I think that we need to get over thinking of this state of affairs is a "failure".
It is just one of the many different possible outcomes for incubation. To my mind, having multiple possible outcomes is a *feature*, not a bug. Obviously, we should not admit podlings that we aren't committed to helping become TLP's and we should help those podlings become TLP's. But there are lots of different possible outcomes and only the podling can really determine which outcome it will have. It is a fact of nature that we cannot always know whether a new podling really has the right intent and contributor mix to become a good TLP. Sometimes it is apparent that the project will be a great fit and sometimes it is apparent that it won't be, but many times we won't exactly know. There will be cases where a community will melt away and there will be cases where a community really didn't get the point of the Apache license. In many cases, the world just changes and by the time it is time to graduate, the project just isn't the right thing to do any more. As such, I think we need to (somewhat) over-admit podlings when there is doubt. That doesn't mean admit projects that just won't ever succeed, but it does mean we should be a little generous in terms of admission. We should vote to admit in cases of some doubt. If that is true, then we have to expect that there will be a variety of outcomes and we have to take that as a consequence of our initial generosity. This is not a cause for tears. Frankly, every project that becomes an obvious candidate for retirement means that there is another successful project that we admitted even though there was doubt. IF it is time to retire Sirona, let's just do it. On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> wrote: > It is very sad to see a project failing at growing a community. Looking at > the various public sources, I see: > > - just 2 pull request since its start in incubation > - no postings on the user ml since December 2015 > - only 3 committing contributors since start in incubation > - No description (readme) in github > - No mission statement/goal description of the project on the project's > home page > > I fear this will not turn around due to the lack of interest in the world > beyond the project. At the moment I am inclined to say: time for > retirement. > > Best regards, > > > Pierre Smits > > ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> > OFBiz based solutions & services > > OFBiz Extensions Marketplace > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <j...@nanthrax.net> > wrote: > > > Hi John > > > > I think you did the right thing by bringing the point on the table. > > > > AFAIR I already stated some months ago that, regarding the activity and > > regarding the community around, we should really think about retirement > of > > Sirona. Some can argue about the fact that Sirona is a "stable" project > > that's not really valid: if it's valid we should see questions, feature > > requests, etc coming from the user community. And obviously it's not the > > case. So I think that Sirona is just use for specific use cases in a very > > limited community. > > > > My €0.01 ;) > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Apr 15, 2017, 15:49, at 15:49, "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org > > > > wrote: > > >All, > > > > > >I hate bringing up these topics. But I think we as the IPMC we have to > > >take a close look at how Sirona is running and figure out what to do > > >next. > > > > > >- The podling has not reported in several months (this is their 3rd > > >attempt > > >at monthly). > > >- Every time the thought of retirement comes up, a little bit of > > >activity > > >on the project happens. It doesn't sustain. > > >- There is some limited project history, but no real contribution in 6 > > >months ( https://github.com/apache/sirona/commits/trunk ) > > > > > >I personally don't want to see projects go, and I don't want to force a > > >project to leave, but at the same time I'm not convinced that there's > > >enough of a community behind the project to sustain it going forward. > > >They've put together a limited plan to get a release out the door, but > > >other than that I'm not sure they're going to be able to move forward. > > > > > >So I want to ask, as the IPMC, do we want to give them time to regroup? > > > > > >John > > >
