lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Prescott Nasser <prescott.nas...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: Board feedback on 2016-12-21 Lucene.Net report
Date Thu, 22 Dec 2016 11:22:34 GMT
I apologize for the spare report submitted this quarter:

 > mt: No response so far to my request for some background on the long
      period since the last release. Why were the "nuget.org and 4.8"
      and "Lucene.Net repository access" threads on private@ ? It
      looks like they could have been held on dev@

Over quarters we have reported the ebb and flow of our community involvement. It has gone
from some, to a little, to none, to a little, to a bit more, to a little, etc. Our group is
relatively small for the size of the code base (even though we are a port), and until recently
(last ~6months) we haven't had more than one contributor at a time who was available to make
progress. Opining, as I think many others could, to keep momentum when there is only one person
at a time contributing is difficult to do, invariably that one contributor gets side tracked
or busy, and someone else jumps in to help, only to have to review what was done, where we
are at. Additionally, we have added pressure of realizing that Java Lucene continues to iterate
and get further ahead. We started with a 4.0 port, which didn't make progress fast enough,
we got a large commit for 4.8 and that has been very slowly winding its way to completion.
At this time it feels like we have a lot more activity and a lot more involvement. For a more
complete picture of our current status please see the email thread here: https://s.apache.org/bEho

"Nuget.org and 4.8" was originally on dev@. I moved it to private when I who wanted ownership
of our nuget packages. I felt limiting that ask to the PMC members was the right call. In
retrospect, it could have been left on dev@ and I could have only honored ownership requests
if they came from PMC members. Only the tail end of that tread was on private.

"Lucene.Net repository access" could have been on dev@. I can't fault our latest member for
asking for write access to our repo's on private@, nor the group for continuing the conversation
there. Nothing private in the thread, but I'm not sure there is much relevance to the dev@
either.
  
 > mh: Good to see the new committer/PMC as anticipated last report
      cycle. It will be great if you can come through on a new release
      this cycle!

Agreed - maybe one or two more based on feedback. We're all ready for it!
  
 > rb: This report is pretty much the bare minimum, with no detail on
      what "strong community involvement" means. We'd really like to
      see more commentary than this. Please have a look at some of the
      other board reports this month for some ideas of what we're
      looking for in a strong report.

Again, I apologize, I will review other reports and try to incorporate more metrics in my
attempt to show that for us, we are very healthy relative to our past. I'm thinking: # of
commits last quarter (vs some trend?), messages to mailing lists, new mailing list members,
pull requests. I already include various download metrics of our packages. Are there other
items you believe we could speak to that would objectively show the strength of our community
involvement?

~Prescott

-----Original Message-----
From: Craig L Russell [mailto:clr@apache.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 3:19 PM
To: Prescott Nasser <pnasser@apache.org>
Cc: board@apache.org; private@lucenenet.apache.org
Subject: Board feedback on 2016-12-21 Lucene.Net report

Comments:
  
  mt: No response so far to my request for some background on the long
      period since the last release. Why were the "nuget.org and 4.8"
      and "Lucene.Net repository access" threads on private@ ? It
      looks like they could have been held on dev@
  
  mh: Good to see the new committer/PMC as anticipated last report
      cycle. It will be great if you can come through on a new release
      this cycle!
  
  rb: This report is pretty much the bare minimum, with no detail on
      what "strong community involvement" means. We'd really like to
      see more commentary than this. Please have a look at some of the
      other board reports this month for some ideas of what we're
      looking for in a strong report.

This feedback was generated automatically by the secretary from the comments made on your
board report.
Comments that do not ask specific questions should be noted by the PMC and taken into consideration
as appropriate for future board reports.
Where a comment asks a specific question, it should be answered in your next board report
unless otherwise stated in the comment.
If you have any queries or concerns regarding any of the comments they should be sent to the
board@ mailing list.
Mime
View raw message