You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Eric Yang <ey...@yahoo-inc.com> on 2010/06/21 19:29:55 UTC
[VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Please vote as to whether you think Chukwa should move to Apache incubator.
The proposal is posted at:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ChukwaProposal
Thanks
Regards,
Eric
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by "Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>.
+1
Regards,
Alan
On Jun 21, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Eric Yang wrote:
> Please vote as to whether you think Chukwa should move to Apache incubator.
>
> The proposal is posted at:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ChukwaProposal
>
> Thanks
>
> Regards,
> Eric
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 2:23 AM, Bernd Fondermann
<be...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 19:29, Eric Yang <ey...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>> Please vote as to whether you think Chukwa should move to Apache incubator.
+1
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 19:29, Eric Yang <ey...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> Please vote as to whether you think Chukwa should move to Apache incubator.
>
> The proposal is posted at:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ChukwaProposal
It's best practice to post the full proposal to the list, to have a
snapshot archived.
Chukwa Proposal
Abstract
Chukwa is a log collection and analysis framework base on Hadoop Map/Reduce.
Proposal
Chukwa will develop a open source data collection system for
monitoring large distributed systems. Chukwa is built on top of the
Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS) and Map/Reduce framework and
inherits Hadoop’s scalability and robustness. Chukwa also includes a
flexible and powerful toolkit for displaying, monitoring and analyzing
results to make the best use of the collected data.
Background
Apache Hadoop, lacks a good procedure to monitor and troubleshoot
large distributed systems. Chukwa was initially developed at Yahoo Inc
headed by Mac Yang, Sunnyvale in 2008. Chukwa was designed as a
reference implementation for monitoring large distributed system on
top of Hadoop. Since 2009 major parts of the development comes from
Internet community contribution. Chukwa is current a Hadoop
subproject.
Rationale
The maintainers and developers of Chukwa are interested in joining the
Apache Software Foundation top level project for several reasons:
* Apache provide a great community for open source software
development environment.
* It might open the door for sharing ideas or cooperation with
other Apache projects, such as Avro and Hadoop.
* Chukwa would like to benefit from Apache's infrastructure.
Initial Goals
Though the bulk of Chukwa initial development is complete and the
framework is running stable, there are still some large areas for
future development. Some area we hope to focus on in Apache:
* Improve Chukwa Demux map/reduce Job
* Refine automated log analysis algorithms
* Remove dependency on relational database for reporting
Current Status
Meritocracy
The initial developers are very familiar with meritocratic open source
development, both at Apache and elsewhere. Apache was chosen
specifically because the initial developers want to encourage this
style of development for the project.
Community
Chukwa is used in many organization which are interested in the
advancement of the Chukwa development. Many of these have at least one
developer that joined the Chukwa mailing list and so the mailing list
is the most important communication platform. The Chukwa community
encourages suggestions and contributions from any potential user and
developer.
Core Developers
The initial set of Chukwa committers includes folks from the Hadoop
communities. We have varying degrees of experience with Apache-style
open source development.
Alignment
Chukwa is a framework for Apache Hadoop. This is why Apache Hadoop is
the most important dependency for Chukwa. And Chukwa is also a
particularly good fit for Apache due to integration potential with
other projects specifically Avro and Log4j.
Known Risks
Orphaned products
Most of the active developers would like to become Chukwa Committers
or PMC Members and have long term interest to develop/maintain and use
the code.
Inexperience with Open Source
Chukwa was started as an open source contribute project to Hadoop in
2008. Many of the committers have experience working on open source
projects and there are also at least one developer which has
experience as committer on other Apache projects.
Homogenous Developers
As mentioned above, the current list of committers includes developers
from at least two different companies plus many independent
volunteers.
Reliance on Salaried Developers
At this time, many of the code comes from different companies like RAD
Lab. Because RAD Lab is a research facility, many of the work is done
by students working on their diploma thesis.
Relationships with Other Apache Products
At this time, the only dependency to other Apache projects is Apache
Hadoop. When dependency on relational database is removed, Avro will
become the standard serialization framework for Chukwa.
A Excessive Fascination with the Apache Brand
The Chukwa project exist quite successful on their own and could
continue on that path with no problems at all. We expect the Apache
top level project brand could help to increase the visibility of the
project and so maybe more developers could be interested in the
project.
Documentation
*
The existing project page could be found here:
http://hadoop.apache.org/chukwa
*
The Chukwa Architecture:
http://hadoop.apache.org/chukwa/docs/current/design.html
*
The Chukwa mailing list with archive:
http://hadoop.apache.org/chukwa/mailing_lists.html
Initial Source
Source and Intellectual Property Submission Plan
The complete Chukwa code is under Apache Software License 2. The
complete codebase is already hosted in ASF Repository.
External Dependencies
The dependencies all have Apache compatible licenses. These include
BSD, CDDL, and MIT licensed dependencies.
