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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >
