Re: [Proposal] TinkerPop: A Graph Computing Framework [RE-SUBMISSION]

[Marko Rodriguez]

Hello,

TinkerPop Apache Incubator would start off with the minimal number of required 
initial committers to get the project underway. These are the individuals who 
spend most of the time with TinkerPop and are the ones who will be doing all 
heavy lifting to migrate over to ASF. Once we have things stabilized 
(infrastructure, domain names, CLAs, version control, issue tracking, etc.) at 
Apache, other committers are more than welcome to come over. This is how we 
posed it to TinkerPop-Contributors (TinkerPop's current contributors list). The 
theory being, the less cooks in the kitchen during the bumpy transition phase, 
the better.

Thanks,
Marko. 

http://markorodriguez.com

On Jan 10, 2015, at 9:34 AM, Dave Fisher  wrote:

> 
> On Jan 9, 2015, at 11:18 PM, Gavin McDonald wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> On 10 Jan 2015, at 6:18 am, Ted Dunning  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> This still only has 3 committers.  
>>> 
>>> How is the project going to function with such a small group?  I don't see 
>>> that there has been a realistic answer to this question.
>> 
>> It is part of the incubation process to help gain more, and again as a tlp, 
>> an ongoing process.
>> Lots of TLPs have more committers, with only one or two actually active.
> 
> But this is a project that has existed since 2009. If there are only 3 
> initial committers then where is the rest of the community? Is this a fork? 
> Is there going to be a Trac vs. Bloodhound or OpenOffice vs. LibreOffice 
> community issues. I don't think such would block incubation, but we should be 
> fully aware of it if this is so.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
>> 
>> Gav…
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Marko Rodriguez >> > wrote:
>>> Hello everyone,
>>> 
>>> Over the last 2 weeks, TinkerPop's proposal has been worked on with support 
>>> from:
>>> 
>>> * David Nalley (champion)
>>> * Rich Bowen (mentor)
>>> * Hadrian Zbarcea (mentor)
>>> * Daniel Gruno (mentor)
>>> * Marko Rodriguez (submitting on behalf of TinkerPop)
>>> 
>>> We feel it is now in prime shape from submission to vote. Enjoy!.
>>> (URL to wiki version: 
>>> https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/TinkerPopProposal 
>>> )
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A. Abstract
>>> 
>>> TinkerPop  is a graph computing framework written in 
>>> Java. A graph  is a 
>>> data structure composed of vertices and edges and is useful for modeling 
>>> complex domains with arbitrary relations (edges, links, lines) between 
>>> entities (vertices, objects, dots). TinkerPop 
>>>  provides a core API that 
>>> graph system vendors can implement. There are various types of graph 
>>> systems including in-memory graph libraries, OLTP graph databases, and OLAP 
>>> graph processors (see On Graph Computing 
>>>  for more 
>>> information). Once the core interfaces are implemented, the underlying 
>>> graph system can be queried using the graph traversal language Gremlin and 
>>> processed withTinkerPop 
>>> -enabled algorithms. For many, 
>>> TinkerPop  is seen as the JDBC 
>>>  of the graph 
>>> computing community.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> B. Proposal
>>> 
>>> TinkerPop  was formed in 2009 
>>> and is currently in the milestone series of 3.0.0. From the start, 
>>> TinkerPop  has provided its 
>>> software open source and free to use for which ever reason (commercial or 
>>> otherwise). Initially the license was BSD, but as of TinkerPop3 
>>> , the license was changed to 
>>> Apache2. The TinkerPop  team 
>>> is composed of developers, evangelists, and representatives from graph 
>>> system vendors (see TinkerPop Contributors 
>>>  for 
>>> more information). TinkerPop  
>>> has done its best to remain vendor agnostic and works closely with all 
>>> vendors to ensure that the constructs within TinkerPop 
>>>  are able to accommodate the 
>>> requirements of the underlying graph system. To date, 12 "TinkerPop 
>>>  recognized" graph system 
>>> vendors provide TinkerPop  
>>> implementations. We believe that by joining The Apache Software Foundation, 
>>> our vendors, users, and contributors will feel more comfortable in terms of 
>>> legal protected, in terms of wider-adoption, and in terms of project 

Re: [Proposal] TinkerPop: A Graph Computing Framework [RE-SUBMISSION]

[Marko Rodriguez]

Hello,

TinkerPop3 is a complete re-write of TinkerPop2 and TP3 does not depend on TP2 
in any way. TP3 was started November 2013 (1+ year ago). We have CLAs for every 
TP3 contributor. We do not have CLAs for every TP2 contributor.