Cryptography
None
Required Resources
Mailing lists
* dev AT chukwa DOT apache DOT org
* commits AT chukwa DOT apache DOT org
* user AT chukwa DOT apache DOT org
* private AT chukwa DOT apache DOT org
Subversion Directory
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/chukwa
Issue Tracking
JIRA CHUKWA
Initial Committers
* Jerome Boulon (jboulon AT apache DOT org)
* Chris Douglas (cdouglas AT apache DOT org)
* Bill Graham (billgraham AT gmail DOT com)
* Ari Rabkin (asrabkin AT apache DOT org)
* Jiaqi Tan (tanjiaqi AT gmail DOT com)
* Eric Yang (eyang AT apache DOT org)
Affiliations
* Jerome Boulon (Netflix)
* Chris Douglas (Yahoo Inc)
* Bill Graham (CBS Interactive)
* Owen O'Malley (Yahoo Inc)
* Ari Rabkin (RAD Lab)
* Jiaqi Tan (DSO National Laboratories)
* Eric Yang (Yahoo Inc)
Sponsors
Champion
*
Chris Douglas (and Mentor) for the project, (as defined in
http://incubator.apache.org/incubation/Roles_and_Responsibilities.html)
Nominated Mentors
* Chris Douglas
* Owen O'Malley
* William A. Rowe Jr.
Sponsoring Entity
* Incubator
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 23:37, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 6/21/2010 12:29 PM, Eric Yang wrote:
>> Please vote as to whether you think Chukwa should move to Apache incubator.
>>
>> The proposal is posted at:
>>
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ChukwaProposal
>
> +1
+1
Added myself as a mentor.
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 6/21/2010 12:29 PM, Eric Yang wrote:
> Please vote as to whether you think Chukwa should move to Apache incubator.
>
> The proposal is posted at:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ChukwaProposal
+1
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by Owen O'Malley <om...@apache.org>.
On Jun 21, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Eric Yang wrote:
> Please vote as to whether you think Chukwa should move to Apache
> incubator.
>
> The proposal is posted at:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ChukwaProposal
+1
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org>.
On 6/21/10 11:29 AM, Eric Yang wrote:
> Please vote as to whether you think Chukwa should move to Apache incubator.
>
> The proposal is posted at:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ChukwaProposal
>
>
+1 (non-binding).
Cheers,
-- Leif
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
[RESULT 2nd try][VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com>.
Ok, let give this a second try:
I count the following +1:
Chris Mattmann, Alan Cabrera, Bill Rowe, Bernd Fondermann (all binding),
Owen O'Malley (in process of being added to Incubator PMC)
Greg Reddin, Jerome Boulon, Leif Hedstrom (non-binding).
There were no other explicit votes cast.
However, some discussion about going directly to TLP.
Please note that the Hadoop previously voted -1 for letting Chukwa
propose for TLP.
Please check the vote result and speak up now if you disagree with the
tally and making this vote effective.
(Ideally, create new thredads.)
Thanks,
Bernd
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 19:29, Eric Yang <ey...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> Please vote as to whether you think Chukwa should move to Apache incubator.
>
> The proposal is posted at:
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ChukwaProposal
>
> Thanks
>
> Regards,
> Eric
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>.
> I meant, purely in terms of Hadoop putting forward the TLP motion to the
> board, with incubator's endorsement. But let's let options play out and
> find out what incubator recommends first. I wasn't suggesting that Hadoop
> would have some additional responsibilities here, in terms of mentoring or
> otherwise.
Oh I see; sorry, I hadn't parsed that context correctly.
As the Incubator makes its decision, I just want it to be clear that
the Hadoop PMC is no better equipped to make decisions about Chukwa's
leadership or membership. All parties are trying to recover from this
oversight by recommending that Chukwa spend time in the Incubator, to
assemble a community that can discharge that responsibility. It will
likely be a brief stay; all the reasons ant cites are true, with minor
qualifications already raised.
The TLP alternative proposed (1)- adding PMC members not involved in
Chukwa's development, but influencing the project direction and
membership- seems contrary to the spirit the Incubator endeavors to
instill. It will have more autonomy in incubation and an unencumbered
life as a TLP, rather than a protracted semi-incubation period as a
"supervised TLP." -C
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 6/25/2010 12:40 PM, Chris Douglas wrote:
>>
>> But the Incubator doesn't just say yes/no. We can refer this back to Hadoop
>> proposing this as a TLP, and even offer the list of mentors as observers, or
>> members of the initial PMC.
>
> The Hadoop PMC is wholly unqualified to manage Chukwa. It voted to
> recommend it to the Incubator so that it can gather a community
> invested in its future and capable of meaningful consensus on the
> challenges before it. Given that the very direction of the project has
> been raised as an open issue, the benign neglect of the Hadoop PMC is
> not a viable solution. -C
I meant, purely in terms of Hadoop putting forward the TLP motion to the
board, with incubator's endorsement. But let's let options play out and
find out what incubator recommends first. I wasn't suggesting that Hadoop
would have some additional responsibilities here, in terms of mentoring or
otherwise.
Thanks for all the rest of your observations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by Ariel Rabkin <as...@gmail.com>.
I agree with Jerome and Chris. I also would opt for plan #2:
incubation with TLP names.
--Ari
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org> wrote:
> I agree with the analysis from Jerome and Greg. All three of Chukwa's
> current committers are its original contributors. An important- and
> often difficult- part of Apache community is growing and managing the
> developers working on the project. Some experience adding people in
> the Incubator would be valuable to members (both old and new) and
> would result in a quorum less volatile than three.
>
> Given that the team is small and renaming will be expensive and
> tedious, that requirement seems purely punitive. No positive reason
> for it has been raised. So I am +1 (non-binding) for option (2),
> incubation with TLP class naming, but incubation release naming.
--
Ari Rabkin asrabkin@gmail.com
UC Berkeley Computer Science Department
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by Chris Douglas <cd...@apache.org>.
I agree with the analysis from Jerome and Greg. All three of Chukwa's
current committers are its original contributors. An important- and
often difficult- part of Apache community is growing and managing the
developers working on the project. Some experience adding people in
the Incubator would be valuable to members (both old and new) and
would result in a quorum less volatile than three.
Given that the team is small and renaming will be expensive and
tedious, that requirement seems purely punitive. No positive reason
for it has been raised. So I am +1 (non-binding) for option (2),
incubation with TLP class naming, but incubation release naming.
> Yes, it seems that Hadoop PMC should supervise the vote for the chair, with
> a slightly frustrating cc list of all of the actual committers to chukwa.
> That way, nominations and votes for chair are archived on a private list.
>
> But the Incubator doesn't just say yes/no. We can refer this back to Hadoop
> proposing this as a TLP, and even offer the list of mentors as observers, or
> members of the initial PMC.
The Hadoop PMC is wholly unqualified to manage Chukwa. It voted to
recommend it to the Incubator so that it can gather a community
invested in its future and capable of meaningful consensus on the
challenges before it. Given that the very direction of the project has
been raised as an open issue, the benign neglect of the Hadoop PMC is
not a viable solution. -C
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:34 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Yes, it seems that Hadoop PMC should supervise the vote for the chair, with
> a slightly frustrating cc list of all of the actual committers to chukwa.
> That way, nominations and votes for chair are archived on a private list.
>
> But the Incubator doesn't just say yes/no. We can refer this back to Hadoop
> proposing this as a TLP, and even offer the list of mentors as observers, or
> members of the initial PMC.
What do the originators of the proposal think of this direction? It
sounds like they want to be a TLP, but are not sure they are yet
ready. That leaves a burning question in my mind: Why do they feel
they need the Incubator, rather than the Hadoop PMC, to help them
mature into a TLP?
I supported the Incubator proposal as it was written because I'm not
sure Chukwa is getting the mentoring they need in their current home.
I figure the Incubator is a good place to do that. I also support
using the TLP naming because I think the Incubator can give them the
mentoring they need and set them on their way in good time, and I'd
like to avoid an extra renaming step. I would support what Bill has
suggested if it was put to a vote, and honestly, I can't really say if
one direction is preferable over the other. So, for now, I still
support the proposal that has been put to a vote.
Greg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 6/25/2010 3:55 AM, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 21:21, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Is anyone in agreement with ant? Otherwise we should just move ahead
>> and can hold a separate vote on allowing tlp resource creation at this
>> time.
>>
>> If the proposers want (Eric?) a three choice vote, 1. recommend TLP with
>> guides to help the initial pmc, 2. accept incubating with tlp resource
>> naming, but -incubating release naming, or 3. accept incubating requiring
>> all incubator naming conventions, that might help the incubator simplify
>> this decision.
>
> I don't understand. The Hadoop community released a subproject for
> Incubation. The Incubator accepts or denies the proposal.
> In case of denial, the ball is in the Hadoop field again isn't it?
Yes, it seems that Hadoop PMC should supervise the vote for the chair, with
a slightly frustrating cc list of all of the actual committers to chukwa.
That way, nominations and votes for chair are archived on a private list.
But the Incubator doesn't just say yes/no. We can refer this back to Hadoop
proposing this as a TLP, and even offer the list of mentors as observers, or
members of the initial PMC.
>> At this point, I personally guess that 1. might be the most sensible in
>> terms of resource creation and management; it would simply require the
>> group to vote for an initial chair/VP.
>
> Who is "the group"? The list of initial committers? This PMC? The Hadoop PMC?
Group of proposed committers/actual contributors (it is existing code, there
is svn history of who committed).
>> If they are unsure of their group
>> yet, perhaps one of the other mentors would offer to serve as their chair
>> for the first six months, if they rather would do that?
>
> I'm still +1 to do proper Incubation.
If that's the incubator's preference, I don't object, but I'm waiting for more
than five people to be heard on this point of contention. You strongly want
one option, ant strongly wants another, and we've heard few other voices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by Jerome Boulon <jb...@netflix.com>.
