ripple-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <Ross.Gard...@microsoft.com>
Subject RE: Ripple to be retired from the incubator?
Date Mon, 16 Nov 2015 23:50:34 GMT
Retiring it means the code is not being managed and thus there are no changes to it in the
ASF.

People can fork the code and take it elsewhere, but not necessarily using the name Ripple
- approval would be required to take the name. Under no circumstances would the name Apache
Ripple be permitted.

A project cannot stay in the incubator forever. Either there is an active community around
it (or work towards an active community) or it will be retired from the incubator. There is
activity on the code, but there is no oversight on the health of the project and thus no real
potential for community growth. At this point the community is not large enough to must the
required oversight and thus cannot graduate.

The existing community therefore need to evaluate whether Apache is the right place for them.
If the only goal is to fix bugs then I would suggest it may not be an appropriate home.

Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: Parashuram N [mailto:panarasi@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 3:28 PM
To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Ripple to be retired from the incubator?

Hi Ross,

Thanks for bringing this up. I wanted to understand the implication of retiring a project,
vs graduating it. 
Does retiring a project also mean that we cannot change the code, add bug fixes, etc ? While
you are right that there may be no big features planned and that Ripple is largely complete
for its use case, does retiring mean that we cannot fix bugs ? 


-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Gardler [mailto:Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2015 11:38 AM
To: dev@ripple.incubator.apache.org
Subject: Ripple to be retired from the incubator?

(BCC private@IPMC as I am speaking as an IPMC member but will follow up on the Ripple dev
list as is appropriate)

Hello Ripplers, please note the '?' in the subject. I just wanted to ensure I got the attention
of PPMC members because the IPMC is asking this question and PPMC members need to respond.

In February I stepped up to help the very small Ripple community get a release out in response
to the IPMC wondering whether the project had the legs to graduate. With my offer to help
the IPMC agreed to give the podling time (6 months) before reviewing again. We are now at
10 months from that date.

Some great work by the Ripple team resulted in a few releases (including that all important
first release with the fine tuning that is initially so time consuming). In addition a couple
of new committers were added. Today there is a slow trickle of work going on in JIRA and the
codebase. By my assessment the PPMC is in a reasonable shape, though it is not large enough
to graduate. But there is no obvious community action, i.e. no visible interaction between
contributors on the future of Ripple and this no place for newcomers to engage.

I recognize that the project is small and largely "complete" with respect to its current use
cases. It looks to be in maintenance mode. This is not necessarily a problem. All we are looking
for is a community that is welcoming to newcomers. But it must also have appropriate oversight
from at least 3 active PPMC members (otherwise it can't get a release out the door). I don't
see that this will change unless the existing PPMC actively seek to do so.

Since Ripple is now 4 months overdue on its IPMC reports the IPMC is once again wondering
what is going on in the land of Ripple.

Two things *must* happen:


1)      A discussion, on the public dev list, with respect to the health of the Ripple project.
This can take one of two angles, depending on the needs of the active PPMC members here. It
can be a proposal to retire the project from the Incubator on the grounds that it will not
be able to muster enough interest to graduate, or it can be a discussion on the short to medium
term future of the project, along with a plan to grow the PPMC to a suitable size to allow
graduation. If the second option is taken the goal should be to demonstrate activity with
the project with the explicit intention of drawing out any interested lurkers on the mailing
list. Only the PPMC members can make the call as to which is the right approach.

2)      An IPMC report must be submitted describing the state of the project and highlighting
the action taken in 1) along with a timeframe before the project should be re-evaluated by
the IPMC.

Thanks,
Ross


Mime
View raw message