Alan D. Cabrera 2012-06-29, 02:50
Eric Yang 2012-06-29, 05:44
Bernd Fondermann 2012-06-29, 06:05
Eric Yang 2012-06-30, 06:40
Alan D. Cabrera 2012-07-02, 03:49
Chris Douglas 2012-07-02, 21:14
Alan D. Cabrera 2012-07-03, 04:19
Eric Yang 2012-07-03, 06:19
Chris Douglas 2012-07-05, 19:50
Alan D. Cabrera 2012-07-05, 20:19
Chris Douglas 2012-07-06, 23:52
Bernd Fondermann 2012-07-08, 09:21
Chris Douglas 2012-07-09, 04:54
Bernd Fondermann 2012-07-11, 13:31
-Re: Incubator report due by July 4th
Chris Douglas 2012-07-12, 19:29
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 6:31 AM, Bernd Fondermann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's not how I see things. There never was a VOTE, and AIUI there
> was discussion to do yet another release.
Jesus Bear-Taming Christ. Discussions outside of VOTE threads aren't
idle chatter. The release you speak of was a final release to
establish licensing on work since 0.5. The report should have
mentioned this sentiment and should not have elected to exclude it
without discussing it with the rest of the PPMC. That's all I've been
saying. I've not taken a radical stance, here. Neither am I asserting
that project incubation should cease. I'm only asking that the reports
accurately portray the state of the project, which is *not* trending
toward graduation in the last quarter.
>>> There is no cost in waiting for Chukwa to gain more community.
>> Not indefinitely. This incubation needs to wrap up.
> I disagree. There really needs to be no hurry. I've seen other
> podlings which where much more dead and are now graduating.
Retirement of a podling isn't failure, nor is it permanent. An ASF
project with one remaining contributor and near-zero development for
six months is not "incubating". If there are good reasons to expect
this to change, then (to repeat myself for the 8th or 9th time) that's
great, let's continue. If the PPMC wants to reboot the project, then
let's give it a few months to see where it goes. But to ensure we're
not kidding ourselves, we need to generate objective, honest reports
on the project's progress. When that progress is *stalled*, the report
should not optimistically cite recent interest, growing
user/contributor roles, and no issues worthy of oversight!
>> If patience and
>> optimism is rewarded, then that's fantastic, but the rest of the
>> PPMC's participation in the last six months has been limited to the +1
>> to retire it after a release to establish licensing.
>> Again, if there's cause to believe that will change presently:
>> *great*. But the report is problematic. It claims 5 new contributors,
>> but at least two of those were patches on private emails. It claims
>> there are no issues for the attention of the IPMC or board, despite
>> the undisputed fact that this project is held together by one
>> developer right now.
> I agree, the reports needs to be written more clearly.
The report was patently misleading, not merely "unclear". It is
frustrating to argue trivia with you when the main point is not
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Eric Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I updated July report to reflect the discussions that had taken place.
> I also modified the head count for new contributors to 3. I am not
> sure if mentors are subscribed to Chukwa user list. There is new
> patch being posted in user mailing list today by Ivy Tang. There is
> minimum activities, but it seems to be moving. She also refers to her
> team as we. I think we should offer her team with committer ship and
> see what happens.
The new report is OK. -C
Eric Yang 2012-07-12, 22:03
Alan D. Cabrera 2012-07-11, 05:07
Eric Yang 2012-07-11, 06:23
Eric Yang 2012-07-08, 03:45