Sounds totally right to me.
On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 5:28 AM, John D. Ament <johndam...@apache.org> wrote: > I let this sit for a couple of days to see if anything changed either on > this thread or within Sirona. While I can see there being some concerns > with those who are semi-active within Sirona, there's been no concrete path > forward. > > So I want to propose the following, give Sirona time to identify a TLP > sponsor to graduate into, if that doesn't work, the IPMC move unilaterally > to retire the podling, indicating that they may move development into a > public area with the name Sirona. > > Thoughts? > > John > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 2:20 AM Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Retaining trademarks isn't required, especially if they aren't attached > to > > strong project. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> > > wrote: > > > > > The "wrong" part (from a project's PoV) is that ASF retains > trademarks... > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 10:56 AM, P. Taylor Goetz <ptgo...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > +1 for retirement. > > > > > > > > There's absolutely nothing wrong with a podling returning to the > place > > > > from whence it came. I'm encouraged that that sentiment seems to be > > > > proliferating among the IPMC. > > > > > > > > -Taylor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 2017, at 11:33 AM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > >>>>>>> > > > > >>>>>> > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > --------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > > > http://polygene.apache.org - New Energy for Java > > > > > >
