Hi Qing, I see 3 options
Option 1: Do nothing. I don't know how a RESTARTED vote works. Steffen counted the binding votes from the before it was restarted. Unsure if that actually works. There has been one +1 votes since the restart, but it is non-binding as best I can tell even though it labeled as binding. To be a binding vote for the [email protected] VOTE you must be on the Incubator PMC or IPMC. Users on the MXNet Podling PMC or PPMC have a binding vote only on the dev@mxnet VOTE thread. See https://incubator.apache.org/policy/incubation.html#releases. In addition, those binding +1 votes may need to be changes based on http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval which reads "Before casting +1 binding votes, individuals are REQUIRED to download all signed source code packages onto their own hardware, verify that they meet all requirements of ASF policy on releases as described below, validate all cryptographic signatures, compile as provided, and test the result on their own platform." Luciano's -1 was because the release does not meet the licensing policy at http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers For this reason, I can not give a +1 on the [email protected] VOTE thread. Sorry, that is why I have not voted. Option 2: Start another vote thread on [email protected] pointing to the original vote thread on [email protected] and the canceled vote thread. Likely that need to be open for 72 hours unless the IPMC agrees otherwise. I list this because I don't know if a RESTART recounting votes from a prior thread is valid. But this option has the same risk of not being approved for the reasons listed above. Option 3: 1 - Fix the header issues. I dug a little more, and the excludes file at https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/blob/v1.4.x/tests/nightly/apache_rat_license_check/rat-excludes is overly broad and excludes files from the check that should have license headers, again per http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers 2 - Start a vote thread on [email protected]. Doesn't have to be open 72 hours according to Justin's note if the PPMC agrees. Expect this would need to be documented on the mailing list, but could be part of the vote I think. 3 - Start a vote thread on [email protected] pointing to the new vote thread from step 2. Will likely need to be open 72 hours. Clearly option 1 would be faster, but the risk is the vote not passing. Option 2 may not be needed if the restart in option 1 is valid. Option 3 is the most correct I think according to what I read in ASF policy. But rushing a vote does have risks, such as less testing on the code being released. To make this more confusing, the VOTE thread is showing up on both [email protected] and [email protected]. There is an additional +1 vote on the [email protected] list that doesn't show up on the general@incubator, but this too is non binding best I can tell. Tough position to be in with Horovod being released. Nothing in ASF policy makes allowances for such an event that I could find. Perhaps we should ask for more clarification on [email protected] to get more thoughts from the IPMC. Mike On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:53 PM Qing Lan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Could you please guide how to proceed with this? Given that we have a > possibility of announcing MXNet support in Horovod with their next release > and this would help MXNet increase our visibility. > > Thanks, > Qing > > On 2/12/19, 2:16 PM, "Michael Wall" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Team, > > Here is my read on the situation. The vote has been canceled. > Justin's > point was that a -1 doesn't mean you must cancel a vote for the > reasons he > outlined. But here the vote needs to be restarted and the issue > Luciano > found needs to be addressed. > > That issue is that there are files in MXNet source tree that do not > have > the required licenses headers, > http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#license-headers. For > example, the top level README.md is missing the header > > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/master/README.md. > Excluding 3rd party files from the RAT check is fine, but not files > originating from the MXNet repo. > > It would be good to know exactly how Luciano ran the RAT check, cc'd. > Here > is a link to the thread > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/51e9ab05edae2089c74a253000a92d5aa5c6406f54e5bd0a0b3c3879@%3Cgeneral.incubator.apache.org%3E > . > > Justin's other point, aIso cc'd, was that the vote with the podling > doesn't > have to take 72 hours before going to the incubator list. > > I realize this is not what everyone is pushing for, so interested in > other's thoughts. Especially other mentors. > > Mike > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:47 PM Aaron Markham < > [email protected]> > wrote: > > > +1 > > I disagree about 3rd party considerations. This is an ecosystem > after all. > > The distributed training story is quite nice with Horovod. Given my > > interaction with tensorflow with Horovod and dynamic training with > MXNet > > and the kvstore, this new route is, IMO, easier to setup and manage. > > I see the benefit for getting it out there sooner than later, and > market > > timings are important to the project and adoption. If Uber's > announcement > > drives traffic to MXNet, but then people can't set it up with a > stable > > release package, there's a lost opportunity for growing the > community. Why > > miss the opportunity for a RAT license? > > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019, 13:14 Dave Fisher <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Hi - > > > > > > Third party vendor considerations do not matter. Are you voting +1 > with > > > your Apache hat on or your Amazon hat? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Dave > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 2019, at 10:16 PM, Lin Yuan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > +1 binding > > > > Horovod is going to release it's 0.16.0 in the coming week with > MXNet > > > > integration. We need to release 1.4.0 which includes all the > > dependencies > > > > for Horovod integration. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Lin > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:30 PM Steffen Rochel < > > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Dear community - > > > >> based on Justin's and community feedback I'm suggesting to > restart the > > > >> vote. > > > >> Current status: > > > >> binding votes: > > > >> +1: 2 votes (Henri, Jason) > > > >> -1: 1 vote (Luciano) > > > >> > > > >> non-binding: > > > >> +1: 1 vote (Kellen) > > > >> > > > >> The community is investigating feedback from Luciano that the > > exclusion > > > >> file is to broad and potentially missing files which can and > must have > > > >> apache license headers not to be checked. > > > >> > > > >> Regards, > > > >> Steffen > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 10:08 AM Hagay Lupesko < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Based on Justin's feedback, can we resume the vote instead of > > > cancelling > > > >>> it? > > > >>> > > > >>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:02 AM Justin Mclean < > > > [email protected] > > > >>> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hi, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> In future don’t be so hasty to cancel a release vote, people > mind > > can > > > >> be > > > >>>> changed and a -1 is not a veto on a release. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Thanks, > > > >>>> Justin > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [email protected] > > > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: > [email protected] > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
