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
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
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
Bernd Fondermann 2012-07-11, 13:31
Chris Douglas 2012-07-12, 19:29
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