You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openwhisk.apache.org by Matt Rutkowski <mr...@apache.org> on 2018/06/05 17:51:32 UTC
Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
Whiskers,
I have drafted our project board report for this quarter (June); I plan to post it tomorrow to the board's Wiki; please review and comment here or on our CWiki:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=85475755
Thanks,
Matt
PS message me if you need CWiki access
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
Posted by Chetan Mehrotra <ch...@gmail.com>.
> address 2 things that MAY make public PGs easier 1) get all private PG
> tests into open (and never see another private PG reference anywhere) and
> parallelize these tests in Travis (as much as possible) 2) Author criteria
If PG test code can be moved to public github then it should be
possible to add another job in travis to run those test in parallel.
So far we have 3 jobs run in parallel
Chetan Mehrotra
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board
report
Posted by Michael Marth <mm...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Hi,
I have a small update on the below. Will add to the original thread.
Michael
On 06.06.18, 15:24, "Bertrand Delacretaz" <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Matt Rutkowski <mr...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> ...We recently had a public (and private threads) around "models" for
> donation at Apache which went no where...
IIUC you mean donating resources for automated testing?
The ASF now has a Targeted Sponsors [1] program meant specifically for that.
If you think that's not useful, or if there are obstacles, I'm happy
to help figure out how to fix that. Ideally here or on private lists
if really required.
-Bertrand
[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:28 PM, Matt Rutkowski <mr...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> ...We recently had a public (and private threads) around "models" for
> donation at Apache which went no where...
IIUC you mean donating resources for automated testing?
The ASF now has a Targeted Sponsors [1] program meant specifically for that.
If you think that's not useful, or if there are obstacles, I'm happy
to help figure out how to fix that. Ideally here or on private lists
if really required.
-Bertrand
[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/thanks.html
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
Posted by Matt Rutkowski <mr...@us.ibm.com>.
Thx Rodric,
>> 1. "We have explored a corporate donation as suggested (ala Spark and
>> SystemML), but this does not seem possible at this time." I'm curious
if
>> there are details about the size of the donation that's required (if
this
>> is for the private list, I can start a thread there).
We recently had a public (and private threads) around "models" for
donation at Apache which went no where... My personal forays in addition
that are mainly what I am reflecting upon in the above statements. I
would feel better about talking about corporate donations (and the
history) on private to be honest. It is my hope that we can work to
address 2 things that MAY make public PGs easier 1) get all private PG
tests into open (and never see another private PG reference anywhere) and
parallelize these tests in Travis (as much as possible) 2) Author criteria
/ steps for running a PG and referencing on a PR (as evidence of passage).
These two general steps seem to be supported by my previous discussions
both within and outside IBM.
>> 2. "*100% of release candidate source code has Apache 2 license
headers*"
>> this is great, thanks to you and your team for a lot of this work, I've
>> noticed the tireless pull requests. Do you expect we will call for a
vote
>> on a release candidate soon - are we ready?
Almost. First, massive kudos to Vincent for all his work in automating
and documenting process in our releae repo. For the record, I am reviewing
the draft letter which would be sent to the Incubator PMC today but am
waiting for PR https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/pull/3720 to
get reviewed/merged by someone other than myself. Once merged, I plan to
begin the process (JIRA) and submit the letter.
Will provide latest details on interchange call tomorrow and hope to
answer any questions.
-mr
PS have been stealing rr's abbreviated-style signature lately...
From: Rodric Rabbah <ro...@gmail.com>
To: dev@openwhisk.apache.org
Date: 06/05/2018 02:04 PM
Subject: Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator
June board report
Thanks Matt for assembling the report. Two questions
1. "We have explored a corporate donation as suggested (ala Spark and
SystemML), but this does not seem possible at this time." I'm curious if
there are details about the size of the donation that's required (if this
is for the private list, I can start a thread there).
2. "*100% of release candidate source code has Apache 2 license headers*"
this is great, thanks to you and your team for a lot of this work, I've
noticed the tireless pull requests. Do you expect we will call for a vote
on a release candidate soon - are we ready?
