You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@opennlp.apache.org by Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com> on 2011/06/06 09:58:09 UTC
Board report status items
Hi all,
please report status items for our board report.
Thanks,
Jörn
Re: Board report status items
Posted by Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>.
On 6/11/11 1:53 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> I signed off on the BR, but a couple of questions:
>
> What do we need to do on the IP front? Is that really a blocker for graduation?
>
The IP issue was mainly about distribution models if I remember
correctly. Or do
we need to sign any more papers for the OpenNLP code contribution itself?
> Also, I don't think the regression tests are a blocker for graduation.
>
> I did add that we need to find some more candidates for contributions/committership, which I do think is a blocker.
Having more contributors/committers does not mean that they are able to
understand or work on the code,
that takes time. Especially understanding the code comes through working
on it. But without training data
for testing, that is not possible as we all can see on the coref
component. So not having free training for
everyone who is interested really hinders the goal to get more independent.
Anyway, since we have James and William we are a little more independent
on individuals as we used to be and
actually have 4 independent active committers, shouldn't that be good
enough?
Sure it would be nice to add more people to the project.
Jörn
Re: Board report status items
Posted by Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>.
On 6/11/11 5:06 PM, Olivier Grisel wrote:
> 2011/6/11 Grant Ingersoll<gs...@apache.org>:
>> I signed off on the BR, but a couple of questions:
>>
>> What do we need to do on the IP front? Is that really a blocker for graduation?
>>
>> Also, I don't think the regression tests are a blocker for graduation.
>>
>> I did add that we need to find some more candidates for contributions/committership, which I do think is a blocker.
> I am willing to be a new candidate for committership if the opennlp
> devs judge that the corpus-refiner tooling introduced in the other
> thread would fit somewhere somewhere in the project (probably as a new
> maven artifact).
>
> I assume that Hannes might be interested as well.
Nice, lets open a new thread and speak it bit more about this contribution,
is it something new you want to work on, or do you speak about contributing
an existing code base?
Jörn
Re: Board report status items
Posted by Jason Baldridge <ja...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Olivier Grisel
<ol...@ensta.org>wrote:
> 2011/6/11 Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>:
> > I signed off on the BR, but a couple of questions:
> >
> > What do we need to do on the IP front? Is that really a blocker for
> graduation?
> >
> > Also, I don't think the regression tests are a blocker for graduation.
> >
> > I did add that we need to find some more candidates for
> contributions/committership, which I do think is a blocker.
>
> I am willing to be a new candidate for committership if the opennlp
> devs judge that the corpus-refiner tooling introduced in the other
> thread would fit somewhere somewhere in the project (probably as a new
> maven artifact).
>
> I assume that Hannes might be interested as well.
>
> --
> Olivier
> http://twitter.com/ogrisel - http://github.com/ogrisel
>
--
Jason Baldridge
Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
The University of Texas at Austin
http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
http://twitter.com/jasonbaldridge
Re: Board report status items
Posted by Olivier Grisel <ol...@ensta.org>.
2011/6/11 Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>:
> I signed off on the BR, but a couple of questions:
>
> What do we need to do on the IP front? Is that really a blocker for graduation?
>
> Also, I don't think the regression tests are a blocker for graduation.
>
> I did add that we need to find some more candidates for contributions/committership, which I do think is a blocker.
I am willing to be a new candidate for committership if the opennlp
devs judge that the corpus-refiner tooling introduced in the other
thread would fit somewhere somewhere in the project (probably as a new
maven artifact).
I assume that Hannes might be interested as well.
--
Olivier
http://twitter.com/ogrisel - http://github.com/ogrisel
Re: Board report status items
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
I signed off on the BR, but a couple of questions:
What do we need to do on the IP front? Is that really a blocker for graduation?
Also, I don't think the regression tests are a blocker for graduation.
I did add that we need to find some more candidates for contributions/committership, which I do think is a blocker.
-Grant
On Jun 8, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Jason Baldridge wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> We also need to think about improving the situation on training data. One
> thing to think about is whether we can take advantage of DUALIST to
> bootstrap the creation of training data:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/dualist/
>
> Jason
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Exactly, I fully agree with Grant. We invested a lot of time to into this
>> already, and I
>> believe we are on the right way, we need to continue this effort and be
>> patient.
>>
>> A contributor/committer is usually a user first, and therefore we need to
>> make it as easy as possible
>> for potential users to get started and to get involved. When people start
>> using OpenNLP
>> some might need to fix/change something and contribute it back.
