Bill, This project was originally a subproject of logging. The PMC was made aware that there were people who were actively interested in “rebooting” the project. We were not comfortable adding those people to the logging PMC and suggested that it would be better to move the project to the incubator. Logging PMC members were supposed to offer to help mentor the project. Christian did but it doesn’t look anyone else did. With Christian unable to participate I volunteered to help. Ideally one or two other PMC members should also help out.
The main goal was to get the people who were interested in rebooting the project to the point where they could be re-integrated back into the logging project. To me that means they need at least 3 people who are contributing and who would be able to vote on releases. Graduation would most likely mean those individuals would become part of the Logging PMC. If there are no longer 3 people interested in working on the project then we may have a problem. In the PMC thread that kicked this off there were 6 people mentioned. But that was over 2 years ago. Ralph > On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:28 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com > <mailto:mar...@rectangular.com>> wrote: > > A report that states "no change since last month" is not a great > report, but it is better than copying-and-pasting. But in fact there > are interesting things to say about log4cxx's development the last > month: it would help the IMPC to better understand the podling's state > to know that while there remains a willing volunteer, there was no > visible progress made towards a release. Also, the state of Bill Rowe > as Mentor is worth reporting on, even if to say it is unresolved. > > Indeed, and it begs a reply. > > 1. We have an offer to prepare a release candidate, that's positive. > > 2. We have several working on the grand question of build schemas > (which is not a must-fix for the very next release, but will be good > to finally resolve and then release in the coming months). > > 3. We did not have an answer to whether 3+ project members are > willing to review and vote for a candidate when I last raised the Q. > > If there are three+ active project members volunteering to review and > cast up/down votes on release candidates, then I am committed > to mentoring this community and see it graduate. If there is still > not a sufficient community at present, this might be better at > labs.apache.org <http://labs.apache.org/>, or folded into another TLP who > will assume the > responsibility of reviewing and casting release votes. > >
