mxnet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tianqi Chen <tqc...@cs.washington.edu>
Subject Re: users@mxnet
Date Mon, 18 Jun 2018 18:53:27 GMT
IMHO, the approach(mail list or discuss) have nothing to do with the
popularity of the project.  If you look at TF or pytorch you mentioned.
Pytorch uses discuss forum and slack, tf uses stackoverflow for support.
Both are popular but not adopting maillist. Note that I know both are both
not apache projects, but just to show that the popularity of the project do
not necessarily have to go with the setup of maillist


Tianqi


On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:42 AM Sebastian <ssc@apache.org> wrote:

> I am puzzled by the reluctance of this project to setup a user
> mailinglist to be honest.
>
> MXNet has major issues with attracting a community outside of Amazon
> (whenever I hear folks talking about deep learning, they usually mention
> tensorflow, pytorch and keras, but I rarely hear someone talk about
> MXNet). At the same time, there is so much resistance to adopt practices
> that are successfully used by many high-profile toplevel projects...
>
> -s
>
> On 18.06.2018 20:37, Timur Shenkao wrote:
> > Facebook is definitely a bad idea: we will be dependent on third party
> > provider + unclear who & how manages such group etc.
> > Forum + Confluence + Slack is  much better then.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 7:17 PM, Ivan Serdyuk <
> local.tourist.kiev@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Greetings Barber, Christopher. I had an idea to move out some
> discussions,
> >> covering Java and Scala API, to Facebook. So if somewhere exists a local
> >> JUG or Scala user group - they could reflect the topic of discussion.
> But
> >> background stuff could take place on mailing lists, Slack, forum,
> whatever.
> >> The reverse mechanism could be used to involve new committers, as well
> (so
> >> they would appear as presented newcomers, as for contributions).
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Ivan
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Barber, Christopher <
> >> Christopher.Barber@analog.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't understand why you would want a users mailing list when you
> >>> already have discussion forums. Users that want to be notified of new
> >> posts
> >>> on the forum can configure their notification preferences
> appropriately.
> >>> The traffic on the forums is already pretty low. I would think you
> would
> >>> not want to dilute that further.
> >>>
> >>> Christopher
> >>>
> >>> On 6/18/18, 1:27 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>      users@ mailing lists have great societal advantages that one
> >>> shouldn't ignore...
> >>>
> >>>      And it's not like this is the only project with "multiple"
> >>> communication choices for users. Most, if not all, projects have
> users@in
> >>> addition to such supplemental methods as IRC channels, a forum, etc...
> >> It's
> >>> about making it easy to have as many users as possible and as many
> >>> potential ways for users to communicate. It's not confusing; it's
> >>> empowering :)
> >>>
> >>>      > On Jun 18, 2018, at 1:19 PM, Tianqi Chen <
> tqchen@cs.washington.edu
> >>>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>      >
> >>>      > The problem of having multiple separate channels of
> communication
> >> is
> >>> that
> >>>      > users get confused, and the cost of maintenance goes up(people
> have
> >>> to
> >>>      > watch both). As the current community was at discuss forum and
> many
> >>> users
> >>>      > prefer it, having a mail-list is only a burden we will bring
> >>>      >
> >>>      > Tianqi
> >>>      >
> >>>      > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jagunet.com
> >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>      >
> >>>      >> IMO, that is the wrong way to look at it.
> >>>      >>
> >>>      >> A users@ mailing list is a great, easy, low-cost and
> low-overhead
> >>> way of
> >>>      >> *increasing* the user community and providing an extra level
of
> >>> support.
> >>>      >> Unless there is "strong evidence" that this is NOT the case,
I
> >> would
> >>>      >> recommend we create the list.
> >>>      >>
> >>>      >>> On Jun 16, 2018, at 12:28 AM, Tianqi Chen <
