+1

Le 25 mars 2017 00:17, "David Jencks" <david.a.jen...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> 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