Hi,
As one of the initial contributor, I still think that the incubator road is the good one even if it's just for a short period of time.
The incubator will gives us the ability to get some committers outside of the initial group of people and to mature the project.
When we will have reach that point then TLP will make sense but not before that also the incubator road in my mind will help us in getting a better understanding of what our users really need;
Is it a end-to-end product or more an SDK where user can take some part and build their own tools/products?
I'm in favor of the SDK but this still need to be discussed/implemented.
For all of this I vote for the incubator but in order to simplify the transition and for our current users I would like to keep the current naming convention.
+1 incubator but with Chukwa's current naming convention.
/Jerome,
On 6/25/10 1:55 AM, "Bernd Fondermann" <be...@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 21:21, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 6/23/2010 8:12 AM, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 14:45, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> IMHO we should insist on using the incubator naming for the Chukwa
>>> website/svn/MLs because I think Chukwa should just go directly to a
>>> TLP and if they have to use the incubator naming it may help them
>>> decide that the direct to TLP route really is better ;-)
>>
>> I see you blinking here, so I guess this is not just for putting up a
>> strawman ;-)
>
> Well folks, it's a fun debate and all, but it isn't helping bring this
> vote to a conclusion :)
Wasn't the debate started just for the sake of hijacking the vote thread? ;-)
Seriously, [DISCUSS] before [VOTE] is always recommended.
> Is anyone in agreement with ant? Otherwise we should just move ahead
> and can hold a separate vote on allowing tlp resource creation at this
> time.
>
> If the proposers want (Eric?) a three choice vote, 1. recommend TLP with
> guides to help the initial pmc, 2. accept incubating with tlp resource
> naming, but -incubating release naming, or 3. accept incubating requiring
> all incubator naming conventions, that might help the incubator simplify
> this decision.
I don't understand. The Hadoop community released a subproject for
Incubation. The Incubator accepts or denies the proposal.
In case of denial, the ball is in the Hadoop field again isn't it?
> At this point, I personally guess that 1. might be the most sensible in
> terms of resource creation and management; it would simply require the
> group to vote for an initial chair/VP.
Who is "the group"? The list of initial committers? This PMC? The Hadoop PMC?
> If they are unsure of their group
> yet, perhaps one of the other mentors would offer to serve as their chair
> for the first six months, if they rather would do that?
I'm still +1 to do proper Incubation.
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 21:21, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 6/23/2010 8:12 AM, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 14:45, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> IMHO we should insist on using the incubator naming for the Chukwa
>>> website/svn/MLs because I think Chukwa should just go directly to a
>>> TLP and if they have to use the incubator naming it may help them
>>> decide that the direct to TLP route really is better ;-)
>>
>> I see you blinking here, so I guess this is not just for putting up a
>> strawman ;-)
>
> Well folks, it's a fun debate and all, but it isn't helping bring this
> vote to a conclusion :)
Wasn't the debate started just for the sake of hijacking the vote thread? ;-)
Seriously, [DISCUSS] before [VOTE] is always recommended.
> Is anyone in agreement with ant? Otherwise we should just move ahead
> and can hold a separate vote on allowing tlp resource creation at this
> time.
>
> If the proposers want (Eric?) a three choice vote, 1. recommend TLP with
> guides to help the initial pmc, 2. accept incubating with tlp resource
> naming, but -incubating release naming, or 3. accept incubating requiring
> all incubator naming conventions, that might help the incubator simplify
> this decision.
I don't understand. The Hadoop community released a subproject for
Incubation. The Incubator accepts or denies the proposal.
In case of denial, the ball is in the Hadoop field again isn't it?
> At this point, I personally guess that 1. might be the most sensible in
> terms of resource creation and management; it would simply require the
> group to vote for an initial chair/VP.
Who is "the group"? The list of initial committers? This PMC? The Hadoop PMC?
> If they are unsure of their group
> yet, perhaps one of the other mentors would offer to serve as their chair
> for the first six months, if they rather would do that?
I'm still +1 to do proper Incubation.
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:21 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 6/23/2010 8:12 AM, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 14:45, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> IMHO we should insist on using the incubator naming for the Chukwa
>>> website/svn/MLs because I think Chukwa should just go directly to a
>>> TLP and if they have to use the incubator naming it may help them
>>> decide that the direct to TLP route really is better ;-)
>>
>> I see you blinking here, so I guess this is not just for putting up a
>> strawman ;-)
>
> Well folks, it's a fun debate and all, but it isn't helping bring this
> vote to a conclusion :)
>
> Is anyone in agreement with ant? Otherwise we should just move ahead
> and can hold a separate vote on allowing tlp resource creation at this
> time.
>
> If the proposers want (Eric?) a three choice vote, 1. recommend TLP with
> guides to help the initial pmc, 2. accept incubating with tlp resource
> naming, but -incubating release naming, or 3. accept incubating requiring
> all incubator naming conventions, that might help the incubator simplify
> this decision.
