Sounds like consensus is coming together, then. Sound right?
On Apr 16, 2017 06:03, "larry mccay" <lmc...@apache.org> wrote: > Hmmmm - interesting points about incubator vs github and overhead. > I do think my statement was unclear though. > > I was saying exactly the same thing about struggling podlings. > Much better to find out in the incubator than as a TLP that the apache way > isn't really going to work for them at the moment. > > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 7:21 AM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 3:04 PM larry mccay <lmc...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > Well said. > > > It is healthy to not have a podling graduate and subsequently struggle > > as a > > > TLP. > > > This is actually a success of sorts. > > > > > > At least until a majority of podlings have trouble. :) > > > > > > > > I may be reading Ted's email differently. Or I might be reading your > > response wrong. > > > > Retirement isn't a failure. Podlings are meant to be experiments in some > > cases. Can I build a strong enough community, can we follow the apache > > way. > > > > There's a notion that the incubator adds over head to smaller projects. > If > > you're a one-or-two developer group, who can commit one small change and > > cut a release in an afternoon, coming to apache with our 3 day voting > > periods seems crazy. > > > > For small projects like Sirona, they may benefit from rapid iterate, > > release, feedback cycles. This is where tooling like GitHub becomes much > > more useful. Once you get wikis, websites going, you can iterate and > seem > > like a strong community. Until you become a community of 100's of users. > > > > We don't want to see struggling podlings graduate. This is why the > > incubator has no time limit. We do get worried when a podling's been > here > > for too long. > > > > Basically, Sirona may see some success retiring from Apache, moving > > development to github, until they've been able to build a bigger > community. > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I think that we need to get over thinking of this state of affairs > is a > > > > "failure". > > > > > > > > It is just one of the many different possible outcomes for > incubation. > > To > > > > my mind, having multiple possible outcomes is a *feature*, not a bug. > > > > > > > > Obviously, we should not admit podlings that we aren't committed to > > > helping > > > > become TLP's and we should help those podlings become TLP's. But > there > > > are > > > > lots of different possible outcomes and only the podling can really > > > > determine which outcome it will have. > > > > > > > > It is a fact of nature that we cannot always know whether a new > podling > > > > really has the right intent and contributor mix to become a good TLP. > > > > Sometimes it is apparent that the project will be a great fit and > > > sometimes > > > > it is apparent that it won't be, but many times we won't exactly > know. > > > > There will be cases where a community will melt away and there will > be > > > > cases where a community really didn't get the point of the Apache > > > license. > > > > In many cases, the world just changes and by the time it is time to > > > > graduate, the project just isn't the right thing to do any more. > > > > > > > > As such, I think we need to (somewhat) over-admit podlings when there > > is > > > > doubt. That doesn't mean admit projects that just won't ever succeed, > > but > > > > it does mean we should be a little generous in terms of admission. We > > > > should vote to admit in cases of some doubt. > > > > > > > > If that is true, then we have to expect that there will be a variety > of > > > > outcomes and we have to take that as a consequence of our initial > > > > generosity. This is not a cause for tears. Frankly, every project > that > > > > becomes an obvious candidate for retirement means that there is > another > > > > successful project that we admitted even though there was doubt. > > > > > > > > IF it is time to retire Sirona, let's just do it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Pierre Smits < > pierre.sm...@gmail.com > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > It is very sad to see a project failing at growing a community. > > Looking > > > > at > > > > > the various public sources, I see: > > > > > > > > > > - just 2 pull request since its start in incubation > > > > > - no postings on the user ml since December 2015 > > > > > - only 3 committing contributors since start in incubation > > > > > - No description (readme) in github > > > > > - No mission statement/goal description of the project on the > > > > project's > > > > > home page > > > > > > > > > > I fear this will not turn around due to the lack of interest in the > > > world > > > > > beyond the project. At the moment I am inclined to say: time for > > > > > retirement. > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pierre Smits > > > > > > > > > > ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com> > > > > > OFBiz based solutions & services > > > > > > > > > > OFBiz Extensions Marketplace > > > > > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/ > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > > j...@nanthrax.net > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi John > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you did the right thing by bringing the point on the > table. > > > > > > > > > > > > AFAIR I already stated some months ago that, regarding the > activity > > > and > > > > > > regarding the community around, we should really think about > > > retirement > > > > > of > > > > > > Sirona. Some can argue about the fact that Sirona is a "stable" > > > project > > > > > > that's not really valid: if it's valid we should see questions, > > > feature > > > > > > requests, etc coming from the user community. And obviously it's > > not > > > > the > > > > > > case. So I think that Sirona is just use for specific use cases > in > > a > > > > very > > > > > > limited community. > > > > > > > > > > > > My €0.01 ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 15, 2017, 15:49, at 15:49, "John D. Ament" < > > > > johndam...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I hate bringing up these topics. But I think we as the IPMC we > > have > > > > to > > > > > > >take a close look at how Sirona is running and figure out what > to > > do > > > > > > >next. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >- The podling has not reported in several months (this is their > > 3rd > > > > > > >attempt > > > > > > >at monthly). > > > > > > >- Every time the thought of retirement comes up, a little bit of > > > > > > >activity > > > > > > >on the project happens. It doesn't sustain. > > > > > > >- There is some limited project history, but no real > contribution > > > in 6 > > > > > > >months ( https://github.com/apache/sirona/commits/trunk ) > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I personally don't want to see projects go, and I don't want to > > > force > > > > a > > > > > > >project to leave, but at the same time I'm not convinced that > > > there's > > > > > > >enough of a community behind the project to sustain it going > > > forward. > > > > > > >They've put together a limited plan to get a release out the > door, > > > but > > > > > > >other than that I'm not sure they're going to be able to move > > > forward. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >So I want to ask, as the IPMC, do we want to give them time to > > > > regroup? > > > > > > > > > > > > > >John > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
