"need" and "in use" does not necessarily translate into community. The need for the geronimo components that have been discussed is not new. As far as I can tell, so far, that has not translated into a community.
If we want to continue the project, demonstrate the community that is needed for the project to continue. As I stated previously, a good starting point: create a new charter for the project, identify active PMC members/committers, and obtain board approval. On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote: > Hi Alan! > > There are quite a few things which fit into this scenario imo. > > I think we really miss some 'toolbox project' for EE components at the ASF. > There was a tendency to make all those projects own TLPs for some time. > But that approach simply doesn't scale, and we end up with the same people > in most of those projects anyway. > So moving the ones with lower activity into a common TLP would solve this > problem. Geronimo could probably become this project. > > There are a lot old EE folks around which have tremendous knowledge. And > there are certain technologies which are really cool, but have the > classical EE-lifecycle up-down in terms of activity. > That + the already existing components could be a great chance. > > As you already said yourself: the terms of the big fat EE servers is over. > But nevertheless the technology and requirement behind most of the single > parts is still valid and often unbeaten. > But nowadays it's more about making it easy to plug & play those > technology libs together more freely as they are needed. Thus moving the > focus on maintaining the components and not the server could be really > appreciated by the community. > > You said there will be community if there is a need. I fully agree, and > even more I see a need for those parts. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > Am 12.03.2017 um 19:15 schrieb Alan Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com>: > > > > After a good night’s sleep, I re-read this thread and I’ll respond > without trying to guide you in where and how you decide to go with your > efforts; thanks in advance for letting me reboot my reply. :) > > > > Any pivot that this community decides upon, will have to be justified to > the ASF board. We will need to explain what will be different and justify > how it will generate sustainable community activity. With regards to that, > I have two general concerns: > > • Will this this specific endeavor generate any new sustainable > community activity? > > • Will any new activity of this specific endeavor represent > activity that is unique to Geronimo or are we doing the chores of other > projects to provide the appearance of activity? > > The current level activity, is due to spec maintenance for downstream > dependencies and we must admit that it is quite low. Being an upstream > “aggregator” does not provide appreciable added value at the cost of the > doubled administration. The specter of duplicate work will, in reality, > never arise; this de facto efficiency is due to the awesomeness of the ASL > 2.0 license. The case for being an aggregator weakens even more given the > fact that there just isn't a lot of work involved in maintaining specs. > > > > Things aren’t much better for the shared sub-systems. If there was > something compelling that needed to be done on the shared sub-systems, it > would have been begun already; given the industry’s penchant for greenfield > development (NIH) I doubt they will ever be revamped. > > > > This is why I went on my “need” soapbox. Some new need must be found > for Geronimo to provide. > > > > > > Regards, > > Alan > > > > > >> On Mar 9, 2017, at 8:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> I have quite a hard time to understand why it is an issue having a > project led by the aggregation of others and not by itself? Assume one sec > we close Geronimo or it doesnt exist, then we'll move the bit of code in > one of the project - let say tomee - and tomee will becomes the exact same > kind of project. The alternative is to split in a lot of small projects but > as mentionned a lot of overlap is in these projects in term of forces and > it doesn't work really better, it just multiply the work load for each > contributor. That's why I think G is not a bad solution as it is today. > Scope surely needs to be refined like Mark started to do and objectives are > clearly a bit different than a project pushing its own server/solution but > I think there is a space for it and for Apache I think it is saner this way. > >> > >> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory > >> > >> 2017-03-09 17:01 GMT+01:00 Alan Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com>: > >> It has been my personal experience that need is the catalyst for a > vibrant OSS project. The product and community spring forth from that. > Adopting an “if we build it they will come” tactic does not usually result > in success. Rather than rummaging through the trunk to see what bits > people might be attracted to, maybe it might be better to look at the > existing JEE-related OSS communities out there and ask “what need are they > not fulfilling?” > >> > >> That would answer passersby’s questions of “why would I be interested > in this project?” > >> > >> That would be a slam dunk to present to the ASF board, “Geronimo is now > focused on fulfilling a new need, X”. > >> > >> What unfulfilled need is out there? > >> > >> > >> Regards, > >> Alan > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 7:04 AM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote: > >>> > >>> I totally agree. > >>> > >>> But interest from the community is always a product of a good product > and feature roadmap. > >>> Without any good product you will not be able to build a sustainable > community around it. > >>> > >>> Of course there are many things which can trash a community despite a > good product. But without product there is no community. > >>> At the end we are not here only because the people are great, but > because we see a benefit in the product we create in this project - AND the > people are great ;) > >>> > >>> So my first goal was to identify the features which might be of > interest. > >>> The next step is to check whether there is enough community interest > in those features or whether we could move then to another community. > Ideally with still using the org.apache.geronimo groupId and packages. > Otherwise it would be quite some problem for the users. > >>> > >>> LieGrue, > >>> strub > >>> > >>>> Am 09.03.2017 um 14:46 schrieb Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org>: > >>>> > >>>> I think more important than whether or not JEE is popular (or > whatever along those lines), are the questions about community health and > is the PMC still capable of fulfilling its duties. > >>>> > >>>> My 2 cents, > >>>> --Alex > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> > wrote: > >>>> Romain and I went through the Geronimo SVN and made a list of which > components are used by other projects. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Useful Geronimo components from https://svn.apache.org/repos/ > asf/geronimo/ > >>>> > >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS > >>>> > >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/txmanager > >>>> • TomEE (txmgr+connector) > >>>> • Meecrowave (txmgr) > >>>> • Aries (txmgr) > >>>> > >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/ > geronimo-schema-javaee_6 > >>>> > >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/genesis/ > >>>> • Maven parents for geronimo-specs > >>>> > >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/javamail/ > >>>> • TomEE as delivery > >>>> • Lot of standalone > >>>> • -> we can ask Hendrik pby > >>>> > >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/ > >>>> • TomEE > >>>> • OpenWebBeans > >>>> • Meecrowave > >>>> • OpenJPA > >>>> • Johnzon > >>>> • BatchEE > >>>> • Karaf > >>>> • Aries > >>>> • Tons of external customer projects which don’t want to use > some official javax jars due to licensing concerns > >>>> > >>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/xbean/ > >>>> • TomEE > >>>> • OpenWebBeans > >>>> • Meecrowave > >>>> • Aries > >>>> • Karaf > >>>> • OpenJPA > >>>> • CXF (supported) > >>>> > >>>> Osgi-locator too but guess this one can drop and belong to karaf or > servicemix. > >>>> Q: well we need the osgi locator in our geronimo-specs, isn’t? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I've created a google doc. Just ping me if you want to edit something > and I'll share it. > >>>> > >>>> David, you mentioned JASPIC. I could not find that even. Is this > inside the geronimo-server probably? > >>>> Are there other gems which are not maintained as components but just > inside geronimo? > >>>> > >>>> txs and LieGrue, > >>>> strub > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Am 09.03.2017 um 08:44 schrieb David Jencks < > david.a.jen...@gmail.com>: > >>>>> > >>>>> I go back and forth on whether to shut G down completely. Perhaps > it would be useful to inventory which parts are used by which other > projects? Off the top of my head…. > >>>>> > >>>>> Specs …. who uses G’s and who has their own? > >>>>> > >>>>> Components…. I think there are several users of the transaction > manager, I don’t know about the connector framework, and I’m pretty sure no > one uses my jaspic implementation. The TM is stable but now that faster > than spinning rust persistent memory is popular the logger could probably > be rewritten to be much faster. > >>>>> > >>>>> xbean …. tomee I believe, anyone else? Does activemq still use > xbean-spring? Knowing more about osgi now I might be able to gets > xbean-blueprint to work:-) > >>>>> > >>>>> yoko is used by IBM, I doubt anyone else will get all excited about > CORBA and start contributing. > >>>>> > >>>>> Any other bits being used? > >>>>> > >>>>> If we kept G around in a reduced state, how will we maintain enough > interest to file the board reports? Some days I think I might have enough > interest and some days not. > >>>>> > >>>>> If we did not shut down the whole project would we mark the removed > bits (server primarily) as not being developed or move them to the attic? > >>>>> > >>>>> thanks > >>>>> david jencks > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < > rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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 | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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 LinkedIn Twitter > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "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 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Best Regards, > >>>> -- Alex > >>> > >> > >> > > > >