> >>> tqchen@cs.washington.edu>
> >>>      >> wrote:
> >>>      >>>
> >>>      >>> So unless there is a strong evidence that our community
users
> >>> prefers the
> >>>      >>> mail-list, I would recommend we keep the current way
> >>>      >>>
> >>>      >>> Tianqi
> >>>      >>>
> >>>      >>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:25 PM, Sergio Fernández <
> >>> wikier@apache.org>
> >>>      >> wrote:
> >>>      >>>
> >>>      >>>> Are we targeting just Seattle as our community? I
really
> hope we
> >>> are
> >>>      >>>> thinking a bit beyond that...
> >>>      >>>>
> >>>      >>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018, 21:22 Tianqi Chen <
> >> tqchen@cs.washington.edu
> >>>>
> >>>      >> wrote:
> >>>      >>>>
> >>>      >>>>> I remember last time during the mxnet meetup in
Seattle, we
> >> did a
> >>>      >> survey,
> >>>      >>>>> and most users preferred the current discuss forum.
So I
> would
> >>> say we
> >>>      >>>> stick
> >>>      >>>>> with that given the user community prefers that
> >>>      >>>>>
> >>>      >>>>> Tianqi
> >>>      >>>>>
> >>>      >>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:13 PM, Sergio Fernández
<
> >>> wikier@apache.org>
> >>>      >>>>> wrote:
> >>>      >>>>>
> >>>      >>>>>> Then, if everybody agree, let's request the
mailing list
> >>> creation to
> >>>      >>>>> INFRA
> >>>      >>>>>> ;-)
> >>>      >>>>>>
> >>>      >>>>>> Marco, I wouldn't do that. Typically developers
are also
> >>> subscribed
> >>>      >>>>> there,
> >>>      >>>>>> since they may be the most informed people
for answering
> >> users'
> >>>      >>>>> questions.
> >>>      >>>>>> But the topics discussed there may not be
of the interest
> for
> >>> pure
> >>>      >>>>>> development purposes. Some discussions will
jump from
> users@
> >>> to dev@,
> >>>      >>>>> but
> >>>      >>>>>> at a different level. So I wouldn't forward
one mailing
> list
> >> to
> >>> the
> >>>      >>>>> other.
> >>>      >>>>>>
> >>>      >>>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018, 21:01 Marco de Abreu
> >>>      >>>>>> <marco.g.abreu@googlemail.com.invalid>
wrote:
> >>>      >>>>>>
> >>>      >>>>>>> I think nobody was opposed to it in the
past, right?
> >>>      >>>>>>>
> >>>      >>>>>>> I'd propose that all emails automatically
get copied to
> dev@
> >>> to
> >>>      >>>> ensure
> >>>      >>>>>>> high
> >>>      >>>>>>> visibility initially. What do you think?
> >>>      >>>>>>>
> >>>      >>>>>>> Sebastian <ssc@apache.org> schrieb
am Fr., 15. Juni 2018,
> >>> 20:51:
> >>>      >>>>>>>
> >>>      >>>>>>>> I have already proposed this many
times in the past and
> >> would
> >>>      >>>>> strongly
> >>>      >>>>>>>> encourage it.
> >>>      >>>>>>>>
> >>>      >>>>>>>> -s
> >>>      >>>>>>>>
> >>>      >>>>>>>> On 15.06.2018 21:56, Sergio Fernández
wrote:
> >>>      >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>      >>>>>>>>>
> >>>      >>>>>>>>> is there any good reason why the
podling doesn't have a
> >>> users@
> >>>      >>>>>> mailing
> >>>      >>>>>>>> list
> >>>      >>>>>>>>> yet?
> >>>      >>>>>>>>>
> >>>      >>>>>>>>> Honestly speaking, I'm not a big
fan of the other tools
> the
> >>>      >>>> podling
> >>>      >>>>>> is
> >>>      >>>>>>>>> using. Slack and Web forums a
cool tools, and I used
> them a
> >>> lot
> >>>      >>>> in
> >>>      >>>>>>> other
> >>>      >>>>>>>>> contexts. But when it comes to
transparency and
> community,
> >>>      >>>> mailing
> >>>      >>>>>>> lists
> >>>      >>>>>>>>> play a crucial role in the Apache
Way.
> >>>      >>>>>>>>>
> >>>      >>>>>>>>> Users are the most important asset
a project can have.
> Even
> >>> more
> >>>      >>>>> than
> >>>      >>>>>>>>> developers, believe me. So I think
it's time to create a
> >>> users@
> >>>      >>>>>>> mailing
> >>>      >>>>>>>>> list for to helping MXNet grow
its community beyong the
> >> core
> >>>      >>>> team.
> >>>      >>>>>>>>>
> >>>      >>>>>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>      >>>>>>>>>
> >>>      >>>>>>>>
> >>>      >>>>>>>
> >>>      >>>>>>
> >>>      >>>>>
> >>>      >>>>
> >>>      >>
> >>>      >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

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