I would take an existing Incubator Proposal and copy and paste it into a new one and then send the link here and get people to start editing on it.
-Grant On Dec 30, 2010, at 2:45 PM, Lombard, Scott wrote: > > From everything that was said it seems apparent to me that the only way for > Lucene.Net to stay alive is to move back to incubation. So where do we go > from here? More than 4 people have said they are willing to be committers. > Is this email list the best place to start working on a proposal, should it > be done between a small group offline or is there a way that the community > can work on it together? > > Thoughts? > Scott > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Troy Howard [mailto:thowar...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 2:22 PM > To: lucene-net-...@lucene.apache.org > Cc: lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org > Subject: Re: RE: Vote thread started on gene...@lucene.apache.org > > Marco, > > I agree with you on this front. I feel that the first tasks that a new > Lucene.Net team should focus on, in terms of development are: > > - Fully automating a line-by-line port using a tool such as Sharpen. > This needs to become a commodity function requiring very little > development effort > - Bring the existing forks back in as branches within the ASF project. > I am very interested in pursuing continued development on a more .NET > style port (i.e. the Lucere project I started or Aimee.Net > > The Lucene.Net project should be able to continue with both > development paths in the same project. > > Thanks, > Troy > > > > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Marco Dissel <marco.dis...@gmail.com> wrote: >> What will be the goal of new committors? Convert the source into .net style >> code? If yes, we should try to stop will all the spin-offs and concentrate >> all the development in one project. >> Op 30 dec. 2010 19:02 schreef "Lombard, Scott" <slomb...@kingindustries.com> >> het volgende: >>> Grant, >>> >>> Thanks for your time explaining all the details. I will be willing work on >> a proposal to put Lucene.Net back in to incubation. I will need other people >> to step up and be committers as well. Heath has volunteered and as Grant has >> stated 4 committers are needed to for incubation. Who else is willing to be >> a committer? >>> >>> Grant I will definitely be taking you up on your offer to help on bring >> Lucene.Net into incubation. >>> >>> Scott >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsing...@apache.org] >>> Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 12:32 PM >>> To: lucene-net-u...@lucene.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: Vote thread started on gene...@lucene.apache.org >>> >>> >>> On Dec 30, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Heath Aldrich wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Grant, >>>> >>>> Thanks for taking the time to respond. >>>> >>>> While I have developed extensively against Lucene.net, I do not possess >> the java skills needed to do a port of the code... So, while I wouldn't mind >> being a committer, I do not think I am qualified. (I guess if I was, I could >> just use Lucene proper and that would be that) >>>> >>>> As to other duties of a committer, I think the ASF is perceived as a >> black box of questions for most of us. >>>> >>>> For one, I don't think anyone outside the 4 committers even understand >> *why* it is a good thing to be on the ASF vs. CodePlex, Sourceforge, etc. >> Maybe if there was an understanding of the why, the requirements of the ASF >> would make more sense. I think a lot of us right now just perceive the ASF >> as the group that is wanting to kill Lucene.net. >>> >>> I don't think we have a desire to kill it, I just think we are faced with >> the unfortunate reality that the project is already dead and now us on the >> PMC have the unfortunate job of cleaning up the mess as best we can. Again, >> it is not even that we want to see it go away, we on the PMC just don't want >> to be responsible for it's upkeep. You give me the names of 4 people who are >> willing to be committers (i.e. people willing to volunteer their time) and I >> will do my best to get the project into the Incubator. However, I have to >> tell you, my willingness to help is diminishing with every trip we take >> around this same circle of discussion. >>> >>> Simply put, given the way the vote has gone so far, the Lucene PMC is no >> longer interested in sustaining this project. If the community wishes to see >> it live at the ASF then one of you had better step up and spend 20-30 >> minutes of your time writing up the draft proposal (most of it can be copied >> and pasted) and circulating it. In fact, given the amount of time some of >> you have no doubt spent writing on this and other related threads you could >> have put together the large majority of the proposal, circulated the draft >> and got other volunteers to help and already be moving forward in a positive >> direction. Truth be told, I would do it, but I am explicitly not going to >> because I think that if the community can't take that one step to move >> forward, then it truly doesn't deserve to. >>> >>>> >>>> I get your comments about the slower than slow development, but that is >> also somewhat of a sign that it works. While 2.9.2 may be behind, it seems >> very stable with very few issues. If we send the project to the attic, how >> will anyone be able to submit bugfixes ever? Frankly, I use 2.9.2 every day >> and have not found bugs in the areas that I use... but I'm sure they are in >> there somewhere. >>>> >>>> As for the name, I thought Lucene.net was the name of the project back in >> the SourceForge days... >>>> So my question is based on the premise that "if the lucene.net name was >> brought *to* ASF, why can the community not leave with it?" >>> >>> Again, IANAL, but just b/c it was improperly used beforehand does not mean >> it is legally owned by some other entity. The Lucene name has been at the >> ASF since 2001 and Lucene.NET is also now a part of the ASF. (If your >> interested, go look at the discussions around iBatis and the movement of >> that community to MyBatis) >>> >>> -Grant >>> >>> >>> This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the >>> use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may >>> contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or >>> constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient >>> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or >>> distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, >>> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, >>> please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting >>> it from your computer. Thank you, King Industries, Inc. >> > > > This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the > use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may > contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or > constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient > you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or > distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, > is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, > please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting > it from your computer. Thank you, King Industries, Inc. -------------------------- Grant Ingersoll http://www.lucidimagination.com
