I'm not sure why we didn't get any notice but it's still due.

On incubator general it was specifically mentioned:

On Jun 28, 2012, at 4:12 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It's a week until the next podling report deadline on July 4th.
>
> Podlings, when preparing your reports, please pay special attention to
> the things you've done (and/or plan to do) to resolve the key issues
> identified in April [1]:
>
>  No release: Any23, DirectMemory, JSPWiki, Mesos
>  Low activity: AWF, Celix, EasyAnt, Kitty, VXQuery
>  Low diversity: Chukwa, Kafka, ODF Toolkit, Oozie, Tashi
Eric, do you want to pick this up?
Regards,
Alan

 

Hi Alan,

Report is ready for review.  Thanks for the reminder.

regards,
Eric

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not sure why we didn't get any notice but it's still due.
>
> On incubator general it was specifically mentioned:
>
> On Jun 28, 2012, at 4:12 PM, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Jukka Zitting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> It's a week until the next podling report deadline on July 4th.
>>
>> Podlings, when preparing your reports, please pay special attention to
>> the things you've done (and/or plan to do) to resolve the key issues
>> identified in April [1]:
>>
>>  No release: Any23, DirectMemory, JSPWiki, Mesos
>>  Low activity: AWF, Celix, EasyAnt, Kitty, VXQuery
>>  Low diversity: Chukwa, Kafka, ODF Toolkit, Oozie, Tashi
>
>
> Eric, do you want to pick this up?
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Eric Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> Report is ready for review.  Thanks for the reminder.

The plan of retiring the podling after the next release is not mentioned.
Has this plan been changed?

  Bernd

I talk to Chris in Hadoop summit, and I think there is still chance
for Chukwa to continue.  It seems like the user base is developing, it
was advertised by Netflix that they use Chukwa in Hadoop summit talk
and Chukwa talked about in various presentations.  There are 46 people
that has Chukwa skill set on linkedin as oppose to 32 from 4 month
ago.  I think it is showing a steady pace of gaining momentum.
Perhaps, I think we should give it more time.

regards,
Eric

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Bernd Fondermann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Eric Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi Alan,
>>
>> Report is ready for review.  Thanks for the reminder.
>
> The plan of retiring the podling after the next release is not mentioned.
> Has this plan been changed?
>
>  Bernd

We had a similar situation with a podling called Yoko.  It was related to Geronimo but it was difficult to get people interested in participating in the podling.  So, what we did was move the podling into Geronimo.

This is one option for this project.  More specifically, maybe we can move the code base into Hadoop, if they're amenable to the idea.

Other than that, I am of the strong opinion that this project has had more than enough time to get off the ground.  Lurkers, now is the time to come out of the woodwork!
Regards,
Alan

 
On Jun 29, 2012, at 11:40 PM, Eric Yang wrote:

> I talk to Chris in Hadoop summit, and I think there is still chance
> for Chukwa to continue.  It seems like the user base is developing, it
> was advertised by Netflix that they use Chukwa in Hadoop summit talk
> and Chukwa talked about in various presentations.  There are 46 people
> that has Chukwa skill set on linkedin as oppose to 32 from 4 month
> ago.  I think it is showing a steady pace of gaining momentum.
> Perhaps, I think we should give it more time.
>
> regards,
> Eric
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Bernd Fondermann
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Eric Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi Alan,
>>>
>>> Report is ready for review.  Thanks for the reminder.
>>
>> The plan of retiring the podling after the next release is not mentioned.
>> Has this plan been changed?
>>
>>  Bernd

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is one option for this project.  More specifically, maybe we can move the code base into Hadoop, if they're amenable to the idea.

Feel free to ask, but becoming a Hadoop subproject again is not viable
in my opinion. Nobody on the Hadoop PMC is knowledgeable about Chukwa
and, frankly, that is unlikely to change; passing a release vote will
be obnoxiously difficult. Hadoop cannot be an "umbrella" project and
it cannot absorb all, most, or even many of the current, related
incubator projects. The options for Chukwa are continued incubation or
the attic.

It's great to hear that it's being used, but its development community
in Apache has shrunk since incubation began. We can't keep extending
incubation unless we have some more activity, here. Apache isn't a
hosting service; there are plenty of places that do a better job of
that.

We set some goals for Chukwa that are not satisfied. We can resurrect
this project at the ASF if our optimism is well-founded and a
community develops, but this incubation has run its course. -C

> On Jun 29, 2012, at 11:40 PM, Eric Yang wrote:
>
>> I talk to Chris in Hadoop summit, and I think there is still chance
>> for Chukwa to continue.  It seems like the user base is developing, it
>> was advertised by Netflix that they use Chukwa in Hadoop summit talk
>> and Chukwa talked about in various presentations.  There are 46 people
>> that has Chukwa skill set on linkedin as oppose to 32 from 4 month
>> ago.  I think it is showing a steady pace of gaining momentum.
>> Perhaps, I think we should give it more time.
>>
>> regards,
>> Eric
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Bernd Fondermann
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Eric Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Hi Alan,
>>>>
>>>> Report is ready for review.  Thanks for the reminder.
>>>
>>> The plan of retiring the podling after the next release is not mentioned.
>>> Has this plan been changed?
>>>
>>>  Bernd
>

On Jul 2, 2012, at 2:14 PM, Chris Douglas wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is one option for this project.  More specifically, maybe we can move the code base into Hadoop, if they're amenable to the idea.
>
> Feel free to ask, but becoming a Hadoop subproject again is not viable
> in my opinion. Nobody on the Hadoop PMC is knowledgeable about Chukwa
> and, frankly, that is unlikely to change; passing a release vote will
> be obnoxiously difficult. Hadoop cannot be an "umbrella" project and
> it cannot absorb all, most, or even many of the current, related
> incubator projects. The options for Chukwa are continued incubation or
> the attic.
>
> It's great to hear that it's being used, but its development community
> in Apache has shrunk since incubation began. We can't keep extending
> incubation unless we have some more activity, here. Apache isn't a
> hosting service; there are plenty of places that do a better job of
> that.
>
> We set some goals for Chukwa that are not satisfied. We can resurrect
> this project at the ASF if our optimism is well-founded and a
> community develops, but this incubation has run its course. -C

What you say makes sense to me.  

I wonder if another option is Apache Labs.   Eric could tinker around on it there.  Of course one cannot publish release but then you can't do that either when the project is in the attic.
Regards,
Alan

 

I rest my case with Chris and Alan's advices.  Do we still want to do 0.6 release to contain contributor's work?  I am at crunch mode at work, and it would be helpful if someone could make a release of the out standing patches.  Thanks

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 2, 2012, at 9:19 PM, "Alan D. Cabrera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> On Jul 2, 2012, at 2:14 PM, Chris Douglas wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> This is one option for this project.  More specifically, maybe we can move the code base into Hadoop, if they're amenable to the idea.
>>
>> Feel free to ask, but becoming a Hadoop subproject again is not viable
>> in my opinion. Nobody on the Hadoop PMC is knowledgeable about Chukwa
>> and, frankly, that is unlikely to change; passing a release vote will
>> be obnoxiously difficult. Hadoop cannot be an "umbrella" project and
>> it cannot absorb all, most, or even many of the current, related
>> incubator projects. The options for Chukwa are continued incubation or
>> the attic.
>>
>> It's great to hear that it's being used, but its development community
>> in Apache has shrunk since incubation began. We can't keep extending
>> incubation unless we have some more activity, here. Apache isn't a
>> hosting service; there are plenty of places that do a better job of
>> that.
>>
>> We set some goals for Chukwa that are not satisfied. We can resurrect
>> this project at the ASF if our optimism is well-founded and a
>> community develops, but this incubation has run its course. -C
>
> What you say makes sense to me.  
>
> I wonder if another option is Apache Labs.   Eric could tinker around on it there.  Of course one cannot publish release but then you can't do that either when the project is in the attic.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>

