drill-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcel Kornacker <mar...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative
Date Thu, 26 Nov 2015 05:42:40 GMT
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com> wrote:

> Ok guys,
>
> I don't think anyone is doing a thorough analysis of viaability. I did a
> quick glance and the top one (Vector) seems like it would have an issue
> with conflict of an Actian product. The may be fine. Let's do a second
> phase vote.
>

I'm assuming you mean Vectorwise?

Before we do anything else, could we have a lawyer look into this? Last
time around that I remember (Parquet), Twitter's lawyers did a good job of
weeding out the potential trademark violations.

Alex, could Twitter get involved this time around as well?


>
> Pick your top 3 (1,2,3 with 3 being top preference)
>
> Let's get this done by Friday and then we can do a podling name search
> starting with the top one.
>
> Link again:
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532&vpid=A1
>
> thanks
>
>
> --
> Jacques Nadeau
> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Ok, it looks like we have a candidate list (we actually got 11 since
>> there was a three-way tie for ninth place):
>>
>> VectorArrowhoneycombHerringbonejoistV2Pietcolbufbatonimpulsevictor
>> Next we need to do trademark searches on each of these to see whether
>> we're likely to have success. I've moved candidates to a second tab:
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=304381532
>>
>> Anybody want to give a hand in analyzing potential conflicts?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jacques Nadeau
>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Everybody should pick their ten favorites using the numbers 1 to 10.
>>>
>>> 10 is most preferred
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Single vote for most preferred?
>>>>
>>>> Single transferable vote?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Given that a bunch of people added names to the sheet, I'll take that
>>>>> as tacit agreement to the proposed process.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's move to the first vote phase. I've added a column for
>>>>> everybody's votes. Let's try to wrap up the vote by 10am on Wednesday.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks!
>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey Guys,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It sounds like we need to do a little more work on the Vector proposal
>>>>>> before the board would like to consider it. The main point of
>>>>>> contention
>>>>>> right now is the name of the project. We need to decide on a name
and
>>>>>> get
>>>>>> it signed off through PODLINGNAMESEARCH.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Naming is extremely subjective so I'd like to propose a process for
>>>>>> selection that minimizes pain. This is an initial proposal and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We do the naming in the following steps
>>>>>> - 1: Collect a set of names to be considered
>>>>>> - 2: Run a vote for 2 days where each member ranks their top 10
>>>>>> options
>>>>>> 1..10
>>>>>> - 3: Take the top ten vote getters and do a basic analysis of whether
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> think that any have legal issues. Keep dropping names that have this
>>>>>> until
>>>>>> we get with 10 reasonably solid candidate names
>>>>>> - 5: Take the top ten names and give people 48 hours to rank their
>>>>>> top 3
>>>>>> names
>>>>>> - 6: Start a PODLINGNAMESEARCH on the top rank one, if that doesn't
>>>>>> work,
>>>>>> try the second and third options.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggest we take name suggestions for step 1 from everyone but then
>>>>>> constrain the voting to the newly proposed project [1]. We could
just
>>>>>> do
>>>>>> this in a private email thread but I think doing it on Drill dev
is
>>>>>> better
>>>>>> in the interest of transparency. This isn't the perfect place for
>>>>>> that but
>>>>>> I'm not sure a better place exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm up for changing any or all of this depending on what others
>>>>>> think. Just
>>>>>> wanted to get the ball rolling on a proposed process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If this works, I've posted a doc at [2] that we can use for step
1.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Jacques
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] List of proposed new project members/voters: Todd Lipcon, Ted
>>>>>> Dunning,
>>>>>> Michael Stack, P. Taylor Goetz, Julian Hyde, Julien Le Dem, Jacques
>>>>>> Nadeau,
>>>>>> James Taylor, Jake Luciani, Parth Chandra, Alex Levenson, Marcel
>>>>>> Kornacker,
>>>>>> Steven Phillips, Hanifi Gunes, Wes McKinney, Jason Altekruse, David
>>>>>> Alves,
>>>>>> Zain Asgar, Ippokratis Pandis, Abdel Hakim Deneche, Reynold Xin.
>>>>>> [2]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

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