On 05.02.2017 22:22, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 05.02.2017 22:02, Stefan wrote: >> On 2/5/2017 15:45, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: >>> On 04.02.2017 17:53, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >>>> I wrote the following in a thread on private@, but the issue need not be >>>> discussed confidentially: >>>> >>>> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 18:05:27 +0000: >>>>> I've noticed that some threads don't happen. >>>>> >>>>> Examples: >>>>> >>>>> - stefan2 solicited reviews of his authz branch. None happened. >>>>> >>>>> - SVN-4670 was filed with a trivial patch. Nothing happened. >>>>> >>>>> What worries me isn't the reduced activity — that's to be expected — >>>>> but >>>>> the complete *lack* of activity around these and other threads. That >>>>> activity level is lower than I would expect, even taking into account >>>>> that we're now mostly volunteer-run. >>> Since more or less all committers contribute in their >>> spare time these days, not only the "intensity" of >>> interaction will go down. >>> >>> What we do see instead is that people appear to be >>> very active for a short period of time - a day or two - >>> and then become silent for a longer period of time, >>> maybe for weeks at a time. Those periods of activity >>> often don't overlap, which makes interaction harder. >>> The amount of back and forth discussion will probably >>> go down. >>> >>> I think that as a community, we need to adapt our >>> expectations / communication to that new pattern. >>> Things that might help: >>> >>> * Allow for at least 2 weeks of reaction time for >>> silent consensus etc. >>> >>> * Send an notification post to dev@ before starting >>> some larger work - people may not follow commits >>> closely anymore. Not as a vote or anything but simply >>> to keep people in the loop. >>> >>> * "Ping" a thread that you _really_ want feedback on >>> after 2+ weeks of inactivity. >>> >>> None of these need to be codified; they seem like >>> pretty common sense for a project with much more >>> asynchronism. >>> >>> -- Stefan^2. >> Wouldn't it be possible to also consider getting some >> funding/sponsorship/donations? >> >> If enough money gets donated maybe some of the existing committers could >> arrange something with their dayjobs (as in being able to work like 20% >> on SVN) and therefore be able to contribute more time on SVN than they >> can right now? >> >> Also if some specific features would be put up as examples for >> committers who would volunteer to work on a feature, that might be >> caught up by companies who are willing to pay for getting the feature >> into the subversion core (LuaJIT used that approach, for instance, quite >> successfully). > The ASF does not accept donations toward any particular project. Whilst > we might encourage companies to fund individual developers, we solicit > donations for specific features.
I mean "can't solicit" of course. -- Brane