drill-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@dremio.com>
Subject Re: Naming the new ValueVector Initiative
Date Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:19:51 GMT
Sounds good. We'll need to start the Apache repo with just Apache code
given how we've done the proposal. After we get established, we can break
any independent progress you've made into a set of patches to add to the
existing repo through the normal Apache commit process.





--
Jacques Nadeau
CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Wes McKinney <wes@cloudera.com> wrote:

> Great to hear on the name approval!
>
> If it is OK I will consolidate to 1 repo and nest the C++ code under
> cpp/ and add some format Markdown files there in the next week or so.
>
> One repo is perfectly fine (as compared with Parquet) as long as the
> language implementations can evolve and be released in a
> non-monolithic way.
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com>
> wrote:
> > Good news guys, Apache trademarks just approved the name Apache Arrow
> [1]. I
> > will update the proposal and resubmit to the board.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Jacques
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92
> >
> > --
> > Jacques Nadeau
> > CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Julian Hyde <jhyde@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> You can also do the trick of having two branches that diverge at the
> very
> >> first commit. C++ and Java are in the same repository but if you have a
> >> given branch checked out you are looking at one or the other.
> >>
> >> That said, I’d be inclined to put everything in the same repo.
> >>
> >> The repo size will not be prohibitive as long as we follow Julien’s
> >> recommendation to put large objects (e.g. test data sets) elsewhere.
> >>
> >> And it makes it possible for a single patch to update both C++ and Java
> >> code lines, and also update shared content (the specification and the
> source
> >> files for the web site).
> >>
> >> And having said THAT, it doesn’t really matter. If we realize we’ve
> made a
> >> horrible mistake in 2 years we can split the repo or merge the repos.
> >>
> >> Julian
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Dec 17, 2015, at 11:09 AM, Julien Le Dem <julien@ledem.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I guess what I meant is: separate repos => separate releases.
> >> > One repo can still have separate releases as was mentioned.
> >> >
> >> > I’m not too fond of the separate repos in parquet anymore.
> >> > The only reason I would split to a separate repo now is if we have
> large
> >> > files for regression testing and that’s because of how git works.
> >> >
> >> > Separate directories java and cpp seems a given since they will build
> >> > independently.
> >> >
> >> > I’d vote for just one repo with /format /java /cpp.
> >> > both /java and /cpp depend on /format
> >> >
> >> > releasing the format independently is useful because the semantics are
> >> > different than for an API.
> >> > A breaking change in the format may not be an API change and
> vice-versa.
> >> >
> >> > Julien
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> On Dec 16, 2015, at 7:03 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> One repo should be a given.
> >> >>
> >> >> Separate directories should be the question.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Jason Altekruse
> >> >> <altekrusejason@gmail.com <mailto:altekrusejason@gmail.com>>
wrote:
> >> >> I think that is a worthwhile discussion, parallel vs independent
> >> >> releases, but I don't understand why it relates to one repo or not.
> Couldn't
> >> >> the release tag names just include the language (cpp, java python)?
> What
> >> >> other parts of version control are related to releasing?
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Julien Le Dem <julien@dremio.com
> >> >> <mailto:julien@dremio.com>> wrote:
> >> >> for the git repos it boils down to wether we want to release
> arrow-cpp
> >> >> and arrow-java independently or together with the same version
> numbers.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com
> >> >> <mailto:jacques@dremio.com>> wrote:
> >> >> Thanks Wes, that's great!
> >> >> On Dec 14, 2015 9:44 AM, "Wes McKinney" <wes@cloudera.com
> >> >> <mailto:wes@cloudera.com>> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> hi folks,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> In the interim I created a new public GitHub organization to host
> code
> >> >>> for this effort so we can organize ourselves in advance of more
> >> >>> progress in the ASF:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> https://github.com/arrow-data <https://github.com/arrow-data>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I have a partial C++ implementation of the Arrow spec that I can
> move
> >> >>> there, along with a to-be-Markdown-ified version of a specification
> >> >>> subject to more iteration. The more pressing short term matter
will
> be
> >> >>> making some progress on the metadata / data headers / IPC protocol
> >> >>> (e.g. using Flatbuffers or the like).
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thoughts on git repo structure?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 1) Avro-style — "one repo to rule them all"
> >> >>> 2) Parquet-style — arrow-format, arrow-cpp, arrow-java, etc.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> (I'm personally more in the latter camp, though integration tests
> may
> >> >>> be more tedious that way)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Jacques Nadeau <jacques@dremio.com
> >> >>> <mailto:jacques@dremio.com>> wrote:
> >> >>>> I've opened a name search for our top vote getter.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92
> >> >>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-92>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I also just realized that my previously email dropped other
> >> >>>> recipients.
> >> >>>> Here it is below.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> ----
> >> >>>> I think we can call the voting closed. Top vote getters:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Apache Arrow (17)
> >> >>>> Apache Herringbone (9)
> >> >>>> Apache Joist (8)
> >> >>>> Apache Colbuf (8)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I'll up a PODLINGNAMESEARCH-* shortly for Arrow.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> ---
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> --
> >> >>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >> >>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Marcel Kornacker <
> marcel@cloudera.com
> >> >>>> <mailto:marcel@cloudera.com>>
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Just added my vote.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Wes McKinney <wes@cloudera.com
> >> >>>>> <mailto:wes@cloudera.com>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> Shall we call the voting closed? Any last stragglers?
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Ted Dunning <
> ted.dunning@gmail.com
> >> >>>>>> <mailto:ted.dunning@gmail.com>>
> >> >>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Apache can handle this if we set the groundwork
in place.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Also, Twitter's lawyers work for Twitter, not for
Apache. As
> such,
> >> >>>>>>> their
> >> >>>>>>> opinions can't be taken by Apache as legal advice.
 There are
> >> >>>>>>> issues
> >> >>> of
> >> >>>>>>> privilege, conflict of interest and so on.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:51 AM, Alex Levenson
> >> >>>>>>> <alexlevenson@twitter.com <mailto:alexlevenson@twitter.com>>
> >> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> I can ask about whether Twitter's lawyers can
help out -- is
> that
> >> >>>>>>>> something we need? Or is that something apache
helps out with
> in
> >> >>>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>> next
> >> >>>>>>>> step?
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Julian Hyde
<jhyde@apache.org
> >> >>>>>>>> <mailto:jhyde@apache.org>>
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> +1 to have a vote tomorrow.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Assuming that Vector is out of play, I
just did a quick search
> >> >>>>>>>>> for
> >> >>>>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>>> top 4 remaining, (“arrow”, “honeycomb”,
“herringbone”,
> “joist"),
> >> >>>>>>>>> at
> >> >>>>>>>>> sourceforge, open hub, trademarkia, and
on google. There are
> no
> >> >>>>>>>>> trademarks
> >> >>>>>>>>> for these in similar subject areas. There
is a moderately
> active
> >> >>>>>>>>> project
> >> >>>>>>>>> called “joist” [1].
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> I will point out that “Apache Arrow”
has native-american
> >> >>> connotations
> >> >>>>>>>>> that we may or may not want to live with
(just ask the
> >> >>>>>>>>> Washington
> >> >>>>>>>>> Redskins
> >> >>>>>>>>> how they feel about their name).
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> If someone would like to vet other names,
use the links on
> >> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90
> >> >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90>,
> and
> >> >>> fill
> >> >>>>>>>>> out
> >> >>>>>>>>> column C in the spreadsheet.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Julian
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/stephenh/joist
> >> >>>>>>>>> <https://github.com/stephenh/joist>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Jacques Nadeau
<
> jacques@dremio.com
> >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:jacques@dremio.com>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> +1
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>>>> Jacques Nadeau
> >> >>>>>>>>> CTO and Co-Founder, Dremio
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Wes McKinney
<
> wes@cloudera.com
> >> >>>>>>>>> <mailto:wes@cloudera.com>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Should we have a last call for votes, closing
EOD tomorrow
> >> >>> (Tuesday)?
> >> >>>>>>>>> I
> >> >>>>>>>>> missed this for a few days last week with
holiday travel.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Julian
Hyde <
> >> >>> julian@hydromatic.net <mailto:julian@hydromatic.net>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Consulting a lawyer is part of the Apache
branding process but
> >> >>>>>>>>> the
> >> >>>>>>>>> first
> >> >>>>>>>>> stage is to gather a list of potential
conflicts -
> >> >>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90
> >> >>>>>>>>> <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PODLINGNAMESEARCH-90>
> is an
> >> >>>>>>>>> example.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> The other part, frankly, is to pick your
battles.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> A year or so ago Actian re-branded Vectorwise
as Vector.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/
> >> >>> <
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/actian-consolidates-its-analytics-portfolio/
> >.
> >> >>>>>>>>> Given that it is an analytic database in
the Hadoop space I
> >> >>>>>>>>> think
> >> >>>>>>>>> that is
> >> >>>>>>>>> as close to a “direct hit” as it gets.
I don’t think we need a
> >> >>> lawyer
> >> >>>>>>>>> to
> >> >>>>>>>>> tell us that. Certainly it makes sense
to look for conflicts
> for
> >> >>> the
> >> >>>>>>>>> other
> >> >>>>>>>>> alternatives before consulting lawyers.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Julian
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 9:42 PM, Marcel Kornacker
> >> >>>>>>>>> <marcel@cloudera.com <mailto:marcel@cloudera.com>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jacques
Nadeau <
> >> >>> jacques@dremio.com <mailto: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
> >> >>> <
> 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 <mailto: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
> >> >>> <
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> >> >>> <
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q6UqluW6SLuMKRwW2TBGBzHfYLlXYm37eKJlIxWQGQM/edit#gid=0
> >
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> --
> >> >>>>>>>> Alex Levenson
> >> >>>>>>>> @THISWILLWORK
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Julien
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

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