No secret here. It's OpenNLP. On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: > On 5 July 2011 14:07, Benson Margulies <bimargul...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz >> <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: >>>> ...If a project, during an 18 month incubation, cannot draw in new blood, >>>> how can we believe that it will do so as a TLP? >>>> >>>> Marketing of the project, getting it known, getting people using it >>>> enough so as to draw in new blood, is clearly a part of the incubation >>>> process.... >>> >>> I tend to agree, and maybe also lowering the bar for new committers (I >>> have no idea if that's a problem in your podling). >> >> At the risk of getting shoes thrown at my by my fellow mentors ... >> >> I know something about the field of endeavour of this podling -- >> that's why I volunteered. I think that it is a very interesting >> question as to how many qualified, interested, potential committers >> are out there. Much of the work in the field is academic, and >> professors tend to keep their <del>slave labor</del> graduate students >> otherwise occupied. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but, in a sense, >> that's the question posed by this podling: who's out there? >> Ironically, I might be writing a proposal this week for funding to >> assign people of mine to work on it, but there's no telling where that >> will go. > > I have plenty of experience of projects born inthe academic space. I > would suggest that if the seven committers are all academic related > then more caution is required than if they are from 3 or more > independent commercial organisations. The problem is that once the > funded for a given project has finished the academics are no longer > interested and there is nobody to transition to a new development > team. > > It can, of course, be argued that this is also true of companies > investing in projects. They might pull the plug at any time. However, > typically collaborating academics are all drawing from the same pot. > They might look independent of one another, but the common funding > makes them all prone to disappear at the same time. > > A further problem is that in the case of academic projects the driving > force is, very often, not interested in the software as an output. > They are interested in the research questions being addressed. Often > longevity of the software is not important to their career paths. > Consequently community development work is often lacking. > > These problems are not insurmountable nor are my observations always > true. We do have projects that have their roots in academic circles, > but I believe such projects need more active community development > work. In summary I would suggest that caution be observed. > > Can you identify the project (offlist if you prefer). I'd like to take > a quick look to see if I am aware of any overlaps in my network). > > Ross > > >> >> >> >>> >>> -Bertrand >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> > > > > -- > Ross Gardler (@rgardler) > Programme Leader (Open Development) > OpenDirective http://opendirective.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
