climate-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Anderson <michael.arthur.ander...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] Retire OCW?
Date Thu, 21 Nov 2019 11:09:53 GMT
To expand on that thought:

Remove the UI.
Remove anything related to virtualization and / or migrate it to AWS /
Kubernetes.
Remove any test or example that is not self contained (i.e. depends on
inputs that are not publicly available).   Shrink the examples to a smaller
number which exercise a larger number of features.
Either move mccsearch to the examples or migrate the core functions to the
core library.

Regarding the JIRA, I'd suggested that anything more than 2 years old can
closed off.

I'd suggest this would make it both easier for people looking to contribute
to find an impactful entry point and also simplify the migration path if
it's to be consolidated into Alex's new library.

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 5:25 AM Michael Anderson <
michael.arthur.anderson@gmail.com> wrote:

> One of the challenges of working on the current project is that it isn't
> always clear which of the sub folders are deprecated / some of the JIRA are
> quite old and the original requestor is no longer interested.   I'd offer
> that an aggressive pruning of the JIRA and sub folders would make it easier
> for people to engage on features that would be most impactful and long
> lived.   Barring that, that is what I find appealing about Alex's
> suggestion as it clearly delineates what is no longer being supported and
> gives a clearer roadmap on where to make the most impactful contributions.
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 4:49 PM Goodman, Alexander (US 398K)
> <alexander.goodman@jpl.nasa.gov.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Hi Lewis,
>>
>> I can't say I completely disagree with your assessment. I would go even
>> further and argue what you are saying has been true not just for 3 months
>> but for at least since the 1.3.0 release, if not longer. But to be fair,
>> most of the contributions to OCW including BCDP have been made possible by
>> JPL/NASA funding our labor. Even though Kyo and I have had some success in
>> obtaining a little bit more funding, it has been a very difficult path when
>> we are the only primary developers, compared to the distant past when many
>> more people were on board which is something I explain in the slides I sent
>> as being one of the primary motivators for developing BCDP. The hope is
>> that a more up to date API could alleviate some of the problems we have
>> been having with maintaining the codebase since it's much smaller (xarray
>> helps make many of the things we were previously doing more elegant and
>> concise after all...), but it is still not quite at the stage where it can
>> fully replace the current API, and I hope we can reach that final step with
>> just a bit more funding.
>>
>> As someone with more knowledge about ASF protocol than I, I do think we
>> should have a discussion about what our future software development
>> practices should be, and we should definitely reach an agreement on what
>> the best approach for adding BCDP to our repository is (and CMDA for that
>> matter). I definitely don't want to just dump everything haphazardly into
>> separate subfolders like we always do (which is something I mentioned in a
>> recent JIRA issue thread that you may recall), but ideally we would like to
>> at least keep the OCW brand alive. However if things continue to operate at
>> the same sluggish pace and scale as they have been for sometime, then
>> perhaps we should assess the merit of continuing to keep such a small
>> project under the ASF's care. If we choose to declare the death of OCW, so
>> be it, but I will still release BCDP as a separate project outside the ASF
>> if I must.
>>
>> Kyo is on vacation for the rest of the week, but I am free to talk with
>> you more about this offline if you are around this week since I'd like to
>> have a very indepth discussion. Would you be interested?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>> On 11/20/19, 12:25 PM, "Lewis John McGibbney" <lewismc@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>     This gets at my original statement. To expand however, let me state,
>> project activity is very low, new contributions are not being reviewed, the
>> roadmap is not clear, there seems to be a proposal to literally drop-in
>> replace current master OCW codebase with BCDP which has yet to be open
>> sourced.
>>     None of this is particularly pro-community growth.
>>     I am not particularly happy with the way the community is being
>> managed here at Apache. Nothing is particularly clear. The community seems
>> very stagnant and pretty much dead. This is in agreement with
>> reporter.apache.org community health score which is -3.47 and indicates
>> that work is required.
>>     This thread actually is the most activity the project has seen in the
>> last 3 months!
>>     I had to file the PMC report this month... for those who want to see
>> what that looked like please monitor whimsy.
