From dev-return-3278-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Mon Jun 18 20:42:21 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 3BAF2180663 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 20:42:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 44557 invoked by uid 500); 18 Jun 2018 18:42:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@mxnet.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 44544 invoked by uid 99); 18 Jun 2018 18:42:19 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 18:42:19 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 3AED7C032A for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 18:42:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.228 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.228 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6BDuYTN9G6uB for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 18:42:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wm0-f50.google.com (mail-wm0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id EEB845F18A for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 18:42:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f50.google.com with SMTP id o13-v6so15694497wmf.4 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:42:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:reply-to:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ngq1lNOclClwkPFxV66ZRnc0EVfhKPoNOm1zL5EKdDc=; b=S79IS3Qvl2PttY3M7tAeTJUiKMYtiwrtOihQ2S7Z0VICTwToTcibZk2aug5sVLrQvg EgrZfgswfvwHxgihPT0R69NunihPhS/n29Mog0KX1UGJmoGBa9vS2csvpxCfY5copMWp r4A/3nyoIvGNAB1zPzpYoNyumrY3Q/PbNsEfNvHHU0BmeqLN3XJ4H3SxWN/Zaj192YLb c/LeNb4riCjC5WLYI4SNxfzGAVrpn1rjhjvSHZRV0hQUuNgFo3DJelsBVHfxM6b1HJTz l7iByH1pASd9FmehQfroFBjkbkXF5QL1xwqfqQmOpjFNQAGekmS1aZWYxmumU0GQ5h1T UqVQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E0bKzb6v5xZwEfQT6vAZpKQreSYrWe9EDopbjgvpkX0j5lAksBl 3oLPo/p2SShMPReAHE8k4Id2JjqZ X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKI6njTD3u5T/pEnyGZrn/WJfLZsZUTEAl6y1izceHKkgPO7ePptGNiXq/8fCbe3TVGhYazJQQ== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:228b:: with SMTP id i133-v6mr10019915wmi.92.1529347334221; Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:42:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.178.22] (x5ce58715.dyn.telefonica.de. [92.229.135.21]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t13-v6sm20494738wro.62.2018.06.18.11.42.12 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: users@mxnet To: dev@mxnet.incubator.apache.org References: <67033f51-3a05-a3b8-b210-f7241ff726ed@apache.org> <67410792-CC77-4FB7-845D-7DAF096F28CC@jaguNET.com> Reply-To: ssc@apache.org From: Sebastian Message-ID: <060ccb37-c79f-c883-05f6-360fedac810a@apache.org> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 20:42:12 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 > 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" 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 >> >>> 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 >>> 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 >>> >>>>>> 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 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, >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >