lucene-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject svn commit: r1103495 - /lucene/board-reports/2011/special-board-report-may.txt
Date Sun, 15 May 2011 18:16:58 GMT
Author: gsingers
Date: Sun May 15 18:16:58 2011
New Revision: 1103495


    lucene/board-reports/2011/special-board-report-may.txt   (with props)

Added: lucene/board-reports/2011/special-board-report-may.txt
--- lucene/board-reports/2011/special-board-report-may.txt (added)
+++ lucene/board-reports/2011/special-board-report-may.txt Sun May 15 18:16:58 2011
@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+=== Lucene Status Report: May 2011 ===
+Background:  Lucene has been asked by the Board to report
+on the state of the community vis-a-vis the problems around the
+recent commit/revert incident
+( and the related
+Lucene issue as well as several other mail threads)
+The primary root of these problems arise from a disagreement about
+how best to move forward with the two products the Lucene PMC ships:
+Apache Lucene and Apache Solr.  A majority of the PMC/committership
+is in favor of a more modular approach to Solr which essentially
+means refactoring code that has lived in Solr for a long time into
+modules that can be more easily consumed at the Java API level (as
+opposed to the Solr REST API level.)  Others have resistedd these
+changes, sometimes for technical reasons and sometimes for
+what appear to be business/political reasons.  Still others have
+a view that is should be taken on a case by case basis.  
+These people are
+not against the refactoring, but don't think is absolutely 
+necessary that it must be done in order to make other contributions
+to that particular code base.  After long debate, we seem
+to have arrived at a consensus that those who wish to do the
+refactoring should go ahead with it, but it shouldn't require
+others to stop working in the areas that are of refactoring
+interest.  For the record, the business/political reasoning has
+been clearly repudiated by the rest of the PMC.
+Other concerns have arisen about the use of IRC such that
+we have started to use a logging client for IRC.  We have also
+reminded everyone to keep all decisions on list and to allow 
+proposed decisions to "bake" before committing, at least when
+it comes to major issues.
+Some in the community have also raised concerns about Lucid
+Imagination's role in development.  While Lucid does employ
+a good number (but not the majority) of committers [1], the general
+consensus seems to be that it is not a concern.  Furthermore,
+during the recent debates, it is quite clear that Lucid employees
+are free to have independent viewpoints on what to do.  Naturally,
+given a number of committers in one company, it warrants the PMC
+keep a watchful eye on it.  Likewise, however, it should also
+be clear that every PMC/committer involved in Lucene is paid to
+work on Lucene/Solr and they all have financial interests.  All
+should recognize that this doesn't necessarily make for problems.
+Beyond this, we have put forth a few other things that we can
+do to help keep the community moving forward in a positive way. 
+These are itemized below:
+1. Obviously, with projects as big and widely used as Lucene and Solr, 
+it is hard to sometimes
+keep up with all the contributions that come in.  Thus, we need to 
+find a way to automate (similar to Hadoop's patch checker) the basics
+of patch checking like having unit tests, formatting, etc. such that
+contributors can get feedback sooner and so that committers know
+that a patch is ready for review, thereby making it easier to accept
+contributions and, hopefully, encourage newcomers.  We also need
+to more consistently promote contributors to committers and committers
+to the PMC.  As with most of the ASF, our current approach is dependent
+on remembering to make a nomination and we should look for better ways
+to identify candidates (such a reporting mechanism would likely benefit
+all the ASF, actually.)
+2. We have added three new PMC Members: Doron Cohen, Shai Erera, Steve Rowe
+3. Rotate the Chair.  The Board should expect a resolution to change the PMC
+Chair for the June Board Meeting.  We also plan on changing the chair on a
+yearly basis.
+4. Thanks to Greg's intervention, we all have been reminded as to proper etiquette
+when it comes to commits/reverts such that the main symptom of this disagreement
+should not happen again.
+5. To some extent, we feel this has been overblown
+and many of us have come to the conclusion that the simplest way
+to move forward is to get back to writing code and improving Lucene and Solr and
+getting releases out.  To that end, we are working on releasing 3.2 of Lucene and
+Solr as well as continuing development on 4.0.
+[1] Current PMC Members/Committers and their employers
+* means PMC
+    Bill Au (billa@...)   -- CBS Interactive
+    * Michael Busch (buschmi@...) -- Twitter
+    * Doron Cohen (doronc@...) -- IBM
+    * Shai Erera (shaie@...) -- IBM
+    * Otis Gospodnetic (otis@...) -- Sematext
+    * Erik Hatcher (ehatcher@...) -- Lucid
+    * Chris Hostetter (hossman@...) -- Lucid
+    * Grant Ingersoll (gsingers@...) -- Lucid
+    * Mike McCandless (mikemccand@...) -- IBM
+    * Ryan McKinley (ryan@...) -- Voyager GIS (Lucid advisor)
+    * Mark Miller (markrmiller@...) -- Lucid
+    * Robert Muir (rmuir@...) -- Lucid (recent)
+    Noble Paul (noble@...) -- AOL
+    * Steven Rowe (sarowe@...) -- Syracuse Univ.
+    * Uwe Schindler (uschindler@...) -- SD Data Solutions
+    Shalin Shekhar Mangar (shalin@...) -- AOL
+    * Yonik Seeley (yonik@...) -- Lucid
+    * Koji Sekiguchi (koji@...) -- Rondhuit
+    Dawid Weiss (dweiss@...) -- CarrotSearch
+    Stanislaw Osinski -- CarrotSearch
+    * Simon Willnauer (simonw@...) -- JTeam/Independent
+    Chris Male (chrism@...) -- JTeam
+    Andi Vajda (vajda@...) -- ?
+    *Scott Ganyo -- Actor
+    * Mark Harwood -- ?
+    Adriano Crestani -- IBM (?)

Propchange: lucene/board-reports/2011/special-board-report-may.txt
    svn:eol-style = native

View raw message