We are primarily interested in moving forward first with TinkerPop3 migration 
for the following reasons:
1. It will be the easiest to deal with legally (we have CLAs).
2. It is the most pressing release -- its expected release date is 
early 2014.
3. TP2 is in maintenance mode and thus, not a big concern for the 
community moving forward.

However, once we get TP3 setup with ASF and can get out TP3.GA (we are 
currently at 3.0.0.M7), we will turn our attention towards migrating TP2.

Thanks,
Marko.

http://markorodriguez.com

On Jan 10, 2015, at 12:04 PM, Andy Seaborne  wrote:

> Looks good but there is one part that wasn't clear to me.
> 
> In this proposal, the TinkerPop2 repos appear in the initial source listing 
> as well, but are not in the submission plan.
> 
> Is TinkerPop2 also part of the proposal? Is there is risk in it being a 
> burden on the project? Conversly, if it is difficult to disentangle 
> TinkerPop2 and TinkerPop3 (copyright, IP), then non-granting of it might lead 
> to hard issues later.
> 
>Andy
> 
>> 
>>R. Initial Source
>> 
>> TinkerPop  is currently hosted 
>> on GitHub : 
>> https://github.com/tinkerpop/.
>> 
>> The following repositories would like to be migrated to ASF.
>> 
>> TinkerPop3 
>>  
>> https://github.com/tinkerpop/tinkerpop3
>> Blueprints (TinkerPop2 )
>>  
>> https://github.com/tinkerpop/blueprints
>> Pipes (TinkerPop2 )
>>  
>> https://github.com/tinkerpop/pipes
>> Frames (TinkerPop2 
>>  
>> https://github.com/tinkerpop/frames
>> Gremlin (TinkerPop2 )
>>  
>> https://github.com/tinkerpop/gremlin
>> Rexster (TinkerPop2 )
>>  
>> https://github.com/tinkerpop/rexster
>> 
>> 
>>S. Source & Intellectual Property Submission Plan
>> 
>> TinkerPop  has required CLAs 
>> from contributors in the past to ensure solid IP provenance. TinkerPop 
>>  plans to submit a Software 
>> Grant for the content in the following repositories: 
>> https://github.com/tinkerpop/tinkerpop3
>> 
>> We plan to transfer to the ASF the TinkerPop 
>>  trademark as well as the 
>> commissioned artwork for TinkerPop 
>>  logos and the 
>> http://tinkerpop.com  and http://tinkerpop.org 
>>  domains.
>> 
>> 
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Clear expectations

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:

> Considering that both detailed answers as well and more "philosophical"
> answers don't satisfy, I am at a loss to what approach to try next.

The Board should endorse a document establishing what Apache expects of
its projects.

This document must be as short as possible -- ideally no more than a
single screenful.  It should link to definitive resources rather than
introduce competing language, and it should only codify existing
requirements, not add new ones.  Modification should require prior
approval by a curating entity.

The resources that this document will need to reference (release, legal
voting, infra, security, etc) have varying levels of maturity.  Separate
efforts to codify satellite resources are important, since those often
have amorphous boundaries themselves -- but that does not block the
establishment of a root document.

Shane Curcuru has submitted a first draft.  It needs significant
refinement, but I believe that it is conceptually sound.

https://www.apache.org/dev/project-requirements

Development discussions for this document should take place in a public
forum -- probably dev@community.

Eventual Board endorsement of this document as an authoritative resource
is essential.  That's what allows those who consult it to have confidence
that they can know everything Apache requires without having to search
through every last web page and email archive.

Marvin Humphrey

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache REEF 0.10.0-incubating

[Byung-Gon Chun]

Hi Justin,

Thank you for the feedback.
I will add the DISCLAIMER, update the year in the NOTICE file, and delete
the HEADER file. I will create a new RC and restart the vote.

I cced dev@reef.

