On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:05 PM Amos B. Elberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> Moon, > > I still suggest, one of the best way you can find that person is, file an > issue about the CI problem that you found on Zeppelin Core. > > All of the relevant people are already informed. > > I continue to be ready to work cooperatively with anyone who would like to > help me resolve the issues. > > I did clearly pointed what rule could be violated and provided a link and > tried the best at explanation. > > Maybe this is a language issue, but I have no idea what your concern about > a license is. > > You did cite to two web pages. Neither of them said anything that would > explain your position. In fact, they confirmed what I had been saying all > along. > > So i'm going to continue the discussion in the other thread about the > license and will move the discussion to legal-discuss@. > > You’re welcome to do that, of course. I don’t know that I will > participate. > > What i'm not really fine is, having not enough discussion and concern > about > license. That's sign of unhealthy community. > > As Konstantine has pointed out: The ASF has existed for 16 years. This > cannot be the first time that this issue arose. The ASF has a “legal faq” > and other public documents that discuss various licensing issues. > > In addition, a primary responsibility of the PMCC — perhaps the most > important responsibility — is making sure the project conforms to ASF > licensing policy. > > In terms of community health, my concern is that there is a great deal of > confusion about these licensing issues, and people are not able to find a > definitive answer simply by checking the ASF documents (or even attempting > to do so). > > (Hint: I reviewed the ASF materials in great detail in preparing the PR.) > > I still don't know which part of the email are you referring. … What are > you referring "the history"? > > > You know *exactly* what I’m talking about. > > Amos, This mailing list is subscribed by hundreds of people. Let's not trying to make meaningless posts. I told you i *exactly* don't know what you're talking about "the history". So why don't you pin point what *exactly* you talking about, in public? Is there any reason that you can't tell here? If you can't tell anything, Is it okay to me assume that you just wanted make negative noise in the community with unidentified words? Please just share your thinking and let me hear and improve from it. Thanks, moon > From: moon soo Lee <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > Reply: [email protected] > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > Date: December 2, 2015 at 9:19:50 PM > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: contributions impasse. Was: [GitHub] incubator-zeppelin > pull request: R Interpreter for Zeppelin > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:34 AM Amos B. Elberg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Moon, thank you for your reply. > > > > Of course, I can claim CI, license, etc and any other issue. Especially > > when CI is not passing, I can not sure about the license. To me, these > > claims are sign of 'healthy community' not sign of 'does not make > sense'. > > > > You're not meaning, your contribution always need to be accepted without > > any claim. right? > > I believe the constructive way to move forward, would be for someone who > > well-understands the CI & build structure, to begin working with me to > > resolve the CI/build integration issues. > > > > I continue to be ready to work with that person. > > > > > I still suggest, one of the best way you can find that person is, file an > issue about the CI problem that you found on Zeppelin Core. > That'll reduce the scope of the problem and that'll help people quickly > getting into without understanding your contribution entirely. > > > > > > > Regarding licensing, I took extensive research steps before submitting > the > > PR to make sure there was not a licensing problem. > > > > In fact, many things in the structure of the code were chosen > specifically > > to avoid any licensing problem. I even negotiated with the authors of > some > > libraries to switch to Apache-compatible licenses, and did some work on > > their projects in exchange. > > > > Considering all of that — If anyone thinks there is a licensing issue, > if > > they want to be constructive, the *least* they can do is say clearly > > exactly what rule is being violated, how it is being violated, and > provide > > a link or citation or *something* that shows the opinion is more than > > hand-waving. > > > > I am ready to engage with anyone who does that. > > > > There is separate thread for the license. So i'll leave minimal comment > here. > > I did clearly pointed what rule could be violated and provided a link and > tried the best at explanation. You don't agree on my concern does not mean > it's okay to pass. Just like i don't agree on your opinion does not mean > it's confirmation of license problem. > > Of course my concern could be wrong, that's totally fine to me. I don't > have any problem on that. I'm not a legal expert. > > What i'm not really fine is, having not enough discussion and concern > about > license. That's sign of unhealthy community. > > So i'm going to continue the discussion in the other thread about the > license and will move the discussion to legal-discuss@. > > > > > > > I don't know your view of history and what you think the history is. > > Yeah you do. > > > > We had an exchange about it a week before this thread began. > > > > Some of it even spilled-over into the PR comments after I saw the video. > > > > > > I still don't know which part of the email are you referring. The > suggestion i made about your code? about the review? about the conference? > about the meetup? What are you referring "the history"? > > Please say in public. What is the history and show how they're related to > this thread topic. Otherwise I'll assume you just want to make a negative > noise in the community. > > Thanks, > moon > > > > > So please share them in PUBLIC on this thread NOT off-list, if you think > > that's reason you think your contribution is in impasse. > > > > I am going to follow Konstantin’s lead reading this issue, and try to > give > > you the benefit of the doubt. > > > > > > From: moon soo Lee <[email protected]> > > Reply: [email protected] < > > [email protected]> > > Date: December 2, 2015 at 5:06:52 PM > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: contributions impasse. Was: [GitHub] incubator-zeppelin > pull > > request: R Interpreter for Zeppelin > > > > Thanks Amos for replying. > > > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 3:17 AM Amos B. Elberg <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Moon — I think there is a misunderstanding about the topic of the > > > discussion. > > > > > > The PR has its own userbase. It has been and is being presented at > user > > > groups. Its been blogged and tweeted about (none of that came from > me!) > > > The features are the subject of two jiras and on the Zeppelin roadmap. > > > So, the discussion isn't about whether the PR is “good." > > > > > > But no-one responded to the PR until users began to tweet publicly > > @nflabs > > > asking why the PR had not been adopted, and e-mailing you directly. > This > > > looks really bad, especially when the project is considering applying > to > > > leave incubation. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for pinging me. Otherwise i couldn't able to know that you're > still > > working on it and ready to review. I think it's good practice that > pinging > > committer for review when there is no sign of response. Except for ping > > message has been made on twitter and private email instead of public > > mailing list / jira / github issue comment. > > > > > > > > > > > The question here is what, if anything, prevents us from letting > bygones > > > be bygones and moving forward with this now? > > > > > > Claims about CI issues, or licenses, or the PR shouldn’t have been > > rebased > > > (!?!) — well, they don’t really make sense. > > > > > > > > Although i didn't review your contribution from day 1, > > I'm reviewing your contribution, discussing about license, discussing > about > > improvement of impasse, all they're part of moving forward. I am moving > > forward. > > > > Of course, I can claim CI, license, etc and any other issue. Especially > > when CI is not passing, I can not sure about the license. To me, these > > claims are sign of 'healthy community' not sign of 'does not make > sense'. > > > > You're not meaning, your contribution always need to be accepted without > > any claim. right? > > > > > > > > > I keep offering to begin coordinating to integrate the PR with > Zeppelin’s > > > CI and build system. > > > > > > But the answer (except from Roman) is still “nah, let us know if you > > > figure it out.” > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, my answer was, "If you think CI is failing not because of your > > change but because of Zeppelin core problem, then file an jira issue > about > > it. Everyone will look into". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the history: > > > > > > Konstantin wisely started this thread by saying let’s keep the history > > out > > > of the discussion. I am respecting that. > > > > > > If the PR becomes part of Zeppelin, its going to need to be > maintained, > > > which means that we are going to need to be able to work together. > > > > > > I have been persuaded to give Moon the benefit of the doubt regarding > > > certain issues. He certainly knows what my view of the history is. > > > > > > If anyone else would like to know, I am happy to share it with them > > > off-list. > > > > > > > > > I don't know your view of history and what you think the history is. So > > please share them in PUBLIC on this thread NOT off-list, if you think > > that's reason you think your contribution is in impasse. > > > > Otherwise I'll never know what you're thinking and I'll not improve. > More > > importantly, it's easy to make people misunderstand you that you're just > > trying to make a negative noises. > > > > So, do you mind share your view of history in this thread? > > > > Thanks, > > moon > > > > > > > > > > From: moon soo Lee <[email protected]> > > > Reply: [email protected] < > > > [email protected]> > > > Date: December 2, 2015 at 7:45:11 AM > > > To: [email protected] < > [email protected] > > > > > > Subject: Re: contributions impasse. Was: [GitHub] incubator-zeppelin > pull > > > request: R Interpreter for Zeppelin > > > > > > Thanks Roman and Eran for the feedback. > > > > > > *A. About contribution impasse in general* > > > > > > I think i summarized why it happens and how it can be improved. ie. > > > > > > 1. Large code base change > > > 2. Communication lost > > > 3. Opinion diverges > > > > > > And my solution was > > > > > > Guide to ping other committer when a committer is not responding, > divide > > > contribution into small peaces if possible. And committer pay more > > > attention to the contribution. > > > > > > I'd like to hear and learn any more idea to improve. > > > > > > > > > *B. About contribution impasses in R interpreter for Zeppelin* > > > > > > Although I'was the first one who reviewed and commented this > contribution > > > among the committer, I feel contributor (Amos) is unhappy about the > > review. > > > > > > I want to analyze the reasons and improve this, too. > > > > > > Here's reason i guess > > > > > > 1. Late responding (first review has been made after 3 months) > > > 2. Lack of help on CI fail (Amos keep complained about CI fail) > > > > > > I think both 1 and 2 can be improved by the solution i suggested in > > section > > > A. > > > > > > Amos, if you think there're more reasons, please feel free to say and > let > > > me improve. What is the history you're mentioning? > > > > > > Best, > > > moon > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:44 PM Alexander Bezzubov <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Just pushing discussion back on the list > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015, 01:14 Amos B. Elberg <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Alex — if you genuinely do not know the history of this, then I > will > > > fill > > > > > you in. > > > > > > > > > > lmk… > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Amos Elberg > > > > > Sent with Airmail > > > > > > > > > > From: Alexander Bezzubov <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > > > > > Reply: Alexander Bezzubov <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > > > > > Date: December 1, 2015 at 6:14:20 AM > > > > > To: [email protected] < > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]>, Amos B. Elberg > > > > > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: contributions impasse. Was: [GitHub] > incubator-zeppelin > > > > > pull request: R Interpreter for Zeppelin > > > > > > > > > > @Amos, we had plenty of cases of CI failing and always the > > > pre-condition > > > > > for a merge was a green CI. Sometimes that requires time, polite > > > > > collaboration, extra mile in direct asking for help from more > > > experienced > > > > > members and fixes in different places, which indeed might take > time, > > as > > > > > everyone is busy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