>
> At this point, I personally guess that 1. might be the most sensible in
> terms of resource creation and management;
Option 1. sounds most sensible to me too.
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by Ariel Rabkin <as...@gmail.com>.
Hrm.
I think my preference is for 1 or 2. Given that Chukwa already has a
fair bit of infrastructure up and running, seems like fewer renames is
better and would reduce user confusion.
--Ari
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:21 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 6/23/2010 8:12 AM, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 14:45, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> IMHO we should insist on using the incubator naming for the Chukwa
>>> website/svn/MLs because I think Chukwa should just go directly to a
>>> TLP and if they have to use the incubator naming it may help them
>>> decide that the direct to TLP route really is better ;-)
>>
>> I see you blinking here, so I guess this is not just for putting up a
>> strawman ;-)
>
> Well folks, it's a fun debate and all, but it isn't helping bring this
> vote to a conclusion :)
>
> Is anyone in agreement with ant? Otherwise we should just move ahead
> and can hold a separate vote on allowing tlp resource creation at this
> time.
>
> If the proposers want (Eric?) a three choice vote, 1. recommend TLP with
> guides to help the initial pmc, 2. accept incubating with tlp resource
> naming, but -incubating release naming, or 3. accept incubating requiring
> all incubator naming conventions, that might help the incubator simplify
> this decision.
>
> At this point, I personally guess that 1. might be the most sensible in
> terms of resource creation and management; it would simply require the
> group to vote for an initial chair/VP. If they are unsure of their group
> yet, perhaps one of the other mentors would offer to serve as their chair
> for the first six months, if they rather would do that?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Ari Rabkin asrabkin@gmail.com
UC Berkeley Computer Science Department
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by Eric Yang <ey...@yahoo-inc.com>.
+1 for 1.
Regards,
Eric
On 6/24/10 12:21 PM, "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 6/23/2010 8:12 AM, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 14:45, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> IMHO we should insist on using the incubator naming for the Chukwa
>>> website/svn/MLs because I think Chukwa should just go directly to a
>>> TLP and if they have to use the incubator naming it may help them
>>> decide that the direct to TLP route really is better ;-)
>>
>> I see you blinking here, so I guess this is not just for putting up a
>> strawman ;-)
>
> Well folks, it's a fun debate and all, but it isn't helping bring this
> vote to a conclusion :)
>
> Is anyone in agreement with ant? Otherwise we should just move ahead
> and can hold a separate vote on allowing tlp resource creation at this
> time.
>
> If the proposers want (Eric?) a three choice vote, 1. recommend TLP with
> guides to help the initial pmc, 2. accept incubating with tlp resource
> naming, but -incubating release naming, or 3. accept incubating requiring
> all incubator naming conventions, that might help the incubator simplify
> this decision.
>
> At this point, I personally guess that 1. might be the most sensible in
> terms of resource creation and management; it would simply require the
> group to vote for an initial chair/VP. If they are unsure of their group
> yet, perhaps one of the other mentors would offer to serve as their chair
> for the first six months, if they rather would do that?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@apache.org>.
On 6/23/2010 8:12 AM, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 14:45, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> IMHO we should insist on using the incubator naming for the Chukwa
>> website/svn/MLs because I think Chukwa should just go directly to a
>> TLP and if they have to use the incubator naming it may help them
>> decide that the direct to TLP route really is better ;-)
>
> I see you blinking here, so I guess this is not just for putting up a
> strawman ;-)
Well folks, it's a fun debate and all, but it isn't helping bring this
vote to a conclusion :)
Is anyone in agreement with ant? Otherwise we should just move ahead
and can hold a separate vote on allowing tlp resource creation at this
time.
If the proposers want (Eric?) a three choice vote, 1. recommend TLP with
guides to help the initial pmc, 2. accept incubating with tlp resource
naming, but -incubating release naming, or 3. accept incubating requiring
all incubator naming conventions, that might help the incubator simplify
this decision.
At this point, I personally guess that 1. might be the most sensible in
terms of resource creation and management; it would simply require the
group to vote for an initial chair/VP. If they are unsure of their group
yet, perhaps one of the other mentors would offer to serve as their chair
for the first six months, if they rather would do that?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 14:45, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Bernd Fondermann
> <be...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 07:54, Eric Yang <ey...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>>> Besides DOAP file and the incubator nomenclature, I may need help identify
>>> the addition responsibilities for Apache PMC. One problem, Chukwa community
>>> did not have a vote for PMC Chair because we are not sure what is the right
>>> process for this. Meanwhile, I have been writing quarterly report like any
>>> other Apache project, only recipient of the report is different.
>>>
>>> Chukwa releases have been voted by Chukwa community which is similar to
>>> Hadoop releases, and managed incremental changes using patches and
>>> committers. Code audit has been performed by the committers to ensure we
>>> don't bring in license incompatible libraries into Chukwa.