Thanks.
-Gon

On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The release is missing DISCLAIMER file [1][2] While the web site does
> contain the incubating disclaimer and README mentions incubation it's
> missing the full text so that needs to be fixed for the next release and
> probably this one. What do other IPMC members think?
>
> Everything else looks good. Checked:
> - incubating in release name
> - signature and hash good
> - LICENSE and NOTICE good
> - no binary files in source (except 2 test files)
> - all source files have correct headers
> - can compile from source
>
> Other minor things:
> - no need for HEADER file
> - year in NOTICE is wrong (but oddly is correct in jars)
> - place the RC in incubator area not on peopel.apache.org [3]
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1.http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#check-list
> 2.http://incubator.apache.org/guides/branding.html#disclaimers
> 3.
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/releasemanagement.html#glossary-podling-dist
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Byung-Gon Chun

Re: Clear expectations

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Marvin Humphrey  wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Jim Jagielski  wrote:
>
>> Considering that both detailed answers as well and more "philosophical"
>> answers don't satisfy, I am at a loss to what approach to try next.
>
> The Board should endorse a document establishing what Apache expects of
> its projects.
>
> This document must be as short as possible -- ideally no more than a
> single screenful.  It should link to definitive resources rather than
> introduce competing language, and it should only codify existing
> requirements, not add new ones.  Modification should require prior
> approval by a curating entity.
>
> The resources that this document will need to reference (release, legal
> voting, infra, security, etc) have varying levels of maturity.  Separate
> efforts to codify satellite resources are important, since those often
> have amorphous boundaries themselves -- but that does not block the
> establishment of a root document.
>
> Shane Curcuru has submitted a first draft.  It needs significant
> refinement, but I believe that it is conceptually sound.
>
> https://www.apache.org/dev/project-requirements
>
> Development discussions for this document should take place in a public
> forum -- probably dev@community.
>
> Eventual Board endorsement of this document as an authoritative resource
> is essential.  That's what allows those who consult it to have confidence
> that they can know everything Apache requires without having to search
> through every last web page and email archive.

Huge +1 (especially in the poddlings context)

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache REEF 0.10.0-incubating

[Justin Mclean]

HI,

> I will add the DISCLAIMER, update the year in the NOTICE file, and delete
> the HEADER file. I will create a new RC and restart the vote.

You may want to wait a little until other IPMC members reply, if other people 
are fine with it and you fix it for the next release I'm happy to vote +1.

Thanks,
Justin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache REEF 0.10.0-incubating

[Byung-Gon Chun]

Hi Justin,

I will wait.

Thanks!
-Gon

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Justin Mclean 
wrote:

> HI,
>
> > I will add the DISCLAIMER, update the year in the NOTICE file, and delete
> > the HEADER file. I will create a new RC and restart the vote.
>
> You may want to wait a little until other IPMC members reply, if other
> people are fine with it and you fix it for the next release I'm happy to
> vote +1.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Byung-Gon Chun

Re: Clear expectations

[Benson Margulies]

Does it help anything to look at this, again, as failure modes?

One failure mode is a project that emerges from the incubator showing,
well, gross signs that it 'doesn't get it.'

Another failure mode is that a group of people who really do get it, at the
level of the broad principles, get into trouble trying to translate those
principles into very practical matters, due to conflicting sources of
authority and documentation.

Talking about one of these does not invalidate the other as a concern.

I have an complementary suggestion to Marvin's push for documentation. My
request is for a much clearer channel of communication to the board. All
too often, projects wind up communicating with individuals; some board
members, some not. Those individuals are in an unclear state of headware.
Board members are always free to express their personal gut reaction, but I
find that much confusion results from mistaking a gut reaction for an _ex
cathedra_ statement -- and, in the end, board members don't even own such
seats. Only the board together can issue a binding ruling. Since we're
talking IPMC here, perhaps the solution is for the VP to even more actively
take the role of 'bring your troubles to me, and I'll take them up with the
board if I can't settle it.'

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache REEF 0.10.0-incubating

[Marvin Humphrey]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 8:57 PM, Justin Mclean  wrote:
> The release is missing DISCLAIMER file [1][2] While the web site does
> contain the incubating disclaimer and README mentions incubation it's
> missing the full text so that needs to be fixed for the next release and
> probably this one. What do other IPMC members think?

Thanks for the thorough review and the clear description of the situation,
Justin!

Here's my opinion as a community member: Fixing for the next release ought to
be fine.  From your description, the podling is clearly putting in the effort,
and this is a policy issue not a legal one.

