In some ways, that's some of the best feedback we can get. Very happy to hear that Aurora is working fo well for Chartbeat.
I do hope that you guys find some time to help us maintain the project. Every little bit counts! -Renan On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 11:48 AM, Rick Mangi <r...@chartbeat.com> wrote: > As strong users of aurora but weak contributors, we at Chartbeat apologize > for our lack of participation. We’re several versions behind on > mesos/aurora upgrades and that’s honestly because it works for us :) > > Going forward we’re hoping to be able to participate more, at least with > testing new releases. > > We thank you though! > > Rick and the rest of Chartbeat Engineering > > > > On May 4, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Renan DelValle <re...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > > > I wanted to bring up a few points for discussion with the community. I'd > > really like to hear what the community's thoughts are on these issues and > > how can resolve them. > > > > 1. Lack of participation. This is due to many members moving on from the > > project and becoming dormant. More concerning is the fact that our PMC > > roster sits at 21 members [1] of which fewer than half have participated > in > > the project during the last 6 months. > > > > This inactivity has led the voting process for releases to be held up by > > the inability to reach the required minimum 3 votes for releases (both > > tar.gz and binary). Our latest binary packaging vote has been going on > for > > more than a month. [2] > > > > With the recent additions of Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham and Jordan Ly to > the > > Aurora PMC, we hope to mitigate this issue. > > > > It would be fantastic to see some initiative from long contributing > members > > to make a case for themselves for being considered for committer and/or > PMC > > membership. > > > > 2. Binary packages. While we have been struggling to get enough votes for > > making the release official, the voting process has been marked by a lack > > of enthusiasm from the community. > > > > I know that many folks are using these packages (including myself), but > we > > need to hear feedback when we call votes. It is not enough to stand by > > silently if everything works; please let us know about it. > > > > As it stands, the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) for binary packages > doesn't > > justify the overhead involved in releasing them. Therefore I propose that > > we drop official binary packages for the next release. This is up for > > discussion and I'd love to hear everyone's opinion on this. > > > > An alternative to ending binary packages would be to automate the process > > on tar.gz releases, but that would most likely need to be a community > > contribution. > > > > 3. Version 1.0. I realize this is a touchy subject. While other projects > > that were started around the same time as Aurora, such as Mesos itself, > > have gone on to make a 1.0 release (indicating the projects maturity), we > > have stuck to our 0.X.0 releases. > > > > Aurora is a mature project wether it is labeled 0.X.0 or X.0.0, but I > > wanted to bring up for discussion how everyone felt about making our next > > release a 1.0 release to reflect the stability and maturity of the > project. > > > > That is all from me, if anyone else has any other concerns regarding the > > Aurora community, feel free to bring it up in this thread! > > > > -Renan > > > > > > [1] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?aurora > > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9df9d142408efffd11a1cdc5e4c1e3 > > 67208cf8e618730f7c761b0f35@%3Cdev.aurora.apache.org%3E > >
