Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Chukwa >> mail # dev >> What constitute a successful project?

Copy link to this message
Re: What constitute a successful project?
As chair of the IPMC, I do not think that it is appropriate to have a
vote to continue incubation for six months, with no consideration of
success in between. I think that it would be reasonable to put aside
the vote to retire, and expect a plan, with contributions from more
than one non-mentor, in the next month, and some progress after that.
I also think it would be within the mission and discretion of the
committee to go ahead and vote to retire.

If it's really true that recently resolved legal muddles have been the
one barrier to success, then the removal of that barrier should
unleash some fairly substantial results.

To address the more philosophical discussion here:

The incubator is a structure set up to bootstrap communities. It's not
the only possible structure of this kind, and it's not necessarily the
best one. Like everything else at a *volunteer* organization, it is
constrained by the amount of volunteer labor available. In a perfect
world, yes, the Foundation might operate a sort of
home-for-small-projects. Such a structure would allow arbitrarily
small projects to benefit from Foundation infrastructure and legal

However, this isn't a perfect world, and we are indeed very
constrained by the volunteer labor, and so we aren't providing a home
for years on end. There are other ways for this project to succeed
other than as an Apache TLP. You could find a related, existing,
project, and merge into them. You could set up shop on github.

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Suresh Marru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 2012, at 3:08 AM, Eric Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Apache is a non-profit organization.  If we restrict our thinking model to
>> metrics of how many developers, and how many patches are committed in
>> pre-defeined time limit.  There is no software that is gong to succeed in
>> this evaluation other than commercial software.  Paid developers are
>> contributing to the software that meeting cooperate interests at rapid
>> pace, and smaller companies will work together until cooperate interests
>> tear apart the software, or the funding eventually dry up and the software
>> cease to exist, and the community will eventually fall apart.  Good
>> software usually comes down to a few individuals who work hard to enable
>> the community to flourish.  Many of the good software takes decades to
>> develop from hobby projects.  I will accept the voting result from IPMC,
>> and I wish IPMC would use better human sense to enable future project to
>> flourish.
> Hi Eric,
> Its good to see Jukka and Ant stepping up as mentors, may be that will give you Chukwa one more chance. From browsing through the private list and the general list, I see lots of philosophical arguments and how you will bring in your patches now that legal review at your employer is over. Ofcourse you mention new volunteers too. But so far I haven't seen an answer from you or other Chukwa PPMC "what have you done previously to grow the community, what did not work and what is the change in plan now"? I see multiple variants of this question has been asked quite a few times in the last couple of days and I am eager to see an answer from the Chukwa PPMC.
> Suresh
>> Chris Douglas resigned from mentor position, therefore, Chukwa will need a
>> new mentor, and one of Chukwa contributor Sourygna Luangsay volunteer to be
>> the motivator for Chukwa development if Chukwa is voted to stay for another
>> 6 months.
>> regards,
>> Eric
>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:20 PM, Bernd Fondermann <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Alan Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> As I mentioned in an earlier email, we did have this conversation seven
>>>>> months ago.  We came to a consensus to give it another try.  We even
>>> added
>>>>> a few committers a "bit early" with the hopes that they would infuse