On Jan 26, 2008 9:16 PM, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 26, 2008 8:29 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 25, 2008 9:18 PM, Roland Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > > > > > > > Normally, I would suggest that if we have people wanting to work on a > > > > project, that we bring it back to life here. > > > > +1 > > > > > I'm curious how this is supposed to happen? We recently had > > > two independent inquiries [1,2] of people wanting to work on > > > a failed incubator project called Lucene4c.[3] Searching in > > > the archives uncovers some more. Since I felt that the first > > > inquiry I noticed didn't get a suitable response, I wrote > > > up my personal view of the problem.[4] It is rather gloomy, > > > and nobody here was inclined to share a more positive view. > > > > perhaps a little more structured would be good, maybe something as > > simple as a sign up sheet on the wiki. apache traditionally has the > > rule-of-three: 3 developers are enough to form a community. once there > > are three volunteers, a lightweght restart could be attempted. > > > > Couldn't we setup a "retired projects" Jira project? Or a specific module in > the Incubator project? If people have some interest on a retired podling, > this would allow them to start posting patches. People with Incubator karma > could apply the patches (I certainly would). If we notice more and more > patches going to a single retired project, a new community could be formed.
works for me - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