-r
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Rob Allen <ro...@akrabat.com> wrote:
> Matt,
>
> Looks good to me. I've fixed a link and left a couple of comments for
your
> attention.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob
>
> > On 5 Jun 2018, at 18:51, Matt Rutkowski <mr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Whiskers,
> >
> > I have drafted our project board report for this quarter (June); I
plan
> to post it tomorrow to the board's Wiki; please review and comment here
or
> on our CWiki:
> >
> >
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?
> pageId=85475755
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Matt
> >
> > PS message me if you need CWiki access
>
>
>
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
Posted by Rodric Rabbah <ro...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Matt for assembling the report. Two questions
1. "We have explored a corporate donation as suggested (ala Spark and
SystemML), but this does not seem possible at this time." I'm curious if
there are details about the size of the donation that's required (if this
is for the private list, I can start a thread there).
2. "*100% of release candidate source code has Apache 2 license headers*"
this is great, thanks to you and your team for a lot of this work, I've
noticed the tireless pull requests. Do you expect we will call for a vote
on a release candidate soon - are we ready?
-r
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Rob Allen <ro...@akrabat.com> wrote:
> Matt,
>
> Looks good to me. I've fixed a link and left a couple of comments for your
> attention.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rob
>
> > On 5 Jun 2018, at 18:51, Matt Rutkowski <mr...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Whiskers,
> >
> > I have drafted our project board report for this quarter (June); I plan
> to post it tomorrow to the board's Wiki; please review and comment here or
> on our CWiki:
> >
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?
> pageId=85475755
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Matt
> >
> > PS message me if you need CWiki access
>
>
>
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board
report
Posted by Rob Allen <ro...@akrabat.com>.
Matt,
Looks good to me. I've fixed a link and left a couple of comments for your attention.
Regards,
Rob
> On 5 Jun 2018, at 18:51, Matt Rutkowski <mr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Whiskers,
>
> I have drafted our project board report for this quarter (June); I plan to post it tomorrow to the board's Wiki; please review and comment here or on our CWiki:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=85475755
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
> PS message me if you need CWiki access
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
Posted by Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for changed it
-cs
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 4:36 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:34 PM Bertrand Delacretaz
> <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > ...Could "Increase additional company and individual Contributors to
> > maintain all project repos" be changed to just "increase
> > contributions" or something similar?..
>
> I have now changed that to "Increase contributions to ensure all
> project repos are maintained. and address Issue / PR backlog".
>
> Happy to discuss if someone's not happy with that.
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 3:34 PM Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...Could "Increase additional company and individual Contributors to
> maintain all project repos" be changed to just "increase
> contributions" or something similar?..
I have now changed that to "Increase contributions to ensure all
project repos are maintained. and address Issue / PR backlog".
Happy to discuss if someone's not happy with that.
-Bertrand
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
Posted by Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com>.
Bertrand,
This insight you shared is useful.
>That diversity is generally defined by having PMC members affiliated
with at least 3 different entities, which do not have to be companies
- people from two companies along with a few independents is fine.
This is good news then we are in good shape with the current entities and a
few independent developers we have in place today, so this issue I consider
resolved as minimum bar for graduation.
Yes I agree and we need to be better on async comm. on dev list.
I saw your other thread and your good suggestions.
-cs
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 10:20 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > ...I think the company is referring to that to my understanding is that
> the
> > project to graduate should have at least 3 companies sponsoring the
> > project...
>
> It's not exactly that. To graduate, a project must have "sufficient
> diversity" so that it's not overly dependent on a single entity which
> might lose interest and cause the project to stop.
>
> That diversity is generally defined by having PMC members affiliated
> with at least 3 different entities, which do not have to be companies
> - people from two companies along with a few independents is fine.
>
> What's most important is for all things to happen in the open, "if it
> didn't happen on the dev list it didn't happen" so that anyone can
> participate in decisions. My other thread about asynchronous
> communications is related - it must be easy to collaborate with the
> project even if one isn't working 100% on it.