It would be appropriate to note the exception in the "Releases" section of
next month's Board report, so that the Board stays informed of how the
Incubator PMC is exercising discretion in applying the rules.

Marvin Humphrey

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache REEF 0.10.0-incubating

[Justin Mclean]

Hi,

In that case +1 (binding) from me.

Justin

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache REEF 0.10.0-incubating

[Alan D. Cabrera]

> On Jan 10, 2015, at 7:14 PM, Byung-Gon Chun  wrote:
> 
> The Apache REEF PPMC has voted to release Apache REEF 0.10.0-incubating
> based on the release candidate described below. Now it is the IPMC's turn
> to vote.
> 
> Here's the PPMC voting result (five binding +1 votes):
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-reef-dev/201501.mbox/%3CCADq0cj7YNbVLYX5dUZtd0U4Cafi%3DDRB-%3DfxoiufHSOHcBdzCDQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> 
> The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at:
> http://people.apache.org/~bgchun/apache-reef-0.10.0-incubating-rc1/ 
> 

The source does not build unless you have protobufs installed.  Not a big deal 
but something you may want to add this fact to your README.md for the next 
subsequent release.

Source builds and tests fine after protobufs is installed.

mvn rat:check does not pass but they are just false positives; the PPMC vote 
thread seems to say that it passes.  Not a big deal.

> The Git tag is release-0.10.0-incubating-rc1
> The Git commit ID is 76147ea7a4a7b6114bee9d1b8b4d1d588b4f0ce2
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-reef.git;a=commit;h=76147ea7a4a7b6114bee9d1b8b4d1d588b4f0ce2
> 
> Checksums of apache-reef-0.10.0-incubating-rc1.tar.gz:
> MD5: e112edbfe15a67710ad697ab529c4816
> SHA1: 654dc4b7a386ed17e1a8084aa45682ac6c17f159
> SHA512:
> a92a9f6eb4c6c25a3a83843bcd39da462107a10d573705e977744afa498a25a8e0c508d97480661b5ddb5724edc39ea4c84c555c2154c323acd25d74f36bcb51

My checksums don’t match what’s in this email, nor the email in the PPMC vote, 
but they do match what’s in 

http://people.apache.org/~bgchun/apache-reef-0.10.0-incubating-rc1 


MD5: fa0de47ab4916a950a077d253a9be783
SHA1: 3b5abfb3447ac9787014211e736be10aa3219d1c
SHA512: 
25a913a5f6ce1e76c145fbf703e49b1716669df7876bead9a025e9d9e26a745ef47ec9d8b2eae072829215017a6c3cc4d8126160e0b7c63613b83989253af03b

IMO, the above public declaration is good enough though others participates of 
this vote, and PPMC vote, will probably have to re-confirm the checksums that 
they actually voted on.

> Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/bgchun.asc
> 
> KEYS file available here:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/reef/KEYS
> 
> Test binaries have been published to Maven's staging repository, and
> are available here:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachereef-1000 
> 

Signatures verified.

> 41 issues were closed/resolved for this release:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/REEF-84?jql=project%20%3D%20REEF%20AND%20(status%3Dclosed%20OR%20status%3Dresolved)
> 
> The vote will be open for 72 hours.
> 
> [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache REEF 0.10.0-incubating
> [ ] +0 no opinion
> [ ] -1 Do not release this package because …


+1 - binding


Regards,
Alan

Re: Clear expectations

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Benson Margulies  wrote:
> I have an complementary suggestion to Marvin's push for documentation. My
> request is for a much clearer channel of communication to the board. All
> too often, projects wind up communicating with individuals; some board
> members, some not. Those individuals are in an unclear state of headware.
> Board members are always free to express their personal gut reaction, but I
> find that much confusion results from mistaking a gut reaction for an _ex
> cathedra_ statement -- and, in the end, board members don't even own such
> seats. Only the board together can issue a binding ruling. Since we're
> talking IPMC here, perhaps the solution is for the VP to even more actively
> take the role of 'bring your troubles to me, and I'll take them up with the
> board if I can't settle it.'

I've see that as the most frequent culprit: folks who are new to our game
failing to tell apart opinions of the individuals and an opinion of the board.

That's why I was so enthusiastically +1 on Marvin's suggestion of codifying
at least the few commandments that the *board* can agree upon.