All this should be mentioned in the report. The PPMC voted to retire
the podling. The report took a different direction and tone, electing
to focus on cause for optimism in gathering new contributors. If
that's true, that's great, but the author of the board report can't
unilaterally reverse a vote. Please either reopen the discussion or
update the report. Mentors can't sign off on it in its current form.
-C

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Eric Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I talk to Chris in Hadoop summit, and I think there is still chance
> for Chukwa to continue.  It seems like the user base is developing, it
> was advertised by Netflix that they use Chukwa in Hadoop summit talk
> and Chukwa talked about in various presentations.  There are 46 people
> that has Chukwa skill set on linkedin as oppose to 32 from 4 month
> ago.  I think it is showing a steady pace of gaining momentum.
> Perhaps, I think we should give it more time.
>
> regards,
> Eric
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Bernd Fondermann
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Eric Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi Alan,
>>>
>>> Report is ready for review.  Thanks for the reminder.
>>
>> The plan of retiring the podling after the next release is not mentioned.
>> Has this plan been changed?
>>
>>  Bernd

On Jul 5, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Chris Douglas wrote:

> All this should be mentioned in the report. The PPMC voted to retire
> the podling.

What vote was this?

> The report took a different direction and tone, electing
> to focus on cause for optimism in gathering new contributors. If
> that's true, that's great, but the author of the board report can't
> unilaterally reverse a vote. Please either reopen the discussion or
> update the report. Mentors can't sign off on it in its current form.
> -C
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Eric Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I talk to Chris in Hadoop summit, and I think there is still chance
>> for Chukwa to continue.  It seems like the user base is developing, it
>> was advertised by Netflix that they use Chukwa in Hadoop summit talk
>> and Chukwa talked about in various presentations.  There are 46 people
>> that has Chukwa skill set on linkedin as oppose to 32 from 4 month
>> ago.  I think it is showing a steady pace of gaining momentum.
>> Perhaps, I think we should give it more time.
>>
>> regards,
>> Eric
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Bernd Fondermann
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Eric Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Hi Alan,
>>>>
>>>> Report is ready for review.  Thanks for the reminder.
>>>
>>> The plan of retiring the podling after the next release is not mentioned.
>>> Has this plan been changed?
>>>
>>>  Bernd

Dude, you commented on it. Are you being coy about the dev list or do you
really not remember? It wasn't a VOTE, it was a thread where everyone on
the PPMC +1'd a motion to end incubation after the next release established
clean licensing. The board report not only didn't mention that thread, but
it discussed the project's focus on expanding the contributor list and the
upcoming release. Bernd also seemed confused by this dissonance.

If there's cause for optimism and/or we need another cycle to generate that
"last" release: no problem. I prefer that outcome to retiring the podling.
But the report pivoted based on information that was not discussed or
disclosed on the dev list. -C

On Thursday, July 5, 2012, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:

>
> On Jul 5, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Chris Douglas wrote:
>
> > All this should be mentioned in the report. The PPMC voted to retire
> > the podling.
>
> What vote was this?
>
> > The report took a different direction and tone, electing
> > to focus on cause for optimism in gathering new contributors. If
> > that's true, that's great, but the author of the board report can't
> > unilaterally reverse a vote. Please either reopen the discussion or
> > update the report. Mentors can't sign off on it in its current form.
> > -C
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Eric Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I talk to Chris in Hadoop summit, and I think there is still chance
> >> for Chukwa to continue.  It seems like the user base is developing, it
> >> was advertised by Netflix that they use Chukwa in Hadoop summit talk
> >> and Chukwa talked about in various presentations.  There are 46 people
> >> that has Chukwa skill set on linkedin as oppose to 32 from 4 month
> >> ago.  I think it is showing a steady pace of gaining momentum.
> >> Perhaps, I think we should give it more time.
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> Eric
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Bernd Fondermann
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Eric Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>> Hi Alan,
> >>>>
> >>>> Report is ready for review.  Thanks for the reminder.
> >>>
> >>> The plan of retiring the podling after the next release is not
> mentioned.
> >>> Has this plan been changed?
> >>>
> >>>  Bernd
>
>

