I like this approach.  Thank you for making a concrete suggestion and taking 
the lead. I intend to stay on the PMC and at least occasionally help out.

david jencks

> On Mar 24, 2017, at 8:55 AM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote:
> 
> Of course we do not have a huge community. But a very long lasting one. And 
> there is not really standstill. There have been 64 committs in the last 3 
> monts. This is actually not too bad!
> 
> So how to move on?
> 
> Who wants to remain active in the PMC? Who wants to leave?
> 
> We already pinned down the parts where there certainly IS community. 
> In addition to that I would like to bring in Geronimo-Config  as an 
> implementation of the Microprofile-Config specification.
> Discussions have been going on last year all work has been done by me on my 
> github account. But would love to bring it over here.
> 
> I'll dig the old projects charter and try to kick off a reboot together with 
> Romain, Jean-Louis, Reinhard, Guillaume and whoever else is willing to have a 
> helping hand from time to time. Note that everyone is welcome, even if he 
> currently has no time to commit but only wants to provide guide and feedback.
> 
> The first step I recommend is be to merge various mailing lists together.
> Then we need to verify the charter and probably tweak it for the new goal.
> We also need to communicate that we do not further maintain the Geronimo 
> Server parts.
> 
> Any objection?
> 
> LieGrue,
> strub
> 
> 
>> Am 13.03.2017 um 20:46 schrieb Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>:
>> 
>> "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
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to