It's a good starting point, but I don't think point 2 and 3 are actually significant issues anymore (assuming release 0.2 was a blip and considering the 'starter' tag).
Getting people to use the software is the biggest issue I see. That's the only way we'll increase diversity too, as Brane pointed out before. The lack of a demo instance for us to show people interested in using it how it works would be my number 2 issue. - Joe On 3 December 2012 17:53, Gary Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for the patience. I'll put the following on the incubator wiki > shortly to use as a starting point for our report: > > > Bloodhound is an issue tracker derivative of Trac, with the goal of making > deployment easy, and usage intuitive. > > Bloodhound has been incubating since December 2011. > > The top three issues that need to be addressed to move toward graduation > are: > > 1. Improve community diversity > 2. Lowering the barrier to entry and development > 3. Establish a frequent release cycle > > Since the last report, Bloodhound has gone through two release votes. The > problems highlighted in the September report, regarding the use of an > external > site for the download of some of the dependencies, have been largely > solved by > working with their maintainers to ensure that their packages are available > through a standard location (pypi). > > Releases themselves are beginning to become a little more routine although > the > time between the initiation of the vote for release of 0.2.0 and the > subsequent announcement of the result was of concern. > > Three new committers have been added to the project and they have driven > considerable conversation on the mailing lists in a relatively short time. > The > barriers to contributors appear to have been reduced but progress in this > area > needs to be consolidated with improvements to documentation to help > potential > contributors. > > > > > On 03/12/12 12:39, Gary Martin wrote: > >> The reports that Joe pointed out were good: >> >> For inspiration, our two most recent reports can be found here: >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/****incubator/September2012<http://wiki.apache.org/**incubator/September2012> >> <http:/**/wiki.apache.org/incubator/**September2012<http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/September2012> >> > >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/****incubator/June2012<http://wiki.apache.org/**incubator/June2012> >> <http://**wiki.apache.org/incubator/**June2012<http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/June2012> >> > >> >> There is a Bloodhound report embedded in each of those. >> >> It is quite possible for one of us to write it and then for others to >> modify it with additional details. I'll be very happy to start it off if >> nobody else has started work on it within a few hours. >> >> Cheers, >> Gary >> >> >> On 03/12/12 12:20, Peter Koz(elj wrote: >> >>> Have never seen this report before so I am not sure what the expectations >>> are but from the reminder email I am guessing that at least some level of >>> historical perspective is needed for a well written one. >>> >>> I am willing to help or contribute to this anyway I can. Where can I look >>> for old reports? >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> On 3 December 2012 11:42, Gary >>> Martin<gary.martin@wandisco.**com<[email protected]>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Interesting.. I was thinking of doing the report this time but it is >>>> always interesting to get a new view. >>>> >>>> I assume that we will have officially released 0.3 by the end of the day >>>> but I do not know whether we consider ourselves to have effectively >>>> established the frequent release cycle yet. Also, do we feel that we >>>> have >>>> gone any way towards lowering the barriers to entry & development? How >>>> have >>>> the new committers found this area? >>>> >>>> I don't think that we can claim to have significantly improved the >>>> community diversity at this stage. >>>> >>>> Anyway, whoever is going to do the report, I suggest that the addition >>>> of >>>> three new committers is referred to, along with the releases up to >>>> 0.3.0. >>>> Also I would probably mention that we have gone some way to mitigating >>>> the >>>> problems identified in the September report by working with the >>>> developers >>>> of some of our dependencies to make sure that code is available through >>>> pypi. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Gary >>>> >>>> >>>> On 03/12/12 10:30, Joachim Dreimann wrote: >>>> >>>> Past reports have usually been written by either Gary or me, does any >>>>> of >>>>> the newer contributors want to have a go at this? The deadline is in >>>>> two >>>>> days (Wednesday 5th). >>>>> I'll be happy to assist with editing. >>>>> >>>>> For inspiration, our two most recent reports can be found here: >>>>> http://wiki.apache.org/****incubator/September2012<http://wiki.apache.org/**incubator/September2012> >>>>> <http:/**/wiki.apache.org/incubator/**September2012<http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/September2012> >>>>> > >>>>> http://wiki.apache.org/****incubator/June2012<http://wiki.apache.org/**incubator/June2012> >>>>> <http://**wiki.apache.org/incubator/**June2012<http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/June2012> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 1 December 2012 15:26, Marvin<[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear podling, >>>>>> >>>>>> This email was sent by an automated system on behalf of the Apache >>>>>> Incubator PMC. >>>>>> It is an initial reminder to give you plenty of time to prepare your >>>>>> quarterly >>>>>> board report. >>>>>> >>>>>> The board meeting is scheduled for Wed, 19 December 2012, 10:00:00 >>>>>> PST. >>>>>> The report >>>>>> for your podling will form a part of the Incubator PMC report. The >>>>>> Incubator PMC >>>>>> requires your report to be submitted 2 weeks before the board >>>>>> meeting, to >>>>>> allow >>>>>> sufficient time for review and submission (Wed, Dec 5th). >>>>>> >>>>>> Please submit your report with sufficient time to allow the incubator >>>>>> PMC, >>>>>> and >>>>>> subsequently board members to review and digest. Again, the very >>>>>> latest >>>>>> you >>>>>> should submit your report is 2 weeks prior to the board meeting. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> The Apache Incubator PMC >>>>>> >>>>>> Submitting your Report >>>>>> ---------------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> Your report should contain the following: >>>>>> >>>>>> * Your project name >>>>>> * A brief description of your project, which assumes no knowledge >>>>>> of >>>>>> the >>>>>> project >>>>>> or necessarily of its field >>>>>> * A list of the three most important issues to address in the move >>>>>> towards >>>>>> graduation. >>>>>> * Any issues that the Incubator PMC or ASF Board might wish/need >>>>>> to be >>>>>> aware of >>>>>> * How has the community developed since the last report >>>>>> * How has the project developed since the last report. >>>>>> >>>>>> This should be appended to the Incubator Wiki page at: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> http://wiki.apache.org/****incubator/December2012<http://wiki.apache.org/**incubator/December2012> >>>>>> <http://**wiki.apache.org/incubator/**December2012<http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/December2012> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> Note: This manually populated. You may need to wait a little before >>>>>> this >>>>>> page is >>>>>> created from a template. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mentors >>>>>> ------- >>>>>> Mentors should review reports for their project(s) and sign them off >>>>>> on >>>>>> the >>>>>> Incubator wiki page. Signing off reports shows that you are following >>>>>> the >>>>>> project - projects that are not signed may raise alarms for the >>>>>> Incubator >>>>>> PMC. >>>>>> >>>>>> Incubator PMC >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> > -- Joe Dreimann UX Designer | WANdisco <http://www.wandisco.com/> * * *Transform your software development department. Register for a free SVN HealthCheck <http://go.wandisco.com/HealthCheck-Sig.html> *