>>>
>>> Owen O'Malley had trained us these procedures roughly two years ago, and we
>>> have been executing the same process ever since.
>>
>> This translate for me into:
>> Chukwa didn't have proper oversight by a PMC (a committee that is, not
>> a single person) at Hadoop.
>> Incubation would fix this using established processes.
>> I think this is the right track, and the people involved, including
>> the Hadoop PMC, ultimatively did the right thing.
>> (Except for not simply growing the Hadoop PMC over time to include
>> committers from every product.)
>>
>>> Chukwa has a community of exist user base of 35 people. It would be nice to
>>> make Chukwa a special case to skip incubator nomenclature. This would ease
>>> the migration path for the existing Chukwa community.
>>
>> Ok with me, at least as far as MLs or SVN are concerned.
>> However, Chukwa must be aware that it is changing PMCs from Hadoop to Incubator.
>> So different rules might apply, like marking release artifacts as "-incubating".
>> Let's gather some more feedback on this.
>>
>
> Most projects that come to incubate would likely prefer to go straight
> to the TLP naming.
Sure they'd prefer to. Terminating the Incubator would be worth its
own thread, though.
> The last time i recall this came up was here:
> http://apache.markmail.org/message/ifinvq7wqmeoo5ix
... which is in the context of Subversion. Subversion is on the other
end of incubating projects, coming from their own solid standalone
ASF-like foundation.
> IMHO we should insist on using the incubator naming for the Chukwa
> website/svn/MLs because I think Chukwa should just go directly to a
> TLP and if they have to use the incubator naming it may help them
> decide that the direct to TLP route really is better ;-)
I see you blinking here, so I guess this is not just for putting up a
strawman ;-)
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Bernd Fondermann
<be...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 07:54, Eric Yang <ey...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
>> Besides DOAP file and the incubator nomenclature, I may need help identify
>> the addition responsibilities for Apache PMC. One problem, Chukwa community
>> did not have a vote for PMC Chair because we are not sure what is the right
>> process for this. Meanwhile, I have been writing quarterly report like any
>> other Apache project, only recipient of the report is different.
>>
>> Chukwa releases have been voted by Chukwa community which is similar to
>> Hadoop releases, and managed incremental changes using patches and
>> committers. Code audit has been performed by the committers to ensure we
>> don't bring in license incompatible libraries into Chukwa.
>>
>> Owen O'Malley had trained us these procedures roughly two years ago, and we
>> have been executing the same process ever since.
>
> This translate for me into:
> Chukwa didn't have proper oversight by a PMC (a committee that is, not
> a single person) at Hadoop.
> Incubation would fix this using established processes.
> I think this is the right track, and the people involved, including
> the Hadoop PMC, ultimatively did the right thing.
> (Except for not simply growing the Hadoop PMC over time to include
> committers from every product.)
>
>> Chukwa has a community of exist user base of 35 people. It would be nice to
>> make Chukwa a special case to skip incubator nomenclature. This would ease
>> the migration path for the existing Chukwa community.
>
> Ok with me, at least as far as MLs or SVN are concerned.
> However, Chukwa must be aware that it is changing PMCs from Hadoop to Incubator.
> So different rules might apply, like marking release artifacts as "-incubating".
> Let's gather some more feedback on this.
>
Most projects that come to incubate would likely prefer to go straight
to the TLP naming.
The last time i recall this came up was here:
http://apache.markmail.org/message/ifinvq7wqmeoo5ix
IMHO we should insist on using the incubator naming for the Chukwa
website/svn/MLs because I think Chukwa should just go directly to a
TLP and if they have to use the incubator naming it may help them
decide that the direct to TLP route really is better ;-)
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com>.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 07:54, Eric Yang <ey...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> Besides DOAP file and the incubator nomenclature, I may need help identify
> the addition responsibilities for Apache PMC. One problem, Chukwa community
> did not have a vote for PMC Chair because we are not sure what is the right
> process for this. Meanwhile, I have been writing quarterly report like any
> other Apache project, only recipient of the report is different.
>
> Chukwa releases have been voted by Chukwa community which is similar to
> Hadoop releases, and managed incremental changes using patches and
> committers. Code audit has been performed by the committers to ensure we
> don't bring in license incompatible libraries into Chukwa.
>
> Owen O'Malley had trained us these procedures roughly two years ago, and we
> have been executing the same process ever since.
This translate for me into:
Chukwa didn't have proper oversight by a PMC (a committee that is, not
a single person) at Hadoop.
Incubation would fix this using established processes.
I think this is the right track, and the people involved, including
the Hadoop PMC, ultimatively did the right thing.
(Except for not simply growing the Hadoop PMC over time to include
committers from every product.)
> Chukwa has a community of exist user base of 35 people. It would be nice to
> make Chukwa a special case to skip incubator nomenclature. This would ease
> the migration path for the existing Chukwa community.
Ok with me, at least as far as MLs or SVN are concerned.
However, Chukwa must be aware that it is changing PMCs from Hadoop to Incubator.
So different rules might apply, like marking release artifacts as "-incubating".
Let's gather some more feedback on this.
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by Eric Yang <ey...@yahoo-inc.com>.
Besides DOAP file and the incubator nomenclature, I may need help identify
the addition responsibilities for Apache PMC. One problem, Chukwa community
did not have a vote for PMC Chair because we are not sure what is the right
process for this. Meanwhile, I have been writing quarterly report like any
other Apache project, only recipient of the report is different.
Chukwa releases have been voted by Chukwa community which is similar to
Hadoop releases, and managed incremental changes using patches and
committers. Code audit has been performed by the committers to ensure we
don't bring in license incompatible libraries into Chukwa.
Owen O'Malley had trained us these procedures roughly two years ago, and we
have been executing the same process ever since.
Chukwa has a community of exist user base of 35 people. It would be nice to
make Chukwa a special case to skip incubator nomenclature. This would ease
the migration path for the existing Chukwa community.
Regards,
Eric
On 6/22/10 7:11 AM, "Greg Reddin" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Bernd Fondermann
> <be...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> IIUC, the only issue right now is that the committers are hesistant to
>> go TLP because they've never been on a PMC before.
>>
>>> The current proposal doesn't use the incubator naming for the mailing
>>> lists and svn location, from past discussions here it should really be
>>> using the incubator naming unless its a very special case. Is this a
>>> special case?
>>
>> Good catch. I think the Incubator nomenclature should apply to Chukwa as
>> well.
>
> It seems to me that it would save everyone some work if they went
> straight with the TLP nomenclature. If they only need a short time in
> the Incubator to learn how to be a PMC, then maybe the Incubator
> nomenclature is not necessary and just creates more work for infra,
> PMC, and users when they graduate.
>
> Greg
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by Greg Reddin <gr...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Bernd Fondermann
<be...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> IIUC, the only issue right now is that the committers are hesistant to
> go TLP because they've never been on a PMC before.
>
>> The current proposal doesn't use the incubator naming for the mailing
>> lists and svn location, from past discussions here it should really be
>> using the incubator naming unless its a very special case. Is this a
>> special case?
>
> Good catch. I think the Incubator nomenclature should apply to Chukwa as well.
It seems to me that it would save everyone some work if they went
straight with the TLP nomenclature. If they only need a short time in
the Incubator to learn how to be a PMC, then maybe the Incubator
nomenclature is not necessary and just creates more work for infra,
PMC, and users when they graduate.
Greg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 09:42, ant elder <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:09 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> On 6/21/2010 1:31 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chukwa has been around for a while now and from my (albeit limited)
>>>> impression, pretty successful. What's the rationale for going the
>>>> Incubator route rather than putting up a Board TLP resolution? Just
>>>> wanted to check, thanks guys!
>>>
>>> The problem is that none of the Chukwa PMC members have been on any
>>> Apache PMCs before. My belief is that having training wheels for a bit
>>> would be a good thing.
>>
>> And the podling's committee itself seeks the extra guidance as they become
>> a self-managing committee, so the mentors all agreed with this proposal.
>> If anything, it makes checking off the graduation matrix much simpler as
>> they are already committers, we already have the IP vetting when the code
>> came into Hadoop. We should obviously re-review the grants and trademark
>> assignments during incubation.
>>
>
> I'm not totally convinced by that reasoning, wouldn't it be simpler to
> just go directly to TLP and have those listed here as mentors agree to
> help out by being on the initial PMC?
Maybe simpler, but better?
I've only been involved in this process since yesterday or so, but I
trust those who set out going the Incubator road.
And the project doesn't loose anything with following it, even if it's a detour.
The Incubator has more eyeballs than any other PMC and has tools to
prepare projects to go TLP.
We have far more projects eager to go TLP ASAP without properly
preparing their PMCness than those openly saying we want to learn how
to do it right first.
> If it does incubate what would be delaying its graduation? Its already
> got everything we list in the incubator docs - diverse committers,
> done several releases etc.
IIUC, the only issue right now is that the committers are hesistant to
go TLP because they've never been on a PMC before.
> The current proposal doesn't use the incubator naming for the mailing
> lists and svn location, from past discussions here it should really be
> using the incubator naming unless its a very special case. Is this a
> special case?
Good catch. I think the Incubator nomenclature should apply to Chukwa as well.
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 6/22/2010 2:42 AM, ant elder wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:09 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
> <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>> On 6/21/2010 1:31 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chukwa has been around for a while now and from my (albeit limited)
>>>> impression, pretty successful. What's the rationale for going the
>>>> Incubator route rather than putting up a Board TLP resolution? Just
>>>> wanted to check, thanks guys!
>>>
>>> The problem is that none of the Chukwa PMC members have been on any
>>> Apache PMCs before. My belief is that having training wheels for a bit
>>> would be a good thing.
