incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luke Han <luke...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Kudu incubator proposal
Date Wed, 18 Nov 2015 02:36:51 GMT
In "community" section of this proposal, there are many companies
have been mentioned including Xiaomi, Dropbox, Intel and Dremio,
and said there are contributions from them.

I think their engineers are more interesting and be involved
in Kudu actively, why not think about to invite them to be committer first?

Just my 2 cents:)

Thanks.




*=== Community ===*
>
> *Though Kudu is relatively new as an open source project, it has already**seen
> promising growth in its community across several organizations:*
>
> * * '''Cloudera''' is the original development sponsor for Kudu.*
> * * '''Xiaomi''' has been helping to develop and optimize Kudu for a new*
> *production use case, contributing code, benchmarks, feedback, and*
> *conference talks.*
> * * '''Intel''' has contributed optimizations related to their hardware*
> *technologies.*
> * * '''Dropbox''' has been experimenting with Kudu for a machine
> monitoring*
> *use case, and has been contributing bug reports and product feedback.*
> * * '''Dremio''' is working on integration with Apache Drill and exploring*
> *using Kudu in a production use case.*
> * * Several community-built Docker images, tutorials, and blog posts have**sprouted
> up since Kudu’s release.*
>
>
>
> *By bringing Kudu to Apache, we hope to encourage further contribution
> from*
> *the above organizations as well as to engage new users and contributors
> in**the community.*
>



Best Regards!
---------------------

Luke Han

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Todd Lipcon <todd@apache.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 04:53PM, Marvin Humphrey wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > So, you're saying that people were chosen to be listed or not as the
> > > > contributors merely by the amount of the code they have contributed
> to
> > the
> > > > project. Am I reading this right?
> > >
> > > We've had this debate about committer cattle call additions many
> > > times. The position that Todd is taking is completely reasonable. The
> > > expectation that just about anybody can join a project during the
> > > proposal phase is messed up and I wish that tradition had never caught
> >
> > That's not my point, Marvin. The people who contributed less than 20
> > commits
> > (hmm, why not 4 or a 107?) are still contributors. And in my opinion,
> they
> > at
> > least have to be invited to participate in the podling, if it is accepted
> > by
> > IPMC. So, I will re-phrase: "was an invitation to participate in the
> > project
> > extended to all contributors?".
> >
> > Shall it be done formally or by providing "Interested Party" is an
> > implementation detail.
> >
> >
> We haven't formally extended any invitation to these people to continue
> participating in the project at the ASF. Those who are active in the
> project I fully anticipate will continue to be active and work their way
> towards committership. Others who contributed in the past but whom we
> haven't seen in 12+ months are of course welcome to come back to the
> project. In that case, I think it would be an easy vote to committership.
>
> If anyone is interested in the project, feel free to edit the wiki and add
> an "Interested Parties" section. I haven't seen that one before on other
> proposals, and not sure what it accomplishes. The whole nature of the ASF
> is that no explicit "invitations to participate" are necessary. Everyone is
> by default invited to participate and contribute. To make that explicit,
> though, I'll make sure to send out a note to all of our previous
> contributors once we're accepted for incubation.
>
> The reason that we elected to include the "active in the last 12 months"
> was to avoid creating a project with a super-long list of employees of a
> single company. Seeing such a list can be discouraging for new folks --
> both because of the "wall of single employer" effect and because newcomers
> to the community are likely to be confused why these people have been made
> committers when they have never once participated inside the ASF.
>
> If the IPMC at large feels that the above reasoning is inappropriate, we
> can change the proposal to include a few more committers -- there's a small
> handful of folks who made significant contributions to the project early on
> that are no longer active. I don't imagine these people will end up
> contributing or voting on releases, though, so it seems like an artificial
> "stuffing" of the committer list.
>
> Thanks
> -Todd
>

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