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
Chris Douglas 2012-07-12, 19:29
Eric Yang 2012-07-12, 22:03
-Re: Incubator report due by July 4th
Alan D. Cabrera 2012-07-11, 05:07
All good points. Eric can you update the report?
Please make sure you only mention public interactions from this list or Jira. I can't make your numbers jive with what I see on mailing lists and Jira.
On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:54 PM, Chris Douglas wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Bernd Fondermann
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If you feel this does not reflect our discussion on the private list,
>> please feel free to correct it, but you did sign the report off back
>> in April.
> The discussion was in June, Bernd. In April, we saw the last release
> as momentum that could pick up development. In June, we concluded that
> retiring the podling was warranted because nothing had changed; if a
> community developed outside the ASF, then we could revive it. The
> report pivoted on information and conclusions that weren't discussed
> with the rest of the PPMC and represented its position as unchanged.
>> There is no cost in waiting for Chukwa to gain more community.
> Not indefinitely. This incubation needs to wrap up. 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.
> To be completely clear: this is a problem with the report, not the
> conclusion to continue incubation. If the PPMC wants to continue and
> sees rational cause to continue, then I'm on board to help. But
> mentors can't sign off on the report as written.
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Eric Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I agreed on retiring Chukwa, if the community does not revive itself.
>> The agreement was before Hadoop summit. In Hadoop summit, there were
>> a few talks that advertised Chukwa, and had trigger some activities
>> and 2 people sent patches to me directly. I become optimistic again
>> about Chukwa from those activities. Hence, thing did change when I
>> was writing the report for July. I am sorry for the confusion, and
>> Jukka was right that a over active lead may be preventing the growth
>> of the community.
> Eric, your position is a difficult one. It is not realistic to ask you
> to consult with a group that isn't currently developing Chukwa. That's
> also my point. The ritual of writing to the dev lists and compiling
> reports based on others' input is meaningless when you're the only one
> with context.
> But those are all good reasons to be optimistic and wait another cycle
> or two to see where it leads.
>> Hence, I think we should try some experiment that
>> we open Chukwa for free enrollment for committers and see if any thing
>> develop from this. If activities still decline in next report, then
>> we can close Chukwa for good. Does this seem like a reasonable
> It's not as dire as that. There's no "closing Chukwa for good". The
> idea of rebooting the project is a good one. -C
Eric Yang 2012-07-11, 06:23
Eric Yang 2012-07-08, 03:45