On 20/01/2015 00:05, Peter Ansell wrote: > The tendency so far has been, since some of us are not paid > specifically to work on the relevant code, that once pull requests are > suggested, the discussion gets going for a few days and then falls > off. And eventually, once the API is stable it will fall off > altogether to almost zero. That last reason is the main reason for why > a TLP will not suit us, as TLP are encouraged to stay active and > develop new features for their libraries or get shutdown.
Utter nonsense. The board has never, ever forced a community to move the attic due to a failure to develop new features. Whether or not to develop a new feature and how to develop of are decisions for the PMC and the PMC only and the board has never even started going down that line. The board understands that some projects reach a state of maturity where the majority of activity is on the users mailing list with the odd bug report and occasionally a release. As long as there is a community around the project answering those questions and able to do a release if required the board will happily leave a TLP to get on with things. If the community withers away, no-one answers user questions, no-one fixes bug reports and there are not enough active PMC members to do a release then the board start asking questions of the remaining community about how to reboot it. If that fails then eventually the TLP will end up in the attic. > It is also why commons would be useful to us, I am concerned at this point that the RDF community is attempting to use the Commons TLP as a means of bypassing what they see as overly burdensome ASF processes. I can understand that. Way back when Tomcat was part of Jakarta I was in no rush for Tomcat to become a TLP because of the perceived overhead. In reality, there was a little overhead for the transition but on an ongoing basis one report to the board every 3 months barely registers. > but we are a little worried about > having to have users subscribe to a high-traffic mailing list to > discuss the API. Members of the Commons community are expected to be subscribed to the dev mailing list. The impression I get from reading these messages is that the RDF community has little to no interest in interacting with the Commons community. At this point it looks to me like the incubator would be a much better destination, particularly given the general impression I get of the RDF community not really understanding how the ASF works. > All of those concerns are dealt with by the opt-in nature of > GitHub/etc. issues/pull requests, where you can specifically watch a > given discussion; watch an entire repository for as long as necessary; > or switch from watching to just star a repository for future > reference, but not watch it, and hence not get notifications about it. ASF communities are opt-in as well. You subscribe to the dev list. > One option may be that if the process for having GitHub issues send > notifications to the mailing list is working fairly well could we have > the majority of our casual contributors watch a repository there to > interact with pull requests and the core contributors subscribe to > this mailing list. Project development is meant to happen on the dev list. By all means use Github to attract new contributors but the aim should be to get them onto the dev list. > I gather that we would need to use Apache Jira for > issues instead of GitHub issues. Is it possible to watch an entire > project in Jira and get notifications about all discussion for a > period of time or is the Apache Jira setup to not send that level of > notifications (only infrequently administered Jira and I realise that > they are all setup differently so just clarifying that). ASF Jira projects are configured to send all updates for a project to a single list. Some projects send this to dev@, some to issues@. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
