graduate
> > > > > > > from my perspective.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be handled in a speedy
> > matter,
> > > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement to that - just
> some
> > > > work
> > > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Jakob
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B. Elberg <
> > amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it. The reason we didn't
> merge
> > > in
> > > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented the tests *in* 208 from
> > > > > > functioning.
> > > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now CI is broken for
> the
> > > > > project
> > > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I would do that myself.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been proven in the field:
> > People
> > > > who
> > > > > > > don't use R have switched to the version of 208 in my repo
> > because
> > > it
> > > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This has been outstanding since August, and it's very hard to
> > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a Meetup in September
> where a
> > > > > variant
> > > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a demonstration of Zeppelin's
> > > > > > > capabilities and potential.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is dealing with significant
> PRs
> > > > from
> > > > > > > outside the core development team. Addressing these issues
> for
> > R,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of project maturity. These
> > > were
> > > > > > > features on the roadmap which were supposed to be included
> before
> > > the
> > > > > > first
> > > > > > > non-beta release.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee <moon@apache.org
> > > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion and very
> > valuable
> > > > > > opinion.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I completely agree how much R and Authentication (which i
> > > believe
> > > > > > > already
> > > > > > > >> in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And believe me, I
> want
> > > > these
> > > > > > > >> features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> But at the same time we have diversity of user bases.
> > > > > > > >> Some people might think supporting general JDBC is more
> > > practical
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > >> useful feature, the other can think multi-tenancy is the
> most
> > > > > > important,
> > > > > > > >> etc, etc.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> So, i believe Apache Top Level project is defined by how
> > > community
> > > > > > > works,
> > > > > > > >> not defined by what feature does the software includes.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Regarding bringing R into main branch, I tried to make pr208
> > > > passes
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > CI.
> > > > > > > >> I could able to make it pass 1 test profile, but couldn't
> make
> > > it
> > > > > pass
> > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > >> other test profiles.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I'm suggesting split the contribution into smaller peaces
> and
> > > > merge
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > >> one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution of Shiro
> > security
> > > > > > > integration
> > > > > > > >> (pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208 into smaller PRs.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > > > >> moon
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav Mazumder <
> > > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>> This does make sense Moon. Completely agree with you that
> > > > features
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > >>> important for becoming a top level project
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> However, in my opinion, from the practical usage
> standpoint,
> > > > > without
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > > > >>> two features Zeppelin does not look to me a full fledged
> top
> > > > level
> > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > >>> Curious whether there are any technical glitches which are
> > > > > impediment
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > >>> bringing these features to the main branch. Wondering if
> any
> > > help
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > >>> to get those problems fixed.
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>> Regards,
> > > > > > > >>> Sourav
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo Lee <
> > moon@apache.org
> > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Hi guys,
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be
> > > > prerequisites
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > >>>> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those
> > > features
> > > > > as
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > >>>> graduation goal.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Including specific features could be valid concern for
> > release
> > > > > > > >>> discussion,
> > > > > > > >>>> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in
> > apache
> > > > way,
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > my
> > > > > > > >>>> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a
> > > > > graduation
> > > > > > > vote
> > > > > > > >>>> is, because of there were valid concern about contribution
> > > > > impasse.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution
> > guide
> > > > and
> > > > > > > review
> > > > > > > >>>> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help
> many
> > > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > > >>>> that they have been as a open PR for a long time.
> > (Especially
> > > > > > Jongyoul
> > > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > > >>>> Felix helped a lot)
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be
> > > > included'
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>> release / roadmap discussion.
> > > > > > > >>>> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an
> > discussions,
> > > > > such
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > >>>> evaluating
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
> > > > > > > >>>> etc.
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > > >>>> moon
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <
> > > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it
> > was
> > > > not
> > > > > > > >>>> withdrawn
> > > > > > > >>>>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some
> > > > > feedback
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > > >>>>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues.
> > And
> > > > > that's
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >>>>> last public discussion about graduation until today.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the
> > > > > discussion
> > > > > > > >>> emails
> > > > > > > >>>>> that you're referring to.
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <
> > > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Eran,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> Could you please check my previous reply about release
> > > > schedulle
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > >>>> let
> > > > > > > >>>>> us
> > > > > > > >>>>>> know if that makes sense to you?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong
> > here,
> > > > but
> > > > > > > >>> after
> > > > > > > >>>>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not
> > > have
> > > > > > > >>>> pre-request
> > > > > > > >>>>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this
> > > formal
> > > > > > > >>>> procedure
> > > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > > >>>>>> graduation.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <
> > > eranwitkon@gmail.com
> > > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the
> > > pre-requisite
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > >>>>> graduation
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> from day one.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Eran
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
> > > > > > > >>>>> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very
> > > popular
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > >>>>> different
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to
> > > > graduate
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>> top
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> level.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and
> > > > > > > >>> Authentication
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> added
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > people
> > > > > > > >>>> are
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> eagerly waiting for.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Sourav
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <
> > > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Let's start a vote.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> moon
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <
> > > > > > > >>> bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew
> more
> > > I'd
> > > > > > like
> > > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> suggest
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to
> > top
> > > > > level
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> project.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to
> > > start a
> > > > > > VOTE
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> thread
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> here.
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > > > > *Software Engeenier
> > > > > *
> > > > >
> > > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <
> > > > marta.tapia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > > * |
> victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> > > > <javascript:;>
> > > > > <marta.tapia@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Madhuka Udantha
> http://madhukaudantha.blogspot.com
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by madhuka udantha <ma...@gmail.com>.
+1 for graduation
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:59 PM, DuyHai Doan <do...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo about the Apache project
> maturity model. (
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html)
>
>
> > QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing secure software
>
> It's related to security and I know that there is a commit on Shiro
> authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him by the way). There is also
> some JIRA ticket to add documentation about Kerberos (
> https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/640). Don't know if
> there
> is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on the chapter of security, all
> the works are being done and are on good way.
>
> Under the Community topic, I think all the points are covered (for example,
> becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly documented in CONTRIBUTING.md)
> as well as consensus (point CO60).
>
> Under the Consensus Building chapter, every discussion related to release
> or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the mailing list.
>
> As far as I see, all the points are covered.
>
> Now my personal opinion as a community member is that it's high time for
> the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel comfortable advising
> Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production because of lack of security
> but since security support (at least for authentication) is in the trunk
> and the improvements are on the way, I don't see any blocker anymore.
>
> So a big +1 for me
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <ah...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think it's time to graduate and
> step
> > forward.
> > So, ++1 !
> >
> > 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<an...@apache.org>님이 작성한 메시지:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a vote.
> > > unlike release, it doesnt require any specific features (For specific
> > > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a requirement for the first
> > release
> > > as TLP),
> > > so for me its a big +1.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> > > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi guys,
> > > > In my opinion we can graduate from the incubator. I think we all well
> > > > controlled procedures, regardless of new features that also will be
> > > > improved or adding . For example we need to greatly improve the
> > > > documentation, but i since is not necesary for graduation.
> > > >
> > > > +1 for graduation
> > > >
> > > > congrats for the work...!!!
> > > >
> > > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov <bzz@apache.org
> > > <javascript:;>>:
> > > >
> > > > > Jakob,
> > > > >
> > > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is exactly as you describe
> (there
> > > > were
> > > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> > > > >
> > > > > If we could keep this thread focused on graduation and get more
> > > oppinions
> > > > > from other participants - that would awesome!
> > > > >
> > > > > Its great to see people volonteering to help with particular
> features
> > > for
> > > > > the next release here, but please feel free to fork the thread for
> > > > further
> > > > > discussion on technical details.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Alex
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <jghoman@gmail.com
> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hey all-
> > > > > > A data point and observation from an ASF Member and Incubator
> > PMC
> > > > > > Member...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for graduation is a function of
> > > > > > community development and adherence to the Apache Way, rather any
> > > > > > specific feature or tech milestones. Since entering Incubator,
> > > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases, has finished the
> > > > > > incubation checklist
> > > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html), has added
> > new
> > > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a good position to
> > graduate
> > > > > > from my perspective.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be handled in a speedy
> matter,
> > > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement to that - just some
> > > work
> > > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Jakob
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B. Elberg <
> amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it. The reason we didn't merge
> > in
> > > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented the tests *in* 208 from
> > > > > functioning.
> > > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now CI is broken for the
> > > > project
> > > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I would do that myself.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The reliability of the code has been proven in the field:
> People
> > > who
> > > > > > don't use R have switched to the version of 208 in my repo
> because
> > it
> > > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This has been outstanding since August, and it's very hard to
> > > > > understand
> > > > > > a reason - you even participated in a Meetup in September where a
> > > > variant
> > > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a demonstration of Zeppelin's
> > > > > > capabilities and potential.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is dealing with significant PRs
> > > from
> > > > > > outside the core development team. Addressing these issues for
> R,
> > > and
> > > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of project maturity. These
> > were
> > > > > > features on the roadmap which were supposed to be included before
> > the
> > > > > first
> > > > > > non-beta release.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee <moon@apache.org
> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion and very
> valuable
> > > > > opinion.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I completely agree how much R and Authentication (which i
> > believe
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > >> in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And believe me, I want
> > > these
> > > > > > >> features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> But at the same time we have diversity of user bases.
> > > > > > >> Some people might think supporting general JDBC is more
> > practical
> > > > and
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > >> useful feature, the other can think multi-tenancy is the most
> > > > > important,
> > > > > > >> etc, etc.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> So, i believe Apache Top Level project is defined by how
> > community
> > > > > > works,
> > > > > > >> not defined by what feature does the software includes.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Regarding bringing R into main branch, I tried to make pr208
> > > passes
> > > > > the
> > > > > > CI.
> > > > > > >> I could able to make it pass 1 test profile, but couldn't make
> > it
> > > > pass
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > >> other test profiles.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I'm suggesting split the contribution into smaller peaces and
> > > merge
> > > > > one
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > >> one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution of Shiro
> security
> > > > > > integration
> > > > > > >> (pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208 into smaller PRs.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > > >> moon
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav Mazumder <
> > > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> This does make sense Moon. Completely agree with you that
> > > features
> > > > > are
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > >>> important for becoming a top level project
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> However, in my opinion, from the practical usage standpoint,
> > > > without
> > > > > > these
> > > > > > >>> two features Zeppelin does not look to me a full fledged top
> > > level
> > > > > > project.
> > > > > > >>> Curious whether there are any technical glitches which are
> > > > impediment
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > >>> bringing these features to the main branch. Wondering if any
> > help
> > > > can
> > > > > > help
> > > > > > >>> to get those problems fixed.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Regards,
> > > > > > >>> Sourav
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo Lee <
> moon@apache.org
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Hi guys,
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be
> > > prerequisites
> > > > of
> > > > > > >>>> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those
> > features
> > > > as
> > > > > a
> > > > > > >>>> graduation goal.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Including specific features could be valid concern for
> release
> > > > > > >>> discussion,
> > > > > > >>>> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in
> apache
> > > way,
> > > > > in
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > >>>> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a
> > > > graduation
> > > > > > vote
> > > > > > >>>> is, because of there were valid concern about contribution
> > > > impasse.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution
> guide
> > > and
> > > > > > review
> > > > > > >>>> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many
> > > > > > contributions
> > > > > > >>>> that they have been as a open PR for a long time.
> (Especially
> > > > > Jongyoul
> > > > > > >>> and
> > > > > > >>>> Felix helped a lot)
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be
> > > included'
> > > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>> release / roadmap discussion.
> > > > > > >>>> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an
> discussions,
> > > > such
> > > > > as
> > > > > > >>>> evaluating
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
> > > > > > >>>> etc.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>> moon
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <
> > > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it
> was
> > > not
> > > > > > >>>> withdrawn
> > > > > > >>>>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some
> > > > feedback
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues.
> And
> > > > that's
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > >>>>> last public discussion about graduation until today.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the
> > > > discussion
> > > > > > >>> emails
> > > > > > >>>>> that you're referring to.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <
> > > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Hi Eran,
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Could you please check my previous reply about release
> > > schedulle
> > > > > and
> > > > > > >>>> let
> > > > > > >>>>> us
> > > > > > >>>>>> know if that makes sense to you?
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong
> here,
> > > but
> > > > > > >>> after
> > > > > > >>>>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not
> > have
> > > > > > >>>> pre-request
> > > > > > >>>>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this
> > formal
> > > > > > >>>> procedure
> > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>> graduation.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> [1]
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <
> > eranwitkon@gmail.com
> > > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the
> > pre-requisite
> > > > for
> > > > > > >>>>> graduation
> > > > > > >>>>>>> from day one.
> > > > > > >>>>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
> > > > > > >>>>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Eran
> > > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
> > > > > > >>>>> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very
> > popular
> > > > in
> > > > > > >>>>> different
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to
> > > graduate
> > > > > it
> > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > >>>>> top
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> level.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and
> > > > > > >>> Authentication
> > > > > > >>>>>>> added
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of
> > the
> > > > > people
> > > > > > >>>> are
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> eagerly waiting for.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Sourav
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <
> > > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Let's start a vote.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> moon
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <
> > > > > > >>> bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more
> > I'd
> > > > > like
> > > > > > >>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> suggest
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to
> top
> > > > level
> > > > > > >>>>>>> project.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to
> > start a
> > > > > VOTE
> > > > > > >>>>>>> thread
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> here.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > > > *Software Engeenier
> > > > *
> > > >
> > > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <
> > > marta.tapia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > > * | victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> > > <javascript:;>
> > > > <marta.tapia@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Cheers,
Madhuka Udantha
http://madhukaudantha.blogspot.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by DuyHai Doan <do...@gmail.com>.
I was reading the link provided by Leemoonsoo about the Apache project
maturity model. (
http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html)
> QU20 The project puts a very high priority on producing secure software
It's related to security and I know that there is a commit on Shiro
authentication already by hayssams (kudo to him by the way). There is also
some JIRA ticket to add documentation about Kerberos (
https://github.com/apache/incubator-zeppelin/pull/640). Don't know if there
is a JIRA to add doc for Shiro yet. Anyway, on the chapter of security, all
the works are being done and are on good way.
Under the Community topic, I think all the points are covered (for example,
becoming a committer (point CO50) is clearly documented in CONTRIBUTING.md)
as well as consensus (point CO60).
Under the Consensus Building chapter, every discussion related to release
or votes have been exposed so far publicly on the mailing list.
As far as I see, all the points are covered.
Now my personal opinion as a community member is that it's high time for
the project to graduate. Until now I did not feel comfortable advising
Zeppelin for customers to deploy in production because of lack of security
but since security support (at least for authentication) is in the trunk
and the improvements are on the way, I don't see any blocker anymore.
So a big +1 for me
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Ahyoung Ryu <ah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think it's time to graduate and step
> forward.
> So, ++1 !
>
> 2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<an...@apache.org>님이 작성한 메시지:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a vote.
> > unlike release, it doesnt require any specific features (For specific
> > feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a requirement for the first
> release
> > as TLP),
> > so for me its a big +1.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> > victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi guys,
> > > In my opinion we can graduate from the incubator. I think we all well
> > > controlled procedures, regardless of new features that also will be
> > > improved or adding . For example we need to greatly improve the
> > > documentation, but i since is not necesary for graduation.
> > >
> > > +1 for graduation
> > >
> > > congrats for the work...!!!
> > >
> > > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov <bzz@apache.org
> > <javascript:;>>:
> > >
> > > > Jakob,
> > > >
> > > > thank you for pointing this out, it is exactly as you describe (there
> > > were
> > > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> > > >
> > > > If we could keep this thread focused on graduation and get more
> > oppinions
> > > > from other participants - that would awesome!
> > > >
> > > > Its great to see people volonteering to help with particular features
> > for
> > > > the next release here, but please feel free to fork the thread for
> > > further
> > > > discussion on technical details.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <jghoman@gmail.com
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hey all-
> > > > > A data point and observation from an ASF Member and Incubator
> PMC
> > > > > Member...
> > > > >
> > > > > Moon is correct that readiness for graduation is a function of
> > > > > community development and adherence to the Apache Way, rather any
> > > > > specific feature or tech milestones. Since entering Incubator,
> > > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases, has finished the
> > > > > incubation checklist
> > > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html), has added
> new
> > > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a good position to
> graduate
> > > > > from my perspective.
> > > > >
> > > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be handled in a speedy matter,
> > > > > but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement to that - just some
> > work
> > > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Jakob
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B. Elberg <amos.elberg@gmail.com
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it. The reason we didn't merge
> in
> > > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented the tests *in* 208 from
> > > > functioning.
> > > > > It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now CI is broken for the
> > > project
> > > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I would do that myself.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reliability of the code has been proven in the field: People
> > who
> > > > > don't use R have switched to the version of 208 in my repo because
> it
> > > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This has been outstanding since August, and it's very hard to
> > > > understand
> > > > > a reason - you even participated in a Meetup in September where a
> > > variant
> > > > > of the code in the PR was used as a demonstration of Zeppelin's
> > > > > capabilities and potential.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Part of being an Apache project is dealing with significant PRs
> > from
> > > > > outside the core development team. Addressing these issues for R,
> > and
> > > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of project maturity. These
> were
> > > > > features on the roadmap which were supposed to be included before
> the
> > > > first
> > > > > non-beta release.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee <moon@apache.org
> > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion and very valuable
> > > > opinion.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I completely agree how much R and Authentication (which i
> believe
> > > > > already
> > > > > >> in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And believe me, I want
> > these
> > > > > >> features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> But at the same time we have diversity of user bases.
> > > > > >> Some people might think supporting general JDBC is more
> practical
> > > and
> > > > > more
> > > > > >> useful feature, the other can think multi-tenancy is the most
> > > > important,
> > > > > >> etc, etc.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> So, i believe Apache Top Level project is defined by how
> community
> > > > > works,
> > > > > >> not defined by what feature does the software includes.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Regarding bringing R into main branch, I tried to make pr208
> > passes
> > > > the
> > > > > CI.
> > > > > >> I could able to make it pass 1 test profile, but couldn't make
> it
> > > pass
> > > > > all
> > > > > >> other test profiles.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I'm suggesting split the contribution into smaller peaces and
> > merge
> > > > one
> > > > > by
> > > > > >> one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution of Shiro security
> > > > > integration
> > > > > >> (pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208 into smaller PRs.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Best,
> > > > > >> moon
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav Mazumder <
> > > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> This does make sense Moon. Completely agree with you that
> > features
> > > > are
> > > > > not
> > > > > >>> important for becoming a top level project
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> However, in my opinion, from the practical usage standpoint,
> > > without
> > > > > these
> > > > > >>> two features Zeppelin does not look to me a full fledged top
> > level
> > > > > project.
> > > > > >>> Curious whether there are any technical glitches which are
> > > impediment
> > > > > in
> > > > > >>> bringing these features to the main branch. Wondering if any
> help
> > > can
> > > > > help
> > > > > >>> to get those problems fixed.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Regards,
> > > > > >>> Sourav
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo Lee <moon@apache.org
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Hi guys,
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be
> > prerequisites
> > > of
> > > > > >>>> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those
> features
> > > as
> > > > a
> > > > > >>>> graduation goal.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Including specific features could be valid concern for release
> > > > > >>> discussion,
> > > > > >>>> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in apache
> > way,
> > > > in
> > > > > my
> > > > > >>>> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a
> > > graduation
> > > > > vote
> > > > > >>>> is, because of there were valid concern about contribution
> > > impasse.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution guide
> > and
> > > > > review
> > > > > >>>> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many
> > > > > contributions
> > > > > >>>> that they have been as a open PR for a long time. (Especially
> > > > Jongyoul
> > > > > >>> and
> > > > > >>>> Felix helped a lot)
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be
> > included'
> > > > to
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>>> release / roadmap discussion.
> > > > > >>>> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an discussions,
> > > such
> > > > as
> > > > > >>>> evaluating
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
> > > > > >>>> etc.
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > >>>> moon
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <
> > > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was
> > not
> > > > > >>>> withdrawn
> > > > > >>>>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some
> > > feedback
> > > > > from
> > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > >>>>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And
> > > that's
> > > > > the
> > > > > >>>>> last public discussion about graduation until today.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the
> > > discussion
> > > > > >>> emails
> > > > > >>>>> that you're referring to.
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <
> > bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Hi Eran,
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> Could you please check my previous reply about release
> > schedulle
> > > > and
> > > > > >>>> let
> > > > > >>>>> us
> > > > > >>>>>> know if that makes sense to you?
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here,
> > but
> > > > > >>> after
> > > > > >>>>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not
> have
> > > > > >>>> pre-request
> > > > > >>>>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this
> formal
> > > > > >>>> procedure
> > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > >>>>>> graduation.
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> [1]
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <
> eranwitkon@gmail.com
> > <javascript:;>>
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the
> pre-requisite
> > > for
> > > > > >>>>> graduation
> > > > > >>>>>>> from day one.
> > > > > >>>>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
> > > > > >>>>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
> > > > > >>>>>>> Eran
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
> > > > > >>>>> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very
> popular
> > > in
> > > > > >>>>> different
> > > > > >>>>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to
> > graduate
> > > > it
> > > > > >>> to
> > > > > >>>>> top
> > > > > >>>>>>>> level.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and
> > > > > >>> Authentication
> > > > > >>>>>>> added
> > > > > >>>>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of
> the
> > > > people
> > > > > >>>> are
> > > > > >>>>>>>> eagerly waiting for.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Sourav
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <
> > > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Let's start a vote.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> moon
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <
> > > > > >>> bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more
> I'd
> > > > like
> > > > > >>> to
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> suggest
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top
> > > level
> > > > > >>>>>>> project.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to
> start a
> > > > VOTE
> > > > > >>>>>>> thread
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> here.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > > >>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > > *Software Engeenier
> > > *
> > >
> > > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <
> > marta.tapia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > > * | victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> > <javascript:;>
> > > <marta.tapia@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Ahyoung Ryu <ah...@gmail.com>.
Totally agree with @anthonycorbacho. I think it's time to graduate and step
forward.
So, ++1 !
2016년 2월 4일 목요일, Anthony Corbacho<an...@apache.org>님이 작성한 메시지:
> Hi,
>
> I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a vote.
> unlike release, it doesnt require any specific features (For specific
> feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a requirement for the first release
> as TLP),
> so for me its a big +1.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
> victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
> > In my opinion we can graduate from the incubator. I think we all well
> > controlled procedures, regardless of new features that also will be
> > improved or adding . For example we need to greatly improve the
> > documentation, but i since is not necesary for graduation.
> >
> > +1 for graduation
> >
> > congrats for the work...!!!
> >
> > 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov <bzz@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>:
> >
> > > Jakob,
> > >
> > > thank you for pointing this out, it is exactly as you describe (there
> > were
> > > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> > >
> > > If we could keep this thread focused on graduation and get more
> oppinions
> > > from other participants - that would awesome!
> > >
> > > Its great to see people volonteering to help with particular features
> for
> > > the next release here, but please feel free to fork the thread for
> > further
> > > discussion on technical details.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <jghoman@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey all-
> > > > A data point and observation from an ASF Member and Incubator PMC
> > > > Member...
> > > >
> > > > Moon is correct that readiness for graduation is a function of
> > > > community development and adherence to the Apache Way, rather any
> > > > specific feature or tech milestones. Since entering Incubator,
> > > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases, has finished the
> > > > incubation checklist
> > > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html), has added new
> > > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a good position to graduate
> > > > from my perspective.
> > > >
> > > > Resolution of specific PRs should be handled in a speedy matter,
> > > > but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement to that - just some
> work
> > > > left to be done in getting them in.
> > > >
> > > > -Jakob
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B. Elberg <amos.elberg@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > I don't see a point to splitting it. The reason we didn't merge in
> > > > December is that bugs in CI prevented the tests *in* 208 from
> > > functioning.
> > > > It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now CI is broken for the
> > project
> > > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I would do that myself.
> > > > >
> > > > > The reliability of the code has been proven in the field: People
> who
> > > > don't use R have switched to the version of 208 in my repo because it
> > > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > > > >
> > > > > This has been outstanding since August, and it's very hard to
> > > understand
> > > > a reason - you even participated in a Meetup in September where a
> > variant
> > > > of the code in the PR was used as a demonstration of Zeppelin's
> > > > capabilities and potential.
> > > > >
> > > > > Part of being an Apache project is dealing with significant PRs
> from
> > > > outside the core development team. Addressing these issues for R,
> and
> > > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of project maturity. These were
> > > > features on the roadmap which were supposed to be included before the
> > > first
> > > > non-beta release.
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee <moon@apache.org
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion and very valuable
> > > opinion.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I completely agree how much R and Authentication (which i believe
> > > > already
> > > > >> in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And believe me, I want
> these
> > > > >> features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> But at the same time we have diversity of user bases.
> > > > >> Some people might think supporting general JDBC is more practical
> > and
> > > > more
> > > > >> useful feature, the other can think multi-tenancy is the most
> > > important,
> > > > >> etc, etc.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> So, i believe Apache Top Level project is defined by how community
> > > > works,
> > > > >> not defined by what feature does the software includes.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Regarding bringing R into main branch, I tried to make pr208
> passes
> > > the
> > > > CI.
> > > > >> I could able to make it pass 1 test profile, but couldn't make it
> > pass
> > > > all
> > > > >> other test profiles.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm suggesting split the contribution into smaller peaces and
> merge
> > > one
> > > > by
> > > > >> one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution of Shiro security
> > > > integration
> > > > >> (pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208 into smaller PRs.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Best,
> > > > >> moon
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav Mazumder <
> > > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> This does make sense Moon. Completely agree with you that
> features
> > > are
> > > > not
> > > > >>> important for becoming a top level project
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> However, in my opinion, from the practical usage standpoint,
> > without
> > > > these
> > > > >>> two features Zeppelin does not look to me a full fledged top
> level
> > > > project.
