chukwa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alan D. Cabrera" <>
Subject Re: Incubator report due by July 4th
Date Wed, 11 Jul 2012 05:07:32 GMT
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
> <> 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 <> 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

View raw message