>>
>> And the podling's committee itself seeks the extra guidance as they become
>> a self-managing committee, so the mentors all agreed with this proposal.
>> If anything, it makes checking off the graduation matrix much simpler as
>> they are already committers, we already have the IP vetting when the code
>> came into Hadoop. We should obviously re-review the grants and trademark
>> assignments during incubation.
>>
>
> I'm not totally convinced by that reasoning, wouldn't it be simpler to
> just go directly to TLP and have those listed here as mentors agree to
> help out by being on the initial PMC?
>
> If it does incubate what would be delaying its graduation? Its already
> got everything we list in the incubator docs - diverse committers,
> done several releases etc.
>
> The current proposal doesn't use the incubator naming for the mailing
> lists and svn location, from past discussions here it should really be
> using the incubator naming unless its a very special case. Is this a
> special case?
If that is the desire of the incubator, to refer this project to a TLP,
I'm happy to serve on that pmc for the first 6 mos - 1 yr, whatever it
takes for the project to become comfortable with all of the aspects.
Note these committers were not hadoop pmc members, in fact it was this
disjoint arrangement that pointed out the need to fork this subproject
into its own entity, under the direction of its own community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by ant elder <an...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 8:09 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 6/21/2010 1:31 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>>
>>> Chukwa has been around for a while now and from my (albeit limited)
>>> impression, pretty successful. What's the rationale for going the
>>> Incubator route rather than putting up a Board TLP resolution? Just
>>> wanted to check, thanks guys!
>>
>> The problem is that none of the Chukwa PMC members have been on any
>> Apache PMCs before. My belief is that having training wheels for a bit
>> would be a good thing.
>
> And the podling's committee itself seeks the extra guidance as they become
> a self-managing committee, so the mentors all agreed with this proposal.
> If anything, it makes checking off the graduation matrix much simpler as
> they are already committers, we already have the IP vetting when the code
> came into Hadoop. We should obviously re-review the grants and trademark
> assignments during incubation.
>
I'm not totally convinced by that reasoning, wouldn't it be simpler to
just go directly to TLP and have those listed here as mentors agree to
help out by being on the initial PMC?
If it does incubate what would be delaying its graduation? Its already
got everything we list in the incubator docs - diverse committers,
done several releases etc.
The current proposal doesn't use the incubator naming for the mailing
lists and svn location, from past discussions here it should really be
using the incubator naming unless its a very special case. Is this a
special case?
...ant
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 6/21/2010 1:31 PM, Owen O'Malley wrote:
>
> On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
>
>> Chukwa has been around for a while now and from my (albeit limited)
>> impression, pretty successful. What's the rationale for going the
>> Incubator route rather than putting up a Board TLP resolution? Just
>> wanted to check, thanks guys!
>
> The problem is that none of the Chukwa PMC members have been on any
> Apache PMCs before. My belief is that having training wheels for a bit
> would be a good thing.
And the podling's committee itself seeks the extra guidance as they become
a self-managing committee, so the mentors all agreed with this proposal.
If anything, it makes checking off the graduation matrix much simpler as
they are already committers, we already have the IP vetting when the code
came into Hadoop. We should obviously re-review the grants and trademark
assignments during incubation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hey Owen,
+1, sounds good.
Cheers,
Chris
On 6/21/10 11:31 AM, "Owen O'Malley" <om...@apache.org> wrote:
On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Chukwa has been around for a while now and from my (albeit limited)
> impression, pretty successful. What's the rationale for going the
> Incubator route rather than putting up a Board TLP resolution? Just
> wanted to check, thanks guys!
The problem is that none of the Chukwa PMC members have been on any
Apache PMCs before. My belief is that having training wheels for a bit
would be a good thing.
-- Owen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: Chris.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by Owen O'Malley <om...@apache.org>.
On Jun 21, 2010, at 11:06 AM, Mattmann, Chris A (388J) wrote:
> Chukwa has been around for a while now and from my (albeit limited)
> impression, pretty successful. What's the rationale for going the
> Incubator route rather than putting up a Board TLP resolution? Just
> wanted to check, thanks guys!
The problem is that none of the Chukwa PMC members have been on any
Apache PMCs before. My belief is that having training wheels for a bit
would be a good thing.
-- Owen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: [VOTE] Move Chukwa to incubator
Posted by "Mattmann, Chris A (388J)" <ch...@jpl.nasa.gov>.
Hey Guys,
Chukwa has been around for a while now and from my (albeit limited) impression, pretty successful. What's the rationale for going the Incubator route rather than putting up a Board TLP resolution? Just wanted to check, thanks guys!
Cheers,
Chris
On 6/21/10 10:29 AM, "Eric Yang" <ey...@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
Please vote as to whether you think Chukwa should move to Apache incubator.
The proposal is posted at:
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ChukwaProposal
Thanks
Regards,
Eric
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Senior Computer Scientist
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 171-266B, Mailstop: 171-246
Email: Chris.Mattmann@jpl.nasa.gov
WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++