> > > > >>> Curious whether there are any technical glitches which are
> > impediment
> > > > in
> > > > >>> bringing these features to the main branch. Wondering if any help
> > can
> > > > help
> > > > >>> to get those problems fixed.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Regards,
> > > > >>> Sourav
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo Lee <moon@apache.org
> <javascript:;>>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Hi guys,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be
> prerequisites
> > of
> > > > >>>> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those features
> > as
> > > a
> > > > >>>> graduation goal.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Including specific features could be valid concern for release
> > > > >>> discussion,
> > > > >>>> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in apache
> way,
> > > in
> > > > my
> > > > >>>> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a
> > graduation
> > > > vote
> > > > >>>> is, because of there were valid concern about contribution
> > impasse.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution guide
> and
> > > > review
> > > > >>>> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many
> > > > contributions
> > > > >>>> that they have been as a open PR for a long time. (Especially
> > > Jongyoul
> > > > >>> and
> > > > >>>> Felix helped a lot)
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be
> included'
> > > to
> > > > the
> > > > >>>> release / roadmap discussion.
> > > > >>>> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an discussions,
> > such
> > > as
> > > > >>>> evaluating
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
> > > > >>>> etc.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>> moon
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <
> > > amos.elberg@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was
> not
> > > > >>>> withdrawn
> > > > >>>>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some
> > feedback
> > > > from
> > > > >>>> the
> > > > >>>>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And
> > that's
> > > > the
> > > > >>>>> last public discussion about graduation until today.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the
> > discussion
> > > > >>> emails
> > > > >>>>> that you're referring to.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <
> bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Hi Eran,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> Could you please check my previous reply about release
> schedulle
> > > and
> > > > >>>> let
> > > > >>>>> us
> > > > >>>>>> know if that makes sense to you?
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here,
> but
> > > > >>> after
> > > > >>>>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have
> > > > >>>> pre-request
> > > > >>>>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal
> > > > >>>> procedure
> > > > >>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>> graduation.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> [1]
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <eranwitkon@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite
> > for
> > > > >>>>> graduation
> > > > >>>>>>> from day one.
> > > > >>>>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
> > > > >>>>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
> > > > >>>>>>> Eran
> > > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
> > > > >>>>> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular
> > in
> > > > >>>>> different
> > > > >>>>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to
> graduate
> > > it
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>>> top
> > > > >>>>>>>> level.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and
> > > > >>> Authentication
> > > > >>>>>>> added
> > > > >>>>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the
> > > people
> > > > >>>> are
> > > > >>>>>>>> eagerly waiting for.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>> Sourav
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <
> > moon@apache.org <javascript:;>>
> > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Let's start a vote.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > > >>>>>>>>> moon
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <
> > > > >>> bzz@apache.org <javascript:;>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd
> > > like
> > > > >>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>>> suggest
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top
> > level
> > > > >>>>>>> project.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a
> > > VOTE
> > > > >>>>>>> thread
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> here.
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> > *Software Engeenier
> > *
> >
> > *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <javascript:;> <
> marta.tapia@beeva.com <javascript:;>>*
> > * | victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> <javascript:;>
> > <marta.tapia@bbva.com <javascript:;>>*
> >
> >
> >
> > <http://www.beeva.com/>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Anthony Corbacho <an...@apache.org>.
Hi,
I dont see any reason why we shouldn't start a vote.
unlike release, it doesnt require any specific features (For specific
feature like R or ACL, we can add it as a requirement for the first release
as TLP),
so for me its a big +1.
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Victor Manuel Garcia <
victor.garcia@beeva.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
> In my opinion we can graduate from the incubator. I think we all well
> controlled procedures, regardless of new features that also will be
> improved or adding . For example we need to greatly improve the
> documentation, but i since is not necesary for graduation.
>
> +1 for graduation
>
> congrats for the work...!!!
>
> 2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>:
>
> > Jakob,
> >
> > thank you for pointing this out, it is exactly as you describe (there
> were
> > 3 releases since joining the incubator)
> >
> > If we could keep this thread focused on graduation and get more oppinions
> > from other participants - that would awesome!
> >
> > Its great to see people volonteering to help with particular features for
> > the next release here, but please feel free to fork the thread for
> further
> > discussion on technical details.
> >
> > --
> > Alex
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey all-
> > > A data point and observation from an ASF Member and Incubator PMC
> > > Member...
> > >
> > > Moon is correct that readiness for graduation is a function of
> > > community development and adherence to the Apache Way, rather any
> > > specific feature or tech milestones. Since entering Incubator,
> > > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases, has finished the
> > > incubation checklist
> > > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html), has added new
> > > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a good position to graduate
> > > from my perspective.
> > >
> > > Resolution of specific PRs should be handled in a speedy matter,
> > > but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement to that - just some work
> > > left to be done in getting them in.
> > >
> > > -Jakob
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > I don't see a point to splitting it. The reason we didn't merge in
> > > December is that bugs in CI prevented the tests *in* 208 from
> > functioning.
> > > It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now CI is broken for the
> project
> > > anyway. If it was going to be split, I would do that myself.
> > > >
> > > > The reliability of the code has been proven in the field: People who
> > > don't use R have switched to the version of 208 in my repo because it
> > > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > > >
> > > > This has been outstanding since August, and it's very hard to
> > understand
> > > a reason - you even participated in a Meetup in September where a
> variant
> > > of the code in the PR was used as a demonstration of Zeppelin's
> > > capabilities and potential.
> > > >
> > > > Part of being an Apache project is dealing with significant PRs from
> > > outside the core development team. Addressing these issues for R, and
> > > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of project maturity. These were
> > > features on the roadmap which were supposed to be included before the
> > first
> > > non-beta release.
> > > >
> > > >> On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion and very valuable
> > opinion.
> > > >>
> > > >> I completely agree how much R and Authentication (which i believe
> > > already
> > > >> in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And believe me, I want these
> > > >> features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
> > > >>
> > > >> But at the same time we have diversity of user bases.
> > > >> Some people might think supporting general JDBC is more practical
> and
> > > more
> > > >> useful feature, the other can think multi-tenancy is the most
> > important,
> > > >> etc, etc.
> > > >>
> > > >> So, i believe Apache Top Level project is defined by how community
> > > works,
> > > >> not defined by what feature does the software includes.
> > > >>
> > > >> Regarding bringing R into main branch, I tried to make pr208 passes
> > the
> > > CI.
> > > >> I could able to make it pass 1 test profile, but couldn't make it
> pass
> > > all
> > > >> other test profiles.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm suggesting split the contribution into smaller peaces and merge
> > one
> > > by
> > > >> one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution of Shiro security
> > > integration
> > > >> (pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208 into smaller PRs.
> > > >>
> > > >> Best,
> > > >> moon
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav Mazumder <
> > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> This does make sense Moon. Completely agree with you that features
> > are
> > > not
> > > >>> important for becoming a top level project
> > > >>>
> > > >>> However, in my opinion, from the practical usage standpoint,
> without
> > > these
> > > >>> two features Zeppelin does not look to me a full fledged top level
> > > project.
> > > >>> Curious whether there are any technical glitches which are
> impediment
> > > in
> > > >>> bringing these features to the main branch. Wondering if any help
> can
> > > help
> > > >>> to get those problems fixed.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Regards,
> > > >>> Sourav
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Hi guys,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be prerequisites
> of
> > > >>>> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those features
> as
> > a
> > > >>>> graduation goal.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Including specific features could be valid concern for release
> > > >>> discussion,
> > > >>>> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in apache way,
> > in
> > > my
> > > >>>> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a
> graduation
> > > vote
> > > >>>> is, because of there were valid concern about contribution
> impasse.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution guide and
> > > review
> > > >>>> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many
> > > contributions
> > > >>>> that they have been as a open PR for a long time. (Especially
> > Jongyoul
> > > >>> and
> > > >>>> Felix helped a lot)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be included'
> > to
> > > the
> > > >>>> release / roadmap discussion.
> > > >>>> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an discussions,
> such
> > as
> > > >>>> evaluating
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
> > > >>>> etc.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > >>>> moon
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <
> > amos.elberg@gmail.com>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was not
> > > >>>> withdrawn
> > > >>>>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some
> feedback
> > > from
> > > >>>> the
> > > >>>>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And
> that's
> > > the
> > > >>>>> last public discussion about graduation until today.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the
> discussion
> > > >>> emails
> > > >>>>> that you're referring to.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Hi Eran,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Could you please check my previous reply about release schedulle
> > and
> > > >>>> let
> > > >>>>> us
> > > >>>>>> know if that makes sense to you?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here, but
> > > >>> after
> > > >>>>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have
> > > >>>> pre-request
> > > >>>>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal
> > > >>>> procedure
> > > >>>>> of
> > > >>>>>> graduation.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> [1]
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite
> for
> > > >>>>> graduation
> > > >>>>>>> from day one.
