+1 (binding)
On Mon, Jan 23, 2023 at 12:16 PM Lidor Ettinger
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We would like to vote on RC1 of version 0.0.5. The main purpose of V
> 0.0.5 is to provide a clear extensibility API for developers to add
> their own implementations of liminal abstractions - executor, task,
> im
+1 (binding)
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 12:41 AM Lidor Ettinger
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We would like to vote on RC1 of version 0.0.5. The main purpose of V
> 0.0.5 is to provide a clear extensibility API for developers to add
> their own implementations of liminal abstractions - executor, task,
> im
+1 (binding)
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 8:21 AM Lior Schachter wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We would like to vote on RC2 of version 0.0.4. The main purpose of V 0.0.4 is
> to provide a clear extensibility API for developers to add their own
> implementations of liminal abstractions - executor, task, imag
+1 (binding)
On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 7:17 AM Lior Schachter wrote:
> We would like to have a re-vote on RC4 of version 0.0.3 - after fixing the
> packaging of the tag and uploading it to SVN.
>
> This version introduces out-of-the-box functionality to author and execute ML
> workflows (data fet
+1 (binding)
On Tue, Aug 3, 2021 at 11:40 PM Lior Schachter wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We would like to vote on RC4 of version 0.0.3.
>
> This version introduces out-of-the-box functionality to author and execute ML
> workflows (data-fetching-feature-engineering-training-inference) in the local
> ma
+1 (binding)
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 7:04 AM Lior Schachter wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We would like to vote on RC2 of version 0.0.2. The main purpose of V 0.0.2 is
> to fix issues found with AWS deployment. In RC2 we are addressing a licensing
> issue - a LGPL transitive required dependency - chard
+1 (binding)
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 8:18 AM Lior Schachter wrote:
> Hi All,
> We would like to initiate a vote on Apache Liminal (Incubating) V 0.0.2. The
> main purpose of this version is to fix issues found with Liminal deployment
> in AWS.
>
> Liminal community vote and result threads:
> V
+1 (binding)
Can we get another vote or two please to close the first release? I know
the Liminal community would appreciate it -- thanks so much!
On Sat, Feb 27, 2021 at 09:59 AM Juan Pan wrote:
> Hi, +1(unbinding)
>
>
>
> [x] Download links are valid.
>
> [x] Checksums and PGP signatures are
Great work Justin; this is a huge improvement for the podlings (and the
most significant policy update in years).
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 6:09 AM Willem Jiang wrote:
> +1. I cannot agree more with that.
>
> Willem Jiang
>
> Twitter: willemjiang
> Weibo: 姜宁willem
>
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:17 P
I do -not- have a problem where this is all tracking towards and believe it
is right, but I do have a problem with how it is justified and explained.
People say: "Incubator is a PMC/TLP", "Incubator takes on the resultant
legal obligations associated w/ any PMC doing a release", "we can NOT allow
On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 10:04 PM Greg Stein wrote:
> I disagree. I see a number of people who think that podling releases are
> TLP-level releases from the Incubator itself. I see people wanting
> structure/policy/rules to ensure these TLP releases are done properly. And
> that some want to "fix
I wouldn't say that there are 2 camps. The IPMC seems to be overwhelmingly
in the "2nd camp", with its desire to be lenient with the releases and
rules.
What I see is:
[1] David is saying (correctly) how Incubator is structured right now. He
hasn't expressed ~any opinions; it is just an interpreta
I second every single sentence said here. Every. Single. Sentence.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:04 AM David Nalley wrote:
> There's been a lot of discussion in various threads about bureaucracy,
> whether podlings are part of the ASF, etc. As a result of that I've
> spent a good deal of time readi
I think my position is well-known, but I'll restate it for completeness:
(1) Podling releases are foundation releases; no exceptions. They are
distributed in the same way, adopted by a foundation PMC in the same
manner, and they being with word "Apache". We are responsible for them.
(2) IPMC desir
I am aware. I'd say it doesn't (or shouldn't) apply in this case. Nobody is
taking a library out of SO and putting it into a project -- they don't have
such a thing. Reading a generic answer how to do something from a 5-line
code snippet, and then applying the (derivative) learning should not be an
It feels this thread has somewhat veered off the initial question. My
position on this is non-purist, and perhaps more pragmatic.
SO licensing:
- Their licensing is reasonable for what they are trying to do. Just as
many social networks, they don't want somebody to suck up their (users')
content,
The issue at hand is simply called theft, and everyone (both inside and
outside the community) is most welcome to point it out and ask for it to be
fixed. We thank those individuals who point it out, whether in IPMC or
otherwise, and look for ways to address it as soon as possible.
Fixing this iss
As framed herein, #4 for sure. (But, that doesn't necessarily exclude
support for various ideas that rework how IPMC operates, and where reducing
the size may be a small part of something larger and intentional.)
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 9:13 PM Ross Gardler wrote:
> I think this thread misses the
+1, binding, carried from dev@
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 12:52 AM David Meikle wrote:
> +1 (binding). I checked; name, sig and hashes (only checked sha512),
> notice, license, source headers, compiles from source (Ubuntu).
>
> As Justin says, you can remove the MD5 file.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
> > O
+1 (binding)
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 8:41 AM Dave Fisher wrote:
> +1 - binding - Graduate Pulsar!
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Sep 12, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Dave Fisher wrote:
>
> Hi -
>
> The Apache Pulsar project is ready to graduate as a TLP. They entered
> Incubation on June 1, 2017, have had man
Strong +1.
I've been following from a distance: growth of the community is obvious, as
well as maturing project governance evidenced by working through *all*
issues that have been brought up. Mentors are continuing onto the PMC. I'm
confident that Pulsar is ready to be a TLP.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018
+1; this sounds great.