>>
>> Jörn
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/7/11 10:12 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>>
>>> One thing to think about and discuss is how to encourage/find new
>>> committers. Nominations of individuals should be done on the PPMC (private
>>> list), but out here we should at least think about ways to help contributors
>>> become committers. In some cases, this may mean avoiding the tendency to
>>> jump in and fix a problem before someone else, who is less experienced, can
>>> put up a patch. Other ways, are better documentation, encouragement, etc.
>>> for those kicking the tires. Generally speaking, my rule of thumb for
>>> nominating someone is a few good quality patches that show they get the code
>>> at a decent level as well as they show they get how the ASF and the project
>>> work and can work positively with others in the community.
>>>
>>> Just food for thought as we move towards graduation, as I think OpenNLP is
>>> moving along quite nicely as an Incubator project.
>>>
>>> -Grant
>>>
>>> On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:58 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> please report status items for our board report.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Jörn
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jason Baldridge
> Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
> The University of Texas at Austin
> http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
> http://twitter.com/jasonbaldridge
Re: Board report status items
Posted by Jason Baldridge <ja...@gmail.com>.
Agreed.
We also need to think about improving the situation on training data. One
thing to think about is whether we can take advantage of DUALIST to
bootstrap the creation of training data:
http://code.google.com/p/dualist/
Jason
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Exactly, I fully agree with Grant. We invested a lot of time to into this
> already, and I
> believe we are on the right way, we need to continue this effort and be
> patient.
>
> A contributor/committer is usually a user first, and therefore we need to
> make it as easy as possible
> for potential users to get started and to get involved. When people start
> using OpenNLP
> some might need to fix/change something and contribute it back.
>
> Jörn
>
>
>
> On 6/7/11 10:12 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>
>> One thing to think about and discuss is how to encourage/find new
>> committers. Nominations of individuals should be done on the PPMC (private
>> list), but out here we should at least think about ways to help contributors
>> become committers. In some cases, this may mean avoiding the tendency to
>> jump in and fix a problem before someone else, who is less experienced, can
>> put up a patch. Other ways, are better documentation, encouragement, etc.
>> for those kicking the tires. Generally speaking, my rule of thumb for
>> nominating someone is a few good quality patches that show they get the code
>> at a decent level as well as they show they get how the ASF and the project
>> work and can work positively with others in the community.
>>
>> Just food for thought as we move towards graduation, as I think OpenNLP is
>> moving along quite nicely as an Incubator project.
>>
>> -Grant
>>
>> On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:58 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> please report status items for our board report.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Jörn
>>>
>>
>
--
Jason Baldridge
Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics
The University of Texas at Austin
http://www.jasonbaldridge.com
http://twitter.com/jasonbaldridge
Re: Board report status items
Posted by Jörn Kottmann <ko...@gmail.com>.
Exactly, I fully agree with Grant. We invested a lot of time to into
this already, and I
believe we are on the right way, we need to continue this effort and be
patient.
A contributor/committer is usually a user first, and therefore we need
to make it as easy as possible
for potential users to get started and to get involved. When people
start using OpenNLP
some might need to fix/change something and contribute it back.
Jörn
On 6/7/11 10:12 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> One thing to think about and discuss is how to encourage/find new committers. Nominations of individuals should be done on the PPMC (private list), but out here we should at least think about ways to help contributors become committers. In some cases, this may mean avoiding the tendency to jump in and fix a problem before someone else, who is less experienced, can put up a patch. Other ways, are better documentation, encouragement, etc. for those kicking the tires. Generally speaking, my rule of thumb for nominating someone is a few good quality patches that show they get the code at a decent level as well as they show they get how the ASF and the project work and can work positively with others in the community.
>
> Just food for thought as we move towards graduation, as I think OpenNLP is moving along quite nicely as an Incubator project.
>
> -Grant
>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:58 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> please report status items for our board report.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jörn
Re: Board report status items
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
One thing to think about and discuss is how to encourage/find new committers. Nominations of individuals should be done on the PPMC (private list), but out here we should at least think about ways to help contributors become committers. In some cases, this may mean avoiding the tendency to jump in and fix a problem before someone else, who is less experienced, can put up a patch. Other ways, are better documentation, encouragement, etc. for those kicking the tires. Generally speaking, my rule of thumb for nominating someone is a few good quality patches that show they get the code at a decent level as well as they show they get how the ASF and the project work and can work positively with others in the community.
Just food for thought as we move towards graduation, as I think OpenNLP is moving along quite nicely as an Incubator project.
-Grant
On Jun 6, 2011, at 3:58 AM, Jörn Kottmann wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> please report status items for our board report.
>
> Thanks,
> Jörn