> > > >>>>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
> > > >>>>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
> > > >>>>>>> Eran
> > > >>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
> > > >>>>> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
> > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular
> in
> > > >>>>> different
> > > >>>>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate
> > it
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>> top
> > > >>>>>>>> level.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and
> > > >>> Authentication
> > > >>>>>>> added
> > > >>>>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the
> > people
> > > >>>> are
> > > >>>>>>>> eagerly waiting for.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > >>>>>>>> Sourav
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <
> moon@apache.org>
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> > > >>>>>>>>> Let's start a vote.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Best,
> > > >>>>>>>>> moon
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <
> > > >>> bzz@apache.org
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd
> > like
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>> suggest
> > > >>>>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top
> level
> > > >>>>>>> project.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a
> > VOTE
> > > >>>>>>> thread
> > > >>>>>>>>>> here.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > > >>>
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> *Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
> *Software Engeenier
> *
>
> *+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <ma...@beeva.com>*
> * | victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
> <ma...@bbva.com>*
>
>
>
> <http://www.beeva.com/>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Victor Manuel Garcia <vi...@beeva.com>.
Hi guys,
In my opinion we can graduate from the incubator. I think we all well
controlled procedures, regardless of new features that also will be
improved or adding . For example we need to greatly improve the
documentation, but i since is not necesary for graduation.
+1 for graduation
congrats for the work...!!!
2016-02-04 9:13 GMT+01:00 Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>:
> Jakob,
>
> thank you for pointing this out, it is exactly as you describe (there were
> 3 releases since joining the incubator)
>
> If we could keep this thread focused on graduation and get more oppinions
> from other participants - that would awesome!
>
> Its great to see people volonteering to help with particular features for
> the next release here, but please feel free to fork the thread for further
> discussion on technical details.
>
> --
> Alex
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey all-
> > A data point and observation from an ASF Member and Incubator PMC
> > Member...
> >
> > Moon is correct that readiness for graduation is a function of
> > community development and adherence to the Apache Way, rather any
> > specific feature or tech milestones. Since entering Incubator,
> > Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases, has finished the
> > incubation checklist
> > (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html), has added new
> > commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a good position to graduate
> > from my perspective.
> >
> > Resolution of specific PRs should be handled in a speedy matter,
> > but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement to that - just some work
> > left to be done in getting them in.
> >
> > -Jakob
> >
> >
> > On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > I don't see a point to splitting it. The reason we didn't merge in
> > December is that bugs in CI prevented the tests *in* 208 from
> functioning.
> > It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now CI is broken for the project
> > anyway. If it was going to be split, I would do that myself.
> > >
> > > The reliability of the code has been proven in the field: People who
> > don't use R have switched to the version of 208 in my repo because it
> > compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> > >
> > > This has been outstanding since August, and it's very hard to
> understand
> > a reason - you even participated in a Meetup in September where a variant
> > of the code in the PR was used as a demonstration of Zeppelin's
> > capabilities and potential.
> > >
> > > Part of being an Apache project is dealing with significant PRs from
> > outside the core development team. Addressing these issues for R, and
> > Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of project maturity. These were
> > features on the roadmap which were supposed to be included before the
> first
> > non-beta release.
> > >
> > >> On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion and very valuable
> opinion.
> > >>
> > >> I completely agree how much R and Authentication (which i believe
> > already
> > >> in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And believe me, I want these
> > >> features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
> > >>
> > >> But at the same time we have diversity of user bases.
> > >> Some people might think supporting general JDBC is more practical and
> > more
> > >> useful feature, the other can think multi-tenancy is the most
> important,
> > >> etc, etc.
> > >>
> > >> So, i believe Apache Top Level project is defined by how community
> > works,
> > >> not defined by what feature does the software includes.
> > >>
> > >> Regarding bringing R into main branch, I tried to make pr208 passes
> the
> > CI.
> > >> I could able to make it pass 1 test profile, but couldn't make it pass
> > all
> > >> other test profiles.
> > >>
> > >> I'm suggesting split the contribution into smaller peaces and merge
> one
> > by
> > >> one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution of Shiro security
> > integration
> > >> (pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208 into smaller PRs.
> > >>
> > >> Best,
> > >> moon
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav Mazumder <
> > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> This does make sense Moon. Completely agree with you that features
> are
> > not
> > >>> important for becoming a top level project
> > >>>
> > >>> However, in my opinion, from the practical usage standpoint, without
> > these
> > >>> two features Zeppelin does not look to me a full fledged top level
> > project.
> > >>> Curious whether there are any technical glitches which are impediment
> > in
> > >>> bringing these features to the main branch. Wondering if any help can
> > help
> > >>> to get those problems fixed.
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> Sourav
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi guys,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be prerequisites of
> > >>>> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those features as
> a
> > >>>> graduation goal.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Including specific features could be valid concern for release
> > >>> discussion,
> > >>>> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in apache way,
> in
> > my
> > >>>> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a graduation
> > vote
> > >>>> is, because of there were valid concern about contribution impasse.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution guide and
> > review
> > >>>> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many
> > contributions
> > >>>> that they have been as a open PR for a long time. (Especially
> Jongyoul
> > >>> and
> > >>>> Felix helped a lot)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be included'
> to
> > the
> > >>>> release / roadmap discussion.
> > >>>> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an discussions, such
> as
> > >>>> evaluating
> > >>>
> >
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
> > >>>> etc.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> moon
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <
> amos.elberg@gmail.com>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was not
> > >>>> withdrawn
> > >>>>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some feedback
> > from
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And that's
> > the
> > >>>>> last public discussion about graduation until today.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the discussion
> > >>> emails
> > >>>>> that you're referring to.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Hi Eran,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Could you please check my previous reply about release schedulle
> and
> > >>>> let
> > >>>>> us
> > >>>>>> know if that makes sense to you?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here, but
> > >>> after
> > >>>>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have
> > >>>> pre-request
> > >>>>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal
> > >>>> procedure
> > >>>>> of
> > >>>>>> graduation.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> [1]
> > >>>
> >
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite for
> > >>>>> graduation
> > >>>>>>> from day one.
> > >>>>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
> > >>>>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
> > >>>>>>> Eran
> > >>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
> > >>>>> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in
> > >>>>> different
> > >>>>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate
> it
> > >>> to
> > >>>>> top
> > >>>>>>>> level.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and
> > >>> Authentication
> > >>>>>>> added
> > >>>>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the
> people
> > >>>> are
> > >>>>>>>> eagerly waiting for.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>>>> Sourav
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> > >>>>>>>>> Let's start a vote.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Best,
> > >>>>>>>>> moon
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <
> > >>> bzz@apache.org
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd
> like
> > >>> to
> > >>>>>>>>> suggest
> > >>>>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level
> > >>>>>>> project.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a
> VOTE
> > >>>>>>> thread
> > >>>>>>>>>> here.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>> Alex
> > >>>
> >
>
--
*Victor Manuel Garcia Martinez*
*Software Engeenier
*
*+34 672104297 | victor.garcia@beeva.com <ma...@beeva.com>*
* | victormanuel.garcia.martinez@bbva.com
<ma...@bbva.com>*
<http://www.beeva.com/>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>.
Jakob,
thank you for pointing this out, it is exactly as you describe (there were
3 releases since joining the incubator)
If we could keep this thread focused on graduation and get more oppinions
from other participants - that would awesome!
Its great to see people volonteering to help with particular features for
the next release here, but please feel free to fork the thread for further
discussion on technical details.
--
Alex
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016, 08:51 Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey all-
> A data point and observation from an ASF Member and Incubator PMC
> Member...
>
> Moon is correct that readiness for graduation is a function of
> community development and adherence to the Apache Way, rather any
> specific feature or tech milestones. Since entering Incubator,
> Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases, has finished the
> incubation checklist
> (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html), has added new
> commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a good position to graduate
> from my perspective.
>
> Resolution of specific PRs should be handled in a speedy matter,
> but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement to that - just some work
> left to be done in getting them in.
>
> -Jakob
>
>
> On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't see a point to splitting it. The reason we didn't merge in
> December is that bugs in CI prevented the tests *in* 208 from functioning.
> It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now CI is broken for the project
> anyway. If it was going to be split, I would do that myself.
> >
> > The reliability of the code has been proven in the field: People who
> don't use R have switched to the version of 208 in my repo because it
> compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
> >
> > This has been outstanding since August, and it's very hard to understand
> a reason - you even participated in a Meetup in September where a variant
> of the code in the PR was used as a demonstration of Zeppelin's
> capabilities and potential.
> >
> > Part of being an Apache project is dealing with significant PRs from
> outside the core development team. Addressing these issues for R, and
> Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of project maturity. These were
> features on the roadmap which were supposed to be included before the first
> non-beta release.
> >
> >> On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion and very valuable opinion.
> >>
> >> I completely agree how much R and Authentication (which i believe
> already
> >> in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And believe me, I want these
> >> features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
> >>
> >> But at the same time we have diversity of user bases.
> >> Some people might think supporting general JDBC is more practical and
> more
> >> useful feature, the other can think multi-tenancy is the most important,
> >> etc, etc.
> >>
> >> So, i believe Apache Top Level project is defined by how community
> works,
> >> not defined by what feature does the software includes.
> >>
> >> Regarding bringing R into main branch, I tried to make pr208 passes the
> CI.
> >> I could able to make it pass 1 test profile, but couldn't make it pass
> all
> >> other test profiles.
> >>
> >> I'm suggesting split the contribution into smaller peaces and merge one
> by
> >> one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution of Shiro security
> integration
> >> (pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208 into smaller PRs.
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> moon
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav Mazumder <
> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> This does make sense Moon. Completely agree with you that features are
> not
> >>> important for becoming a top level project
> >>>
> >>> However, in my opinion, from the practical usage standpoint, without
> these
> >>> two features Zeppelin does not look to me a full fledged top level
> project.
> >>> Curious whether there are any technical glitches which are impediment
> in
> >>> bringing these features to the main branch. Wondering if any help can
> help
> >>> to get those problems fixed.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Sourav
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi guys,
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be prerequisites of
> >>>> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those features as a
> >>>> graduation goal.
> >>>>
> >>>> Including specific features could be valid concern for release
> >>> discussion,
> >>>> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in apache way, in
> my
> >>>> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a graduation
> vote
> >>>> is, because of there were valid concern about contribution impasse.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution guide and
> review
> >>>> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many
> contributions
> >>>> that they have been as a open PR for a long time. (Especially Jongyoul
> >>> and
> >>>> Felix helped a lot)
> >>>>
> >>>> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be included' to
> the
> >>>> release / roadmap discussion.
> >>>> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an discussions, such as
> >>>> evaluating
> >>>
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
> >>>> etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> moon
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was not
> >>>> withdrawn
> >>>>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some feedback
> from
> >>>> the
> >>>>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And that's
> the
> >>>>> last public discussion about graduation until today.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the discussion
> >>> emails
> >>>>> that you're referring to.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Eran,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Could you please check my previous reply about release schedulle and
> >>>> let
> >>>>> us
> >>>>>> know if that makes sense to you?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here, but
> >>> after
> >>>>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have
> >>>> pre-request
> >>>>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal
> >>>> procedure
> >>>>> of
> >>>>>> graduation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [1]
> >>>
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite for
> >>>>> graduation
> >>>>>>> from day one.
> >>>>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
> >>>>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
> >>>>>>> Eran
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
> >>>>> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in
> >>>>> different
> >>>>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate it
> >>> to
> >>>>> top
> >>>>>>>> level.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and
> >>> Authentication
> >>>>>>> added
> >>>>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the people
> >>>> are
> >>>>>>>> eagerly waiting for.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>> Sourav
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> >>>>>>>>> Let's start a vote.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>> moon
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <
> >>> bzz@apache.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like
> >>> to
> >>>>>>>>> suggest
> >>>>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level
> >>>>>>> project.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE
> >>>>>>> thread
> >>>>>>>>>> here.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Alex
> >>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Jakob Homan <jg...@gmail.com>.
Hey all-
A data point and observation from an ASF Member and Incubator PMC Member...
Moon is correct that readiness for graduation is a function of
community development and adherence to the Apache Way, rather any
specific feature or tech milestones. Since entering Incubator,
Zeppelin's had two relatively easy releases, has finished the
incubation checklist
(http://incubator.apache.org/projects/zeppelin.html), has added new
commiters, etc. In short, Zeppelin's in a good position to graduate
from my perspective.
Resolution of specific PRs should be handled in a speedy matter,
but there doesn't seem to be any disagreement to that - just some work
left to be done in getting them in.
-Jakob
On 3 February 2016 at 23:39, Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see a point to splitting it. The reason we didn't merge in December is that bugs in CI prevented the tests *in* 208 from functioning. It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now CI is broken for the project anyway. If it was going to be split, I would do that myself.
>
> The reliability of the code has been proven in the field: People who don't use R have switched to the version of 208 in my repo because it compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
>
> This has been outstanding since August, and it's very hard to understand a reason - you even participated in a Meetup in September where a variant of the code in the PR was used as a demonstration of Zeppelin's capabilities and potential.
>
> Part of being an Apache project is dealing with significant PRs from outside the core development team. Addressing these issues for R, and Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of project maturity. These were features on the roadmap which were supposed to be included before the first non-beta release.
>
>> On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion and very valuable opinion.
>>
>> I completely agree how much R and Authentication (which i believe already
>> in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And believe me, I want these
>> features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
>>
>> But at the same time we have diversity of user bases.
>> Some people might think supporting general JDBC is more practical and more
>> useful feature, the other can think multi-tenancy is the most important,
>> etc, etc.
>>
>> So, i believe Apache Top Level project is defined by how community works,
>> not defined by what feature does the software includes.
>>
>> Regarding bringing R into main branch, I tried to make pr208 passes the CI.
>> I could able to make it pass 1 test profile, but couldn't make it pass all
>> other test profiles.
>>
>> I'm suggesting split the contribution into smaller peaces and merge one by
>> one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution of Shiro security integration
>> (pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208 into smaller PRs.
>>
>> Best,
>> moon
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav Mazumder <so...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This does make sense Moon. Completely agree with you that features are not
>>> important for becoming a top level project
>>>
>>> However, in my opinion, from the practical usage standpoint, without these
>>> two features Zeppelin does not look to me a full fledged top level project.
>>> Curious whether there are any technical glitches which are impediment in
>>> bringing these features to the main branch. Wondering if any help can help
>>> to get those problems fixed.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Sourav
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>
>>>> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be prerequisites of
>>>> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those features as a
>>>> graduation goal.
>>>>
>>>> Including specific features could be valid concern for release
>>> discussion,
>>>> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
>>>>
>>>> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in apache way, in my
>>>> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a graduation vote
>>>> is, because of there were valid concern about contribution impasse.
>>>>
>>>> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution guide and review
>>>> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many contributions
>>>> that they have been as a open PR for a long time. (Especially Jongyoul
>>> and
>>>> Felix helped a lot)
>>>>
>>>> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be included' to the
>>>> release / roadmap discussion.
>>>> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an discussions, such as
>>>> evaluating
>>> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> moon
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was not
>>>> withdrawn
>>>>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some feedback from
>>>> the
>>>>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And that's the
>>>>> last public discussion about graduation until today.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the discussion
>>> emails
>>>>> that you're referring to.
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Eran,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you please check my previous reply about release schedulle and
>>>> let
>>>>> us
>>>>>> know if that makes sense to you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here, but
>>> after
>>>>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have
>>>> pre-request
>>>>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal
>>>> procedure
>>>>> of
>>>>>> graduation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite for
>>>>> graduation
>>>>>>> from day one.
>>>>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
>>>>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
>>>>>>> Eran
>>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
>>>>> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in
>>>>> different
>>>>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate it
>>> to
>>>>> top
>>>>>>>> level.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and
>>> Authentication
>>>>>>> added
>>>>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the people
>>>> are
>>>>>>>> eagerly waiting for.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Sourav
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
>>>>>>>>> Let's start a vote.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> moon
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <
>>> bzz@apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like
>>> to
>>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level
>>>>>>> project.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE
>>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
What is 'first non-beta release' are you referring?
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:39 PM Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see a point to splitting it. The reason we didn't merge in
> December is that bugs in CI prevented the tests *in* 208 from functioning.
> It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now CI is broken for the project
> anyway. If it was going to be split, I would do that myself.
>
> The reliability of the code has been proven in the field: People who don't
> use R have switched to the version of 208 in my repo because it compiles
> reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
>
> This has been outstanding since August, and it's very hard to understand a
> reason - you even participated in a Meetup in September where a variant of
> the code in the PR was used as a demonstration of Zeppelin's capabilities
> and potential.
>
> Part of being an Apache project is dealing with significant PRs from
> outside the core development team. Addressing these issues for R, and
> Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of project maturity. These were
> features on the roadmap which were supposed to be included before the first
> non-beta release.
>
> > On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion and very valuable opinion.
> >
> > I completely agree how much R and Authentication (which i believe already
> > in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And believe me, I want these
> > features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
> >
> > But at the same time we have diversity of user bases.
> > Some people might think supporting general JDBC is more practical and
> more
> > useful feature, the other can think multi-tenancy is the most important,
> > etc, etc.
> >
> > So, i believe Apache Top Level project is defined by how community works,
> > not defined by what feature does the software includes.
> >
> > Regarding bringing R into main branch, I tried to make pr208 passes the
> CI.
> > I could able to make it pass 1 test profile, but couldn't make it pass
> all
> > other test profiles.
> >
> > I'm suggesting split the contribution into smaller peaces and merge one
> by
> > one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution of Shiro security
> integration
> > (pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208 into smaller PRs.
> >
> > Best,
> > moon
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav Mazumder <
> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> This does make sense Moon. Completely agree with you that features are
> not
> >> important for becoming a top level project
> >>
> >> However, in my opinion, from the practical usage standpoint, without
> these
> >> two features Zeppelin does not look to me a full fledged top level
> project.
