On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 9:24 AM, Cédric Champeau <cedric.champeau@gmail.com> wrote:
I think it would be valuable to add a few examples of profiles who might be entitled Groovy champion. Let me start:

- a speaker, teacher who by their public talks contributed to the awareness of the language

For example someone like Venkat, who spoke early about Groovy, and keeps doing so.
Or people like Dan Vega who run online Groovy courses.
Both would be good candidates under that label.
 
- the author of a successful framework who, by leveraging Groovy, introduced innovative features

Somewhat a bit remote to the Groovy community like Koshuke, from Jenkins, has extended Jenkins in nice ways thanks to Groovy.

So yes, those two categories fall very well in the realm of our champion program IMHO.

We should indeed perhaps list a few of those categories when describing the program and specifying who can be elected or not.

Guillaume
 

2018-02-26 9:17 GMT+01:00 Paul King <paulk@asert.com.au>:


On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Søren Berg Glasius <soeren@glasius.dk> wrote:
@Mario 

Very good thoughts, I really like the idea that an award is permanent, I believe that goes for Java Champs as well.

Naming wise, Groovyssimo is fun, but not naming material for an award :-) But we need to narrow down the name-space to something realistic that can be voted on.

Agreed on the good thoughts comment. Well, I guess you are going to rule out my spin on Nobel with the No-semis award idea too! :-)
 
No-semis jokes aside, we have been given feedback from within Apache that we have to make sure that we cover off whatever we do in terms of Apache branding, making sure that the trademark Apache Groovy is honored and that such a scheme could never head down a path that would be in conflict with the ASF directions. Also, as Cédric mentions we need to make a case why existing schemes like "committer status" or "PMC status" might not apply. I agree with Guillaume that the idea of the award has always been for the entire ecosystem and the existing mechanisms for recognizing contributions to the Apacge Groovy project don't really apply well in the broader community context. Much like the ASF itself has different kinds of awards, e.g. member of the ASF vs committer/PMC for a particular project, I think a different award is needed here.

Cheers, Paul.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 at 08:50 Mario Garcia <mario.ggar@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 to what Guillaume said :) Common guys! Lets focus on what we think is a great language and let others think what they want! 

Regarding the duration of the award. I've though about it, trying not to think in terms of annually or permanent, but trying to see what's out there outside the CS world, and I ended up thinking on the Nobel prize. I'd like some ideas of Nobel prize:
  • Takes place every year
  • A given prize could be vacant a given year. 
  • It's so important that it's really noticeable to be awarded
  • Makes people very proud of some achievement they did a given year
  • Once you're a Nobel you will always be a Nobel.
  • Of  course there's been awarded people that even rejected the prize but that never really underrated the prize overtime 
  • New members are chosen by previous members and some other relevant people (members of the parliament among others). Here I'd add the idea of letting anybody to propose a nominee, but leaving the final decision to the prize committee (whatever we decide who is in)
Despite the difference of content between the Nobel prize and the Groovy awards, after reviewing these points I think they seem to fit better in the Groovy Champions/Stars idea. There is also something I haven't heard yet. I guess this will require a kind of permanent organization, e.g. to contact members, nominees, organize the awards, a web to show the winners...etc

BTW: Here you have another naming for the awards: Groovisimo Awards. Can you imaging a "Groovisimo" statue like the Oscars ? It would be a blast XDDDD  

My two cents
Mario

2018-02-25 10:53 GMT+01:00 Guillaume Laforge <glaforge@gmail.com>:
James Stachan's quote has really been taken out of context, and over-exagerated bu the Scala-fanboys.
If Scala had been what it is now, James would probably not have initiated Groovy *then*. But Scala was nascent just like Groovy *then*.
It's like if Gavin King had said that he wouldn't have invented Hibernate if JPA had existed... but JPA came ten years later.

This quote was really harmful, but as the saying goes, lots of water's gone through the bridges since then.

There's still the myth of slowliness, which we all know is not true anymore, even in pure dynamic mode (without even mentioning static compilation) 
Usually, you spend way more time in network latency (access to remote resources, access to database, etc) than waiting for the CPU spent by just the pure language execution time.

Also back on James Strachan: he went to play with Scala, then with Kotlin, and has come back to using Groovy.
He's using Groovy on a regular basis through his work with Jenkins, its pipelines, etc.
So he's back at his old love!

So let's turn the page on those stories, please.

Guillaume


On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Daniel Sun <realbluesun@hotmail.com> wrote:
The creator of Groovy said "I can honestly say if someone had shown me the
Programming in Scala book...". I think he compared Scala with the old
version of Groovy he created in about 2003. As we all know, Groovy has
evolved a lot, so I never care about others' out-dated opinions on Groovy :)



--
Guillaume Laforge
Apache Groovy committer & PMC Vice-President
Developer Advocate @ Google Cloud Platform


--
Best regards / Med venlig hilsen,
Søren Berg Glasius

Hedevej 1, Gl. Rye, 8680 Ry, Denmark
Mobile: +45 40 44 91 88, Skype: sbglasius
--- Press ESC once to quit - twice to save the changes.





--
Guillaume Laforge
Apache Groovy committer & PMC Vice-President
Developer Advocate @ Google Cloud Platform