>
> -Bertrand
>
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...I think the company is referring to that to my understanding is that the
> project to graduate should have at least 3 companies sponsoring the
> project...
It's not exactly that. To graduate, a project must have "sufficient
diversity" so that it's not overly dependent on a single entity which
might lose interest and cause the project to stop.
That diversity is generally defined by having PMC members affiliated
with at least 3 different entities, which do not have to be companies
- people from two companies along with a few independents is fine.
What's most important is for all things to happen in the open, "if it
didn't happen on the dev list it didn't happen" so that anyone can
participate in decisions. My other thread about asynchronous
communications is related - it must be easy to collaborate with the
project even if one isn't working 100% on it.
-Bertrand
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
Posted by Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com>.
I think the company is referring to that to my understanding is that the
project to graduate should have at least 3 companies sponsoring the
project, which typically in practice sponsoring means that they are behind
the project in case 1 company drops, there are at least 2 to continue the
project.
In practice the company will have a set of people really involved int the
project and these people would be part of IPPMC and committers.
Is there is a better way to articulate the distinction between the normal
Apache way that at the end of the day is individuals are the contributors
and maintainers of the projects, vs. maybe a graduation criteria (initial
stages of project) I'm good with to make it explicit and more clear.
-- Carlos
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 9:34 AM Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 7:51 PM, Matt Rutkowski <mr...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> ...
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=85475755
> ...
>
> Thanks for this! Great report as usual.
>
> Could "Increase additional company and individual Contributors to
> maintain all project repos" be changed to just "increase
> contributions" or something similar?
>
> It's individuals who contribute to ASF projects, not companies.
>
> -Bertrand (nitpicking, with my incubation mentor hat on - but that's
> an important nuance)
>
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 7:51 PM, Matt Rutkowski <mr...@apache.org> wrote:
...
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=85475755 ...
Thanks for this! Great report as usual.
Could "Increase additional company and individual Contributors to
maintain all project repos" be changed to just "increase
contributions" or something similar?
It's individuals who contribute to ASF projects, not companies.
-Bertrand (nitpicking, with my incubation mentor hat on - but that's
an important nuance)
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
Posted by Carlos Santana <cs...@gmail.com>.
Matt,
Thanks for spending time doing the report, I can't express more gratitude
about this.
On one of the board meetings, someone mentioned that "OpenWhisk" report is
one of the best incubator reports they have seen in years. Kudos !!
I don't know how you come up with so excellent detail report of the things
we have done
I updated the report with the following, other than adding is lgtm
- For blocker for graduation, I remove the kubernetes/mesos statement,
this should not be related to graduation (Tyson pointed out in a comment)
- Added trademark handoff to graduation blockers
- Added what James Thomas suggested on Slack activity
- check box for "initial setup" (Rob pointed out in a comment)
-cs
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 6:19 AM James Thomas <jt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> LGTM - nice work Matt.
>
> On the "Community" section? Would it be worth adding the growth of the
> Slack community? We're ~800 members and it is really active.
>
> On 5 June 2018 at 18:51, Matt Rutkowski <mr...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Whiskers,
> >
> > I have drafted our project board report for this quarter (June); I plan
> to
> > post it tomorrow to the board's Wiki; please review and comment here or
> on
> > our CWiki:
> >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=85475755
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Matt
> >
> > PS message me if you need CWiki access
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> James Thomas
>
Re: Please review our project's draft Apache Incubator June board report
Posted by James Thomas <jt...@gmail.com>.
LGTM - nice work Matt.
On the "Community" section? Would it be worth adding the growth of the
Slack community? We're ~800 members and it is really active.
On 5 June 2018 at 18:51, Matt Rutkowski <mr...@apache.org> wrote:
> Whiskers,
>
> I have drafted our project board report for this quarter (June); I plan to
> post it tomorrow to the board's Wiki; please review and comment here or on
> our CWiki:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=85475755
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
> PS message me if you need CWiki access
>
--
Regards,
James Thomas