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache REEF 0.10.0-incubating

[Byung-Gon Chun]

Hi Alan,

Thank you for your comments.

I mistakenly copied and pasted digest values in my email. :(

My further comments are inlined.

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Alan D. Cabrera 
wrote:

>
> > On Jan 10, 2015, at 7:14 PM, Byung-Gon Chun  wrote:
> >
> > The Apache REEF PPMC has voted to release Apache REEF 0.10.0-incubating
> > based on the release candidate described below. Now it is the IPMC's turn
> > to vote.
> >
> > Here's the PPMC voting result (five binding +1 votes):
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-reef-dev/201501.mbox/%3CCADq0cj7YNbVLYX5dUZtd0U4Cafi%3DDRB-%3DfxoiufHSOHcBdzCDQ%40mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> > The source tarball, including signatures, digests, etc can be found at:
> > http://people.apache.org/~bgchun/apache-reef-0.10.0-incubating-rc1/ <
> http://people.apache.org/~bgchun/apache-reef-0.10.0-incubating-rc1/>
>
> The source does not build unless you have protobufs installed.  Not a big
> deal but something you may want to add this fact to your README.md for the
> next subsequent release.
>
> Source builds and tests fine after protobufs is installed.
>
>
Thanks for catching it. We will add this fact for the next release.


> mvn rat:check does not pass but they are just false positives; the PPMC
> vote thread seems to say that it passes.  Not a big deal.
>
>
PPMC members did not have this problem.


> > The Git tag is release-0.10.0-incubating-rc1
> > The Git commit ID is 76147ea7a4a7b6114bee9d1b8b4d1d588b4f0ce2
> >
> https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-reef.git;a=commit;h=76147ea7a4a7b6114bee9d1b8b4d1d588b4f0ce2
> >
> > Checksums of apache-reef-0.10.0-incubating-rc1.tar.gz:
> > MD5: e112edbfe15a67710ad697ab529c4816
> > SHA1: 654dc4b7a386ed17e1a8084aa45682ac6c17f159
> > SHA512:
> >
> a92a9f6eb4c6c25a3a83843bcd39da462107a10d573705e977744afa498a25a8e0c508d97480661b5ddb5724edc39ea4c84c555c2154c323acd25d74f36bcb51
>
> My checksums don’t match what’s in this email, nor the email in the PPMC
> vote, but they do match what’s in
>
> http://people.apache.org/~bgchun/apache-reef-0.10.0-incubating-rc1 <
> http://people.apache.org/~bgchun/apache-reef-0.10.0-incubating-rc1>
>
> MD5: fa0de47ab4916a950a077d253a9be783
> SHA1: 3b5abfb3447ac9787014211e736be10aa3219d1c
> SHA512:
> 25a913a5f6ce1e76c145fbf703e49b1716669df7876bead9a025e9d9e26a745ef47ec9d8b2eae072829215017a6c3cc4d8126160e0b7c63613b83989253af03b
>
> IMO, the above public declaration is good enough though others
> participates of this vote, and PPMC vote, will probably have to re-confirm
> the checksums that they actually voted on.
>

I mistakenly copied and pasted digest values from my prior email.
As you mentioned, digests under
http://people.apache.org/~bgchun/apache-reef-0.10.0-incubating-rc1 are
correct ones.

Thanks!
-Gon


>
> > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> > https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/bgchun.asc
> >
> > KEYS file available here:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/reef/KEYS
> >
> > Test binaries have been published to Maven's staging repository, and
> > are available here:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachereef-1000 <
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/orgapachereef-1000>
>
> Signatures verified.
>
> > 41 issues were closed/resolved for this release:
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/REEF-84?jql=project%20%3D%20REEF%20AND%20(status%3Dclosed%20OR%20status%3Dresolved)
> >
> > The vote will be open for 72 hours.
> >
> > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache REEF 0.10.0-incubating
> > [ ] +0 no opinion
> > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because …
>
>
> +1 - binding
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>


-- 
Byung-Gon Chun

Re: What is "The Apache Way"?

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Niclas Hedhman  wrote:
> More analogies; Just like "Western Culture"

I think a better analogy would be "US Culture". Yes it is as nebulous
as it gets, but the fact that US Constitution exists as a written document
makes a LOT of things WAY easier.

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org