>>     I think some timelines backing up Alex's proposals are needed.
>> Otherwise we are just delaying the slow death of OCW further.
>>     Lewis
>>
>>     On 2019/11/20 16:52:47, Michael Anderson <
>> michael.arthur.anderson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>     > That’s pretty interesting.   I like adding incremental features
>> with the goal of replacing rather than outright demise of the old library.
>>     >
>>     > Sent from my iPhone
>>     >
>>     > > On Nov 20, 2019, at 11:08 AM, Goodman, Alexander (US 398K)
>> <alexander.goodman@jpl.nasa.gov.invalid> wrote:
>>     > >
>>     > > Since the plots didn't attach in the last message, here they are:
>>     > >
>>     > > https://i.imgur.com/mAuq0R5.png
>>     > > https://i.imgur.com/TeRYSPI.png
>>     > >
>>     > > Thanks,
>>     > > Alex
>>     > > -----Original Message-----
>>     > > From: Goodman, Alexander (US 398K)
>> <alexander.goodman@jpl.nasa.gov.INVALID>
>>     > > Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 8:05 AM
>>     > > To: dev@climate.apache.org
>>     > > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] Retire OCW?
>>     > >
>>     > > Hi Michael,
>>     > >
>>     > > Please see this overview slide:
>>     > > https://i.imgur.com/VnijQ5C.png
>>     > >
>>     > > Here is also a link of some older slides which have a lot more
>> details:
>>     > >
>> https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1nhD3_fZmVcmBnq9NiMBYeDMsxr5kIimI7dE9NNUQJEM/edit?usp=sharing
>>     > >
>>     > > I also created an end-to-end processing benchmark that I compared
>> with the current OCW, which I have attached in two plots: One with
>> regridding and one without, since the difference is so vast. I first
>> presented these results at the AMS Annual meeting last year in Phoenix.
>>     > >
>>     > > Let me know if you have any questions.
>>     > >
>>     > > Thanks,
>>     > > Alex
>>     > > -----Original Message-----
>>     > > From: Michael Anderson <michael.arthur.anderson@gmail.com>
>>     > > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 5:59 PM
>>     > > To: dev@climate.apache.org
>>     > > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [DISCUSS] Retire OCW?
>>     > >
>>     > > Do you have an overview of the new library you could share?  It'd
>> be interesting how big the gap between the old and new would be / rough LOE
>> to add parity.
>>     > >
>>     > >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 7:35 PM Alex Goodman <goodman@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>     > >>
>>     > >> Hi Lewis,
>>     > >>
>>     > >> To add some more specifics, the new xarray-based API I have
>> developed
>>     > >> for OCW called BCDP (Big Climate Data Pipeline) has recently
>> been
>>     > >> approved for release to open source. Keep in mind, this is a
>>     > >> completely new API that is not backwards compatible, so we were
>>     > >> planning to maintain both the old and new API under one
>> repository
>>     > >> (either as separate subfolders or git
>>     > >> branches) until the new API has enough functionality to fully
>> replace
>>     > >> the old one. To accelerate this process and encourage more
>>     > >> development, both Kyo and I are seeking some additional funding
>>     > >> sources which we should be more certain about early next year.
>> When I
>>     > >> first conceived BCDP, I was originally planning on releasing it
>> to
>>     > >> open source as a separate project outside of OCW, but after some
>>     > >> discussion we thought that it would be better to maintain the
>> OCW brand for it if possible.
>>     > >>
>>     > >> Does this make sense?
>>     > >>
>>     > >> Thanks,
>>     > >> Alex
>>     > >>> On 2019/11/20 00:17:22, lewis john mcgibbney <
>> lewismc@apache.org> wrote:
>>     > >>> I got this from Kyo offline
>>     > >>>
>>     > >>> “There is enough motivation to keep OCW going. Alex has almost
>>     > >>> refactored OCW and Seungwon Lee's CMDA will be a part of OCW.”
>>     > >>>
>>     > >>> Some of us will remember that CMDA was retired from the Apache
>>     > >>> Incubator previously.
>>     > >>>
>>     > >>> It would be great if these plans could be hashed out on the
>> mailing
>>     > >>> list
>>     > >> so
>>     > >>> we can move forward either way.
>>     > >>>
>>     > >>> Lewis
>>     > >>>
>>     > >>> On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 09:32 Lewis John Mcgibbney <
>>     > >>> lewis.mcgibbney@gmail.com> wrote:
>>     > >>>
>>     > >>>> Hi Folks,
>>     > >>>> Project activity is very low and new contributions are
not
>> being
>>     > >> reviewed.
>>     > >>>> Simply, is it time to retire OCW to the Apache Attic?
>>     > >>>> Best
>>     > >>>> Lewis
>>     > >>>>
>>     > >>>> --
>>     > >>>>
>>     > >>>> *Lewis*
>>     > >>>> Dr. Lewis J. McGibbney Ph.D, B.Sc
>>     > >>>> *Skype*: lewis.john.mcgibbney
>>     > >>>>
>>     > >>>>
>>     > >>>>
>>     > >>>> --
>>     > >>> http://home.apache.org/~lewismc/
>>     > >>> http://people.apache.org/keys/committer/lewismc
>>     > >>>
>>     > >>
>>     >
>>
>>
>>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message