On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 6:34 AM, 吴晟 Sheng Wu wrote:
> > I think Skywalking may face the same issue, few people register the
> mailing
> list because lots of discussion happen in the github issues.
>
> Yes. Many people used to discuss on GitHub. We are OK with that. We have
+1 (carried over)
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 12:15 AM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> +1 (binding)
>
> Sorry did this a while back but forgot to send
>
> I checked:
> - incubating in name
> - signatures and hashes correct
> - DISCLAIMER exists
> - LICENSE is OK but could be improved
> - NOTICE year
+1 (binding), carried over.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 9:37 PM, Yaniv Rodenski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've removed the md5's, and will update the Amaterasu release procedure
> accordingly.
>
> Cheers,
> Yaniv
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:04 AM, Henk P. Penning wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2018, Yaniv Ro
Considered reviewed / adopted by lazy consensus. Thanks.
Davor
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 7:09 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> Apache Beam has received a code donation of the Go SDK from Google [1].
> This has already happened, and the paperwork is now catching up in
> anticipation of the firs
Apache Beam has received a code donation of the Go SDK from Google [1].
This has already happened, and the paperwork is now catching up in
anticipation of the first release containing this donation.
The IP clearance paperwork is ready for review, via a lazy consensus
majority vote, per the IP clea
+1 (binding)
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 11:57 AM, P. Taylor Goetz wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> -Taylor
>
> > On Feb 22, 2018, at 2:03 PM, Julian Hyde wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > After some discussion on the Druid proposal[1], I'd like to
> > start a vote on accepting Druid into the Apache Incubato
+1 (binding)
Also, happy to help, mentor, or be a connection with the Beam PMC, as
appropriate.
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Kevin A. McGrail
wrote:
> +1 Binding
>
>
> On 2/1/2018 9:07 AM, Byung-Gon Chun wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I would like to start a VOTE to propose the Coral project as a
Great work -- I think this technology has a lot of promise, and I'd love to
see its evolution inside the Foundation.
Parts of it, like the Onyx Intermediate Representation [1], overlap with
the work-in-progress inside the Apache Beam project ("portability"). We'd
love to work together on this -- w
==
> ==
> > --- incubator/public/trunk/content/projects/amaterasu.xml [utf-8]
> > (original)
> > +++ incubator/public/trunk/content/projects/amaterasu.xml [utf-8] Mon
> Sep
> > 25 20:27:05 2017
> >
+1
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> Ate
>
>
> On 2017-07-10 17:09, sblackmon wrote:
>
>> In concert with the discussion started last week [1], please vote on
>> the draft resolution which establishes Apache Streams as a new top-level
>> project at the Apache
with a subject:
> [RESULT][VOTE]...
> giving the tally of everyone who voted. Please consider doing that.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> > Since the discussion seems to have concluded and the formal vote has
> pass
.html/71a1c63837a7d1506a10af9c70af1c24db988451ac5b53fa2467b9b8@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
[2]
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#top-level-board-proposal
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> Since it seems we have a consensus, I'm going to start a formal vote.
>
> Please keep the discuss
Taylor
* Thomas Weise
* Tom White
Thanks everyone!
Davor
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Please vote on the draft resolution proposed by the Apache Beam PPMC
> below, which establishes Apache Beam as a new top-level project at the
> Apache Softwar
This vote is now complete. I'll summarize the results in a [RESULT] thread.
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:30 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Please vote on the draft resolution proposed by the Apache Beam PPMC
> below, which establishes Apache Beam as a new top-level project a
.html/2057aab0702f36f366fc7809921a4f87108ba39b951b63598953bc6f@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Thomas Weise wrote:
> +1
>
> Thanks,
> Thomas
>
>
> On 2016-12-05 10:28 (-0800), Davor Bonaci wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> > Please vote to approve/disapprov
e of
responsibility of the Apache Beam Project; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and
hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the
Apache Beam Project:
* Tyler Akidau
* Davor Bonaci
*
further
RESOLVED, that the persons listed immediately below be and
hereby are appointed to serve as the initial members of the
Apache Beam Project:
* Tyler Akidau
* Davor Bonaci
* Robert Bradshaw
* Ben Chambers
* Luke Cwik
ández wrote:
> Out of personal technical interests, I've been following the podling quite
> close.
> They have made en enormous effort, both on the technical and community
> sides.
> I strongly believe the project is ready for graduation.
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 8:36 PM
>
> I hate to be a PITA about it, but can you merge
> http://beam.incubator.apache.org/contribute/team/ into
> http://incubator.apache.org/projects/beam.html?
>
Done.
ming data processing, enabling efficient execution across
diverse distributed execution engines and providing extensibility points
for connecting to different technologies and user communities.
* PMC composition:
* Tyler Akidau
* Davor Bonaci
* Robert Bradshaw
* Ben
We'll proceed with this release as staged, and will make sure we address
all feedback before the next release.
Thanks everyone!
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Davor Bonaci wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Here's the first vote for the first release of Apache Beam -- version
> 0.1.0-incu
This vote is now complete. We'll summarize the results and next steps in
the [RESULT] thread.
Thanks everyone!
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:
> +1 (binding)
>
> + sigs look good
> + LICENSE, NOTICE, DISCLAIMER look good
> + licenses in source and xml files look good.
> + t
Hi everyone,
Here's the first vote for the first release of Apache Beam -- version
0.1.0-incubating!
The complete staging area is available for your review, which includes:
* the official Apache source release to be deployed to dist.apache.org [1],
and
* all artifacts to be deployed to the Maven C
44 matches
Mail list logo
