A valid point is activity related to G happens elsewhere, However elsewhere is not "tomee" which would make things simple to move but A, B, C so shutting down G is likely the easiest solution for G itself but also the worse for all its dependent projects - and ASF consistency since G is now seen as the owner of specs, xbean etc....Today G is the result of communities and I don't see it as a bad thing even if not common @ASF. It allows new interactions with sometimes completely different area of knowledge which is actually great and can't happen elsewhere IMHO (the dead of G would mean fork per project probably).
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://blog-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | JavaEE Factory <https://javaeefactory-rmannibucau.rhcloud.com> 2017-03-09 5:13 GMT+01:00 Matt Hogstrom <m...@hogstrom.org>: > I’ve monitored G for several years since my departure. For me, JEE is not > my main area of focus and as such, I’ve invested little time in the project > apart from reading the e-mail threads. This is a community decision and > posting the discussion to dev@ is the right venue. > > As an inactive member I don’t have a strong vote, but, my observation is > that most of the community has moved on and there is little activity. If > those that are still active want to keep going then God’s speed. > > Matt Hogstrom > m...@hogstrom.org > +1-919-656-0564 > PGP Key: 0x90ECB270 > Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/matt.hogstrom> LinkedIn > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/mhogstrom> Twitter > <http://www.twitter.com/hogstrom> > > "I’m smart enough to know how dumb I am." > - Hogstrom > > > > On Mar 9, 2017, at 08:47, Jason Dillon <jdil...@apache.org> wrote: > > On March 8, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM, Mark Struberg (strub...@yahoo.de) wrote: > > Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy into this > project. That is totally understandable and fine. > But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the project is > dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to keep the > project going. > > > Mark, I agree with Alan and Kevan, though put into my own words I think > the project and community is no longer viable (and has not been for a > while). I do believe there are still useful aspects to the project, but I > don’t think its enough to leave on its own. > > We can certainly wait for more PMC members to chime in if they are still > monitoring. As Jeff recommended I’m including the private@ list for PMC > folks that may not be paying as much attention to the dev@ list. > > Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis of where we > are right now. > > What about starting look into > .) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a ee-commons > project? > > So far I’ve not really seen anyone over the past days of communication > about this. But we’ll see. > > —jason > > > .) Which project parts of the project are of some shared interest and > might be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic chance that > this is gonna happening? > > I can’t speak for the others, but I have zero interested in putting any > love in to any of what is presently here. > > I will defer to others to explain if they feel otherwise, though I do > recall some chatter on private@ but will probably need those folks to > re-post to dev@ to include that discussion. > > —jason > > >
