incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John D. Ament" <johndam...@apache.org>
Subject Re: The state of Sirona
Date Sun, 16 Apr 2017 11:21:59 GMT
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 3:04 PM larry mccay <lmccay@apache.org> wrote:

> Well said.
> It is healthy to not have a podling graduate and subsequently struggle as a
> TLP.
> This is actually a success of sorts.
>
> At least until a majority of podlings have trouble. :)
>
>
I may be reading Ted's email differently.  Or I might be reading your
response wrong.

Retirement isn't a failure.  Podlings are meant to be experiments in some
cases.  Can I build a strong enough community, can we follow the apache way.

There's a notion that the incubator adds over head to smaller projects.  If
you're a one-or-two developer group, who can commit one small change and
cut a release in an afternoon, coming to apache with our 3 day voting
periods seems crazy.

For small projects like Sirona, they may benefit from rapid iterate,
release, feedback cycles. This is where tooling like GitHub becomes much
more useful.  Once you get wikis, websites going, you can iterate and seem
like a strong community.  Until you become a community of 100's of users.

We don't want to see struggling podlings graduate.  This is why the
incubator has no time limit.  We do get worried when a podling's been here
for too long.

Basically, Sirona may see some success retiring from Apache, moving
development to github, until they've been able to build a bigger community.


> On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunning@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I think that we need to get over thinking of this state of affairs is a
> > "failure".
> >
> > It is just one of the many different possible outcomes for incubation. To
> > my mind, having multiple possible outcomes is a *feature*, not a bug.
> >
> > Obviously, we should not admit podlings that we aren't committed to
> helping
> > become TLP's and we should help those podlings become TLP's. But there
> are
> > lots of different possible outcomes and only the podling can really
> > determine which outcome it will have.
> >
> > It is a fact of nature that we cannot always know whether a new podling
> > really has the right intent and contributor mix to become a good TLP.
> > Sometimes it is apparent that the project will be a great fit and
> sometimes
> > it is apparent that it won't be, but many times we won't exactly know.
> > There will be cases where a community will melt away and there will be
> > cases where a community really didn't get the point of the Apache
> license.
> > In many cases, the world just changes and by the time it is time to
> > graduate, the project just isn't the right thing to do any more.
> >
> > As such, I think we need to (somewhat) over-admit podlings when there is
> > doubt. That doesn't mean admit projects that just won't ever succeed, but
> > it does mean we should be a little generous in terms of admission. We
> > should vote to admit in cases of some doubt.
> >
> > If that is true, then we have to expect that there will be a variety of
> > outcomes and we have to take that as a consequence of our initial
> > generosity. This is not a cause for tears. Frankly, every project that
> > becomes an obvious candidate for retirement means that there is another
> > successful project that we admitted even though there was doubt.
> >
> > IF it is time to retire Sirona, let's just do it.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Pierre Smits <pierre.smits@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > It is very sad to see a project failing at growing a community. Looking
> > at
> > > the various public sources, I see:
> > >
> > >    - just 2 pull request since its start in incubation
> > >    - no postings on the user ml since December 2015
> > >    - only 3 committing contributors since start in incubation
> > >    - No description (readme) in github
> > >    - No mission statement/goal description of the project on the
> > project's
> > >    home page
> > >
> > > I fear this will not turn around due to the lack of interest in the
> world
> > > beyond the project. At the moment I am inclined to say: time for
> > > retirement.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > >
> > > Pierre Smits
> > >
> > > ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>
> > > OFBiz based solutions & services
> > >
> > > OFBiz Extensions Marketplace
> > > http://oem.ofbizci.net/oci-2/
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 5:07 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <jb@nanthrax.net
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi John
> > > >
> > > > I think you did the right thing by bringing the point on the table.
> > > >
> > > > AFAIR I already stated some months ago that, regarding the activity
> and
> > > > regarding the community around, we should really think about
> retirement
> > > of
> > > > Sirona. Some can argue about the fact that Sirona is a "stable"
> project
> > > > that's not really valid: if it's valid we should see questions,
> feature
> > > > requests, etc coming from the user community. And obviously it's not
> > the
> > > > case. So I think that Sirona is just use for specific use cases in a
> > very
> > > > limited community.
> > > >
> > > > My €0.01 ;)
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > JB
> > > >
> > > > On Apr 15, 2017, 15:49, at 15:49, "John D. Ament" <
> > johndament@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >All,
> > > > >
> > > > >I hate bringing up these topics.  But I think we as the IPMC we have
> > to
> > > > >take a close look at how Sirona is running and figure out what to
do
> > > > >next.
> > > > >
> > > > >- The podling has not reported in several months (this is their 3rd
> > > > >attempt
> > > > >at monthly).
> > > > >- Every time the thought of retirement comes up, a little bit of
> > > > >activity
> > > > >on the project happens.  It doesn't sustain.
> > > > >- There is some limited project history, but no real contribution
> in 6
> > > > >months ( https://github.com/apache/sirona/commits/trunk )
> > > > >
> > > > >I personally don't want to see projects go, and I don't want to
> force
> > a
> > > > >project to leave, but at the same time I'm not convinced that
> there's
> > > > >enough of a community behind the project to sustain it going
> forward.
> > > > >They've put together a limited plan to get a release out the door,
> but
> > > > >other than that I'm not sure they're going to be able to move
> forward.
> > > > >
> > > > >So I want to ask, as the IPMC, do we want to give them time to
> > regroup?
> > > > >
> > > > >John
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message