+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 > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > >
