lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Arne Claassen <>
Subject Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
Date Tue, 02 Nov 2010 18:34:43 GMT
Forking and going somewhere else certainly has the "grass is greener"  
gleam to it.

The association with the much larger java Lucene community and the  
expertise that community has (since the .NET community seems to be  
mostly consumers of the tech, given the various comments about the  
complexity of the code base), is a big boost for Lucene.NET. That's  
both the name recognition and easy transfer of knowledge from one to  
the other.

That said, the ASF is not a foundation that is a natural home for .NET  
developers, which means that a lot of possible contributors are less  
likely to see it as a project they feel qualified to contribute.

Aside the name issue, I think what makes NHibernate successful is that  
it is maintained by a bunch of people who have deep involvement in the  
problem being solved. This allows them to be a divergent fork. I don't  
think Lucene.NET could pull that off. Unless Lucene.NET can attract  
people who understand the inner workings of Lucene, staying at the ASF  
with line-by-line porting is in the best interest of the health of the  

Arne Claassen

San Diego, CA

On Nov 2, 2010, at 11:20 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:

> On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:
>> Huh?  What I should have been clear and concise to anyone who has  
>> follow the project for the past several years.
>> Lucene.Net has already been through the official process of being  
>> promoted out of incubator status.  Why is it necessary to repeat  
>> this process?
>> The PMC failed to respond to the list when problems with updating  
>> the web site were discussed.  So updating the web site is  
>> insufficient.
>> There were also a number of issues with renaming the project to  
>> remove "incubator" from the mailing lists and web site reverences.
>> We should not repeat or reverse this unless absolutely necessary.
>> A brief pause in development and list discussions should not cause  
>> the PMC such worries about the vitality of the project.
> You could write up a Board proposal to go straight to TLP status.   
> I'd have a hard time recommending to the Board that they pass it but  
> maybe they would  b/c as I outlined in my original email, this  
> project isn't up to ASF community standards and not only that you  
> basically only have one current person who is an active committer/ 
> PMC member.  As I also outlined in earlier emails, the current  
> Lucene PMC is not the appropriate place for Lucene.NET b/c the  
> members of the PMC are not interested in .NET.  George is the only  
> one and he has been gone for the past few months (if not more).   
> That isn't to pick on George, it's to point out that a project has  
> to be more than just one committer to be a part of the ASF,  
> especially one that has been around this long.  So, in order  for  
> this project to get more committers, people need to step up and  
> contribute.  Therein lies the conundrum.  The current PMC is not  
> equipped to judge those contributions since none of us use .NET.   
> Hence, going back to incubation gets you a new set of committers and  
> it gets you your own PMC where you can set the criteria for  
> committership (within ASF guidelines) and where the PMC is made up  
> of the stakeholders in the project.  Being a part of a project is  
> about more than just the name, it's about the community of people  
> who use and contribute to that project.  The .NET community is  
> distinct from the Lucene Java community, despite it being a port,  
> therefore they should be separate.
> See
> As to those questions about forking somewhere else, that is  
> certainly something that can be done under a different name.   
> Lucene.NET is owned by the ASF.  You can take the code and go call  
> it something else, no problem.
> As to what the ASF brings, that's up to the community to decide.   
> The number one thing I think is our "community over code" approach.   
> Anyone can throw code up on Github/Google Code, etc. and call it  
> open source.  If you are lucky, you might attract a following.  If  
> the person who started that project is nice, they might even allow  
> other committers.  At the end of the day, however, I think the ASF's  
> meritocracy is why I choose to put my open source efforts into the  
> ASF.  It is just one way, not _the_ way.  Having started other  
> projects here at the ASF (Mahout), I can tell you the ASF is one of  
> the few orgs. out there that can attract large bases of users/ 
> contributors almost instantaneously.  In other words, the ASF has  
> brand recognition like few other places.  Again, this is just my  
> view.  I'm not going to force it on you, but you are already here,  
> so it seems like it's less friction to go back to the incubator and  
> graduate to TLP than to fork and try to get people to go find you  
> under a different name.
> My two cents,
> Grant

View raw message