+1 for retirement. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a podling returning to the place from whence it came. I'm encouraged that that sentiment seems to be proliferating among the IPMC.
-Taylor > On Apr 16, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sounds like consensus is coming together, then. Sound right? > > >> On Apr 16, 2017 06:03, "larry mccay" <lmc...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> Hmmmm - interesting points about incubator vs github and overhead. >> I do think my statement was unclear though. >> >> I was saying exactly the same thing about struggling podlings. >> Much better to find out in the incubator than as a TLP that the apache way >> isn't really going to work for them at the moment. >> >> >> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 7:21 AM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >>>> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 3:04 PM larry mccay <lmc...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Well said. >>>> It is healthy to not have a podling graduate and subsequently struggle >>> as a >>>> TLP. >>>> This is actually a success of sorts. >>>> >>>> At least until a majority of podlings have trouble. :) >>>> >>>> >>> I may be reading Ted's email differently. Or I might be reading your >>> response wrong. >>> >>> Retirement isn't a failure. Podlings are meant to be experiments in some >>> cases. Can I build a strong enough community, can we follow the apache >>> way. >>> >>> There's a notion that the incubator adds over head to smaller projects. >> If >>> you're a one-or-two developer group, who can commit one small change and >>> cut a release in an afternoon, coming to apache with our 3 day voting >>> periods seems crazy. >>> >>> For small projects like Sirona, they may benefit from rapid iterate, >>> release, feedback cycles. This is where tooling like GitHub becomes much >>> more useful. Once you get wikis, websites going, you can iterate and >> seem >>> like a strong community. Until you become a community of 100's of users. >>> >>> We don't want to see struggling podlings graduate. This is why the >>> incubator has no time limit. We do get worried when a podling's been >> here >>> for too long. >>> >>> Basically, Sirona may see some success retiring from Apache, moving >>> development to github, until they've been able to build a bigger >> community. >>> >>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