> >> Curious whether there are any technical glitches which are impediment in
> >> bringing these features to the main branch. Wondering if any help can
> help
> >> to get those problems fixed.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Sourav
> >>
> >>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi guys,
> >>>
> >>> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be prerequisites of
> >>> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those features as a
> >>> graduation goal.
> >>>
> >>> Including specific features could be valid concern for release
> >> discussion,
> >>> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
> >>>
> >>> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in apache way, in
> my
> >>> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a graduation
> vote
> >>> is, because of there were valid concern about contribution impasse.
> >>>
> >>> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution guide and
> review
> >>> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many
> contributions
> >>> that they have been as a open PR for a long time. (Especially Jongyoul
> >> and
> >>> Felix helped a lot)
> >>>
> >>> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be included' to
> the
> >>> release / roadmap discussion.
> >>> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an discussions, such as
> >>> evaluating
> >>
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
> >>> etc.
> >>>
> >>> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> moon
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was not
> >>> withdrawn
> >>>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some feedback
> from
> >>> the
> >>>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And that's
> the
> >>>> last public discussion about graduation until today.
> >>>>
> >>>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the discussion
> >> emails
> >>>> that you're referring to.
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Eran,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Could you please check my previous reply about release schedulle and
> >>> let
> >>>> us
> >>>>> know if that makes sense to you?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here, but
> >> after
> >>>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have
> >>> pre-request
> >>>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal
> >>> procedure
> >>>> of
> >>>>> graduation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [1]
> >>
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite for
> >>>> graduation
> >>>>>> from day one.
> >>>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
> >>>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
> >>>>>> Eran
> >>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
> >>>> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in
> >>>> different
> >>>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate it
> >> to
> >>>> top
> >>>>>>> level.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and
> >> Authentication
> >>>>>> added
> >>>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the people
> >>> are
> >>>>>>> eagerly waiting for.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>> Sourav
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> >>>>>>>> Let's start a vote.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>> moon
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <
> >> bzz@apache.org
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like
> >> to
> >>>>>>>> suggest
> >>>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level
> >>>>>> project.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE
> >>>>>> thread
> >>>>>>>>> here.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Alex
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by "Amos B. Elberg" <am...@gmail.com>.
I don't see a point to splitting it. The reason we didn't merge in December is that bugs in CI prevented the tests *in* 208 from functioning. It wasn't causing anything else to fail. Now CI is broken for the project anyway. If it was going to be split, I would do that myself.
The reliability of the code has been proven in the field: People who don't use R have switched to the version of 208 in my repo because it compiles reliably when 0.5.6 does not.
This has been outstanding since August, and it's very hard to understand a reason - you even participated in a Meetup in September where a variant of the code in the PR was used as a demonstration of Zeppelin's capabilities and potential.
Part of being an Apache project is dealing with significant PRs from outside the core development team. Addressing these issues for R, and Prasad's PR, seems like a good test of project maturity. These were features on the roadmap which were supposed to be included before the first non-beta release.
> On Feb 4, 2016, at 12:50 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion and very valuable opinion.
>
> I completely agree how much R and Authentication (which i believe already
> in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And believe me, I want these
> features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
>
> But at the same time we have diversity of user bases.
> Some people might think supporting general JDBC is more practical and more
> useful feature, the other can think multi-tenancy is the most important,
> etc, etc.
>
> So, i believe Apache Top Level project is defined by how community works,
> not defined by what feature does the software includes.
>
> Regarding bringing R into main branch, I tried to make pr208 passes the CI.
> I could able to make it pass 1 test profile, but couldn't make it pass all
> other test profiles.
>
> I'm suggesting split the contribution into smaller peaces and merge one by
> one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution of Shiro security integration
> (pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208 into smaller PRs.
>
> Best,
> moon
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav Mazumder <so...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This does make sense Moon. Completely agree with you that features are not
>> important for becoming a top level project
>>
>> However, in my opinion, from the practical usage standpoint, without these
>> two features Zeppelin does not look to me a full fledged top level project.
>> Curious whether there are any technical glitches which are impediment in
>> bringing these features to the main branch. Wondering if any help can help
>> to get those problems fixed.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sourav
>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be prerequisites of
>>> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those features as a
>>> graduation goal.
>>>
>>> Including specific features could be valid concern for release
>> discussion,
>>> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
>>>
>>> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in apache way, in my
>>> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a graduation vote
>>> is, because of there were valid concern about contribution impasse.
>>>
>>> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution guide and review
>>> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many contributions
>>> that they have been as a open PR for a long time. (Especially Jongyoul
>> and
>>> Felix helped a lot)
>>>
>>> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be included' to the
>>> release / roadmap discussion.
>>> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an discussions, such as
>>> evaluating
>> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> moon
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was not
>>> withdrawn
>>>> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some feedback from
>>> the
>>>> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And that's the
>>>> last public discussion about graduation until today.
>>>>
>>>> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the discussion
>> emails
>>>> that you're referring to.
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Eran,
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you please check my previous reply about release schedulle and
>>> let
>>>> us
>>>>> know if that makes sense to you?
>>>>>
>>>>> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here, but
>> after
>>>>> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have
>>> pre-request
>>>>> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal
>>> procedure
>>>> of
>>>>> graduation.
>>>>>
>>>>> [1]
>> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite for
>>>> graduation
>>>>>> from day one.
>>>>>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
>>>>>> +1 for graduation after we add both
>>>>>> Eran
>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
>>>> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in
>>>> different
>>>>>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate it
>> to
>>>> top
>>>>>>> level.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and
>> Authentication
>>>>>> added
>>>>>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the people
>>> are
>>>>>>> eagerly waiting for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Sourav
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
>>>>>>>> Let's start a vote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>> moon
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <
>> bzz@apache.org
>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like
>> to
>>>>>>>> suggest
>>>>>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level
>>>>>> project.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE
>>>>>> thread
>>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you guys think?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Alex
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
Thanks Sourav for interest in this discussion and very valuable opinion.
I completely agree how much R and Authentication (which i believe already
in Zeppelin) will be useful for users. And believe me, I want these
features in Zeppelin more than anyone.
But at the same time we have diversity of user bases.
Some people might think supporting general JDBC is more practical and more
useful feature, the other can think multi-tenancy is the most important,
etc, etc.
So, i believe Apache Top Level project is defined by how community works,
not defined by what feature does the software includes.
Regarding bringing R into main branch, I tried to make pr208 passes the CI.
I could able to make it pass 1 test profile, but couldn't make it pass all
other test profiles.
I'm suggesting split the contribution into smaller peaces and merge one by
one. Like Hayssam did it for his contribution of Shiro security integration
(pr586). And I'm volunteering making pr208 into smaller PRs.
Best,
moon
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:11 PM Sourav Mazumder <so...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> This does make sense Moon. Completely agree with you that features are not
> important for becoming a top level project
>
> However, in my opinion, from the practical usage standpoint, without these
> two features Zeppelin does not look to me a full fledged top level project.
> Curious whether there are any technical glitches which are impediment in
> bringing these features to the main branch. Wondering if any help can help
> to get those problems fixed.
>
> Regards,
> Sourav
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be prerequisites of
> > graduation. Especially when a project never setup those features as a
> > graduation goal.
> >
> > Including specific features could be valid concern for release
> discussion,
> > but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
> >
> > Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in apache way, in my
> > understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a graduation vote
> > is, because of there were valid concern about contribution impasse.
> >
> > Since that, community improved / clarified contribution guide and review
> > process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many contributions
> > that they have been as a open PR for a long time. (Especially Jongyoul
> and
> > Felix helped a lot)
> >
> > So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be included' to the
> > release / roadmap discussion.
> > In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an discussions, such as
> > evaluating
> >
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
> > etc.
> >
> > Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > moon
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was not
> > withdrawn
> > > in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some feedback from
> > the
> > > mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And that's the
> > > last public discussion about graduation until today.
> > >
> > > Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the discussion
> emails
> > > that you're referring to.
> > >
> > > > On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Eran,
> > > >
> > > > thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> > > >
> > > > Could you please check my previous reply about release schedulle and
> > let
> > > us
> > > > know if that makes sense to you?
> > > >
> > > > By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here, but
> after
> > > > reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have
> > pre-request
> > > > regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal
> > procedure
> > > of
> > > > graduation.
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> > > >
> > > >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite for
> > > graduation
> > > >> from day one.
> > > >> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
> > > >> +1 for graduation after we add both
> > > >> Eran
> > > >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
> > > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in
> > > different
> > > >>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate it
> to
> > > top
> > > >>> level.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and
> Authentication
> > > >> added
> > > >>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the people
> > are
> > > >>> eagerly waiting for.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Regards,
> > > >>> Sourav
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> > > >>>> Let's start a vote.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Best,
> > > >>>> moon
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <
> bzz@apache.org
> > >
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like
> to
> > > >>>> suggest
> > > >>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level
> > > >> project.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE
> > > >> thread
> > > >>>>> here.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> What do you guys think?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> --
> > > >>>>> Alex
> > > >>
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Sourav Mazumder <so...@gmail.com>.
This does make sense Moon. Completely agree with you that features are not
important for becoming a top level project
However, in my opinion, from the practical usage standpoint, without these
two features Zeppelin does not look to me a full fledged top level project.
Curious whether there are any technical glitches which are impediment in
bringing these features to the main branch. Wondering if any help can help
to get those problems fixed.
Regards,
Sourav
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:22 PM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be prerequisites of
> graduation. Especially when a project never setup those features as a
> graduation goal.
>
> Including specific features could be valid concern for release discussion,
> but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
>
> Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in apache way, in my
> understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a graduation vote
> is, because of there were valid concern about contribution impasse.
>
> Since that, community improved / clarified contribution guide and review
> process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many contributions
> that they have been as a open PR for a long time. (Especially Jongyoul and
> Felix helped a lot)
>
> So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be included' to the
> release / roadmap discussion.
> In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an discussions, such as
> evaluating
> http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
> etc.
>
> Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
>
> Thanks,
> moon
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was not
> withdrawn
> > in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some feedback from
> the
> > mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And that's the
> > last public discussion about graduation until today.
> >
> > Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the discussion emails
> > that you're referring to.
> >
> > > On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Eran,
> > >
> > > thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> > >
> > > Could you please check my previous reply about release schedulle and
> let
> > us
> > > know if that makes sense to you?
> > >
> > > By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here, but after
> > > reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have
> pre-request
> > > regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal
> procedure
> > of
> > > graduation.
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> >
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite for
> > graduation
> > >> from day one.
> > >> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
> > >> +1 for graduation after we add both
> > >> Eran
> > >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
> > sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in
> > different
> > >>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate it to
> > top
> > >>> level.
> > >>>
> > >>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and Authentication
> > >> added
> > >>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the people
> are
> > >>> eagerly waiting for.
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>> Sourav
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> > >>>> Let's start a vote.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best,
> > >>>> moon
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <bzz@apache.org
> >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like to
> > >>>> suggest
> > >>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level
> > >> project.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE
> > >> thread
> > >>>>> here.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> What do you guys think?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> Alex
> > >>
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
Hi guys,
I don't think any feature (R or whatever) should be prerequisites of
graduation. Especially when a project never setup those features as a
graduation goal.
Including specific features could be valid concern for release discussion,
but i don't think it's related to a graduation.
Graduation is much more like if project is doing it in apache way, in my
understanding. Last time the reason why i didn't go for a graduation vote
is, because of there were valid concern about contribution impasse.
Since that, community improved / clarified contribution guide and review
process. And Zeppelin PPMC members were trying to help many contributions
that they have been as a open PR for a long time. (Especially Jongyoul and
Felix helped a lot)
So, let's move discussions like 'which feature should be included' to the
release / roadmap discussion.
In the graduation discussion, i'd like to have an discussions, such as
evaluating
http://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html,
etc.
Does this make sense for you guys? Amos, Eran, Sourav?
Thanks,
moon
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 8:05 AM Amos B. Elberg <am...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was not withdrawn
> in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some feedback from the
> mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And that's the
> last public discussion about graduation until today.
>
> Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the discussion emails
> that you're referring to.
>
> > On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Eran,
> >
> > thanks for sharing your oppinion!
> >
> > Could you please check my previous reply about release schedulle and let
> us
> > know if that makes sense to you?
> >
> > By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here, but after
> > reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have pre-request
> > regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal procedure
> of
> > graduation.
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
> >
> >> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite for
> graduation
> >> from day one.
> >> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
> >> +1 for graduation after we add both
> >> Eran
> >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <
> sourav.mazumder00@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in
> different
> >>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate it to
> top
> >>> level.
> >>>
> >>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and Authentication
> >> added
> >>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the people are
> >>> eagerly waiting for.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Sourav
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> >>>> Let's start a vote.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>> moon
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like to
> >>>> suggest
> >>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level
> >> project.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE
> >> thread
> >>>>> here.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What do you guys think?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Alex
> >>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by "Amos B. Elberg" <am...@gmail.com>.
No Eran is right. The last vote for graduation passed-it was not withdrawn in favor of releasing 0.5.6. It passed and there was some feedback from the mentors concerning graduation, R, and some other issues. And that's the last public discussion about graduation until today.
Alex if you disagree with that do you have links to the discussion emails that you're referring to.
> On Feb 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Eran,
>
> thanks for sharing your oppinion!
>
> Could you please check my previous reply about release schedulle and let us
> know if that makes sense to you?
>
> By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here, but after
> reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have pre-request
> regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal procedure of
> graduation.
>
> [1]
> http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
>
>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite for graduation
>> from day one.
>> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
>> +1 for graduation after we add both
>> Eran
>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <so...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in different
>>> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate it to top
>>> level.
>>>
>>> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and Authentication
>> added
>>> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the people are
>>> eagerly waiting for.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Sourav
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
>>>> Let's start a vote.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> moon
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Zeppelin developers,
>>>>>
>>>>> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like to
>>>> suggest
>>>>> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level
>> project.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE
>> thread
>>>>> here.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you guys think?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Alex
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>.
Hi Eran,
thanks for sharing your oppinion!
Could you please check my previous reply about release schedulle and let us
know if that makes sense to you?
By the way, please our mentors correct me if I'm wrong here, but after
reading [1] I was under impression that project does not have pre-request
regarding its code or features in order to undergo this formal procedure of
graduation.
[1]
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Incubation_Policy.html#Graduating+from+the+Incubator
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 20:04 Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite for graduation
> from day one.
> I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
> +1 for graduation after we add both
> Eran
> On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <so...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in different
> > quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate it to top
> > level.
> >
> > However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and Authentication
> added
> > to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the people are
> > eagerly waiting for.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sourav
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> > > Let's start a vote.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > moon
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Zeppelin developers,
> > > >
> > > > now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like to
> > > suggest
> > > > the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level
> project.
> > > >
> > > > If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE
> thread
> > > > here.
> > > >
> > > > What do you guys think?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Eran Witkon <er...@gmail.com>.
If I recall correctly R support was one of the pre-requisite for graduation
from day one.
I agree that Authentication should be added as well.
+1 for graduation after we add both
Eran
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 at 20:24 Sourav Mazumder <so...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in different
> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate it to top
> level.
>
> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and Authentication added
> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the people are
> eagerly waiting for.
>
> Regards,
> Sourav
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> > Let's start a vote.
> >
> > Best,
> > moon
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Zeppelin developers,
> > >
> > > now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like to
> > suggest
> > > the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level project.
> > >
> > > If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE thread
> > > here.
> > >
> > > What do you guys think?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alex
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>.
Hi Sourav,
thank you for your kind words and support!
>From the previous discussions we came up with a concensus that Zeppelin is
moving from featre based release to time based ones with timeframe of about
3 months. Given that, its reasonable to expect next realase happen around
March and I definitly agree with you that those valuable features belong to
the next release - there is no question about that.
Question of graduation is orthogonal one and in case we can manage it now,
our next March realease, on top of the feauteres that it brings to the
users have a chance also to be a first release without incubating label,
thats it, nothing more.
Please let me know if that makes sense!
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016, 19:24 Sourav Mazumder <so...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in different
> quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate it to top
> level.
>
> However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and Authentication added
> to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the people are
> eagerly waiting for.
>
> Regards,
> Sourav
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> > Let's start a vote.
> >
> > Best,
> > moon
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Zeppelin developers,
> > >
> > > now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like to
> > suggest
> > > the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level project.
> > >
> > > If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE thread
> > > here.
> > >
> > > What do you guys think?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alex
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by Sourav Mazumder <so...@gmail.com>.
Surely I vote for the same. Zeppelin is already very popular in different
quarts of the Spark/Big Data user group. High time to graduate it to top
level.
However, I shall suggest to have the support for R and Authentication added
to Zeppelin before that. These are the supports most of the people are
eagerly waiting for.
Regards,
Sourav
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:23 AM, moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
> Let's start a vote.
>
> Best,
> moon
>
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Dear Zeppelin developers,
> >
> > now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like to
> suggest
> > the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level project.
> >
> > If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE thread
> > here.
> >
> > What do you guys think?
> >
> > --
> > Alex
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Graduate Zeppelin from the Incubator
Posted by moon soo Lee <mo...@apache.org>.
Thanks Alexander for resuming the discussion.
Let's start a vote.
Best,
moon
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:11 PM Alexander Bezzubov <bz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Dear Zeppelin developers,
>
> now, after number of releases and committers grew more I'd like to suggest
> the re-new the discussion of graduating Zeppelin to top level project.
>
> If there are on objections - next step would be to start a VOTE thread
> here.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> --
> Alex
>