Hi Chris,

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.  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
experiment?

regards,
Eric

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Chris Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dude, you commented on it. Are you being coy about the dev list or do you
> really not remember? It wasn't a VOTE, it was a thread where everyone on
> the PPMC +1'd a motion to end incubation after the next release established
> clean licensing. The board report not only didn't mention that thread, but
> it discussed the project's focus on expanding the contributor list and the
> upcoming release. Bernd also seemed confused by this dissonance.
>
> If there's cause for optimism and/or we need another cycle to generate that
> "last" release: no problem. I prefer that outcome to retiring the podling.
> But the report pivoted based on information that was not discussed or
> disclosed on the dev list. -C
>
> On Thursday, July 5, 2012, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jul 5, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Chris Douglas wrote:
>>
>> > All this should be mentioned in the report. The PPMC voted to retire
>> > the podling.
>>
>> What vote was this?
>>
>> > The report took a different direction and tone, electing
>> > to focus on cause for optimism in gathering new contributors. If
>> > that's true, that's great, but the author of the board report can't
>> > unilaterally reverse a vote. Please either reopen the discussion or
>> > update the report. Mentors can't sign off on it in its current form.
>> > -C
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Eric Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> I talk to Chris in Hadoop summit, and I think there is still chance
>> >> for Chukwa to continue.  It seems like the user base is developing, it
>> >> was advertised by Netflix that they use Chukwa in Hadoop summit talk
>> >> and Chukwa talked about in various presentations.  There are 46 people
>> >> that has Chukwa skill set on linkedin as oppose to 32 from 4 month
>> >> ago.  I think it is showing a steady pace of gaining momentum.
>> >> Perhaps, I think we should give it more time.
>> >>
>> >> regards,
>> >> Eric
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Bernd Fondermann
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Eric Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>> Hi Alan,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Report is ready for review.  Thanks for the reminder.
>> >>>
>> >>> The plan of retiring the podling after the next release is not
>> mentioned.
>> >>> Has this plan been changed?
>> >>>
>> >>>  Bernd
>>
>>

On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Chris Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dude, you commented on it. Are you being coy about the dev list or do you
> really not remember? It wasn't a VOTE, it was a thread where everyone on
> the PPMC +1'd a motion to end incubation after the next release established
> clean licensing. The board report not only didn't mention that thread, but
> it discussed the project's focus on expanding the contributor list and the
> upcoming release. Bernd also seemed confused by this dissonance.
>
> If there's cause for optimism and/or we need another cycle to generate that
> "last" release: no problem. I prefer that outcome to retiring the podling.
> But the report pivoted based on information that was not discussed or
> disclosed on the dev list. -C

This is the item from Chukwa's last board report that I'd added myself:

"More to the point, we had a discussion whether or not to continue
    Incubation for Chukwa. The consensus was that it's worthwhile to wait
    for the project to get traction a little longer."

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.

http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/April2012

There is no cost in waiting for Chukwa to gain more community.

  Bernd

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.
>
> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/April2012

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
> experiment?

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

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.
Regards,
Alan

 
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.
>>
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/April2012
>
> 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
>> experiment?
>
> 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

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.

regards,
Eric

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Alan D. Cabrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> Regards,
> Alan
>
>
> 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.
>>>
>>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/April2012
>>
>> 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
>>> experiment?
>>
>> 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
>

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Chris Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
>>
>> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/April2012
>
> 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.

That's not how I see things. There never was a VOTE, and AIUI there
was discussion to do yet another release.

>> 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.

> 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.

  Bernd

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
disputed.

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

The private patches were redirected through JIRA.  There was no code
committed without going through JIRA, nor did I committed code base on
private patches.  I only counted them for report.  Should the
activities include the user mailing list or private email?  What
happen if the patches are coming through user mailing list and they
are willing to contribute but takes time to go through the process?  I
did revised the new contributor count base on people who submit
patches to JIRA only.  There is no cause worth over reaction here, and
I appreciate mentors of Chukwa community treating the community with
proper attention.

regards,
Eric

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Chris Douglas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> disputed.
>
> 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