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
Alan D. Cabrera 2012-07-11, 05:07
-Re: Incubator report due by July 4th
Eric Yang 2012-07-11, 06:23
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.
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.
> 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 2012-07-08, 03:45