lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Archive Lucy
Date Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:55:12 GMT
+1.  I don't see any point in rushing it either, but I don't feel like  
we are, other than the sense that some decision needs to be made based  
on this thread.  Like I said before, this conversation isn't news to  
those who are involved.  I'm totally fine w/ giving the benefit of the  
doubt, I trust Marvin is working on it, but likely needs a reminder of  
how Apache projects work.

I'd _suggest_ a few other things beyond just code commits, however:
1. When discussing ideas on java-dev, at least send a message to lucy- 
dev saying "See thread X on java-dev" (however, please don't cross- 
post).  Do this religiously.  At some point, after you start seeing  
Lucy members commenting on java-dev, you will realize you have enough  
of a group to sustain the conversations on lucy (or, even general;  
General is likely a good place for cross-fertilization too) at which  
point you will likely be sending a msg to java-dev saying, "hey check  
out lucy-dev for a great conversation on X"
2. Update the website to show a current status and/or post some news.
3. Move beyond the "Eventful and I" are figuring out this stuff and  
start thinking in terms of how you can build community in Lucy.  As  
should be clear now, Apache is more than just code.  Code can be  
stored in a number of places (SF, Google, etc.).  Apache is about  
building community around code.
4. Related to #3: Actively start searching for replacements for Doug  
and Dave (hint, I think you have two volunteers on this thread  
already).   Keep in mind the litmus test for an Apache project: Would  
this project survive a committer leaving?  In the short term, we know  
the answer is no, but in the long term the answer must be yes.  Try to  
figure out some specific areas you could get help.  Sign up to be a  
mentor for GSOC and try to get a student to help out.  Blog/Twitter/ 
Whatever about Lucy and what you are up to.  In short, start promoting  
Lucy as Lucy, not as some offshoot of KS.
5. Try to think in terms of how KS can leverage Lucy and less in terms  
of how Lucy can be extracted from KS at some point in the future  
(which is very much the sense I get from reading the responses).  In  
other words, even if you think people aren't capable of doing the low- 
level grunt work you allude to in prior posts, assume that any and  
everyone on the Lucy list does grok that stuff and discuss it there.   
I often don't understand everything some of the guys on Mahout talk  
about, but it is a great learning place and eventually it gets through  
my skull.

Finally, six months or so does sound like the right time frame.


On Mar 9, 2009, at 6:06 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:

> Grant Ingersoll wrote:
>> Therefore, it is with some hesitation that I suggest we mothball  
>> Lucy.
> When committers are inactive for a year, we ask them if they'd like  
> to be made emeritus.  Usually they either don't respond or they say  
> yes. If they say "no" we give them the benefit of the doubt for a  
> while longer.  A similar process is followed for Apache members  
> who've been inactive.  Inactivity should not be punished: we're all  
> volunteers.
> If there's a decent chance that Lucy will become active soon then we  
> don't want to further burden that.  Marvin has argued that there's a  
> strong chance Lucy will become active soon.  I'm inclined to give  
> him the benefit of the doubt for another six months or so before we  
> do anything that would be nontrivial to reverse.
> So if "mothballing" would be easy to reverse, it might be okay.  We  
> could just, e.g., change the website to say, "inactive", remove the  
> website from the TLP's website and remove commit privileges, but not  
> remove accounts, mailing lists or JIRA instances.  Then reversal  
> would take about 10 minutes of the PMC chair's time.  Marvin or  
> others could petition this list to have it reversed.
> But I'd also be fine with putting the project on notice for a few  
> months, with the understanding that if activity doesn't pick up  
> soon, it will be mothballed, as outlined above.  Then, after  
> mothballing, if nothing happens for a while longer, we remove it  
> altogether.  At each transition we should invite discussion.  I  
> don't see much point in rushing this.
> This path does risk dragging out the pain, so we shouldn't go down  
> it too lightly.  Marvin, do you expect you'll be actively committing  
> code to Lucy over the next six months?  If so, I think we should  
> give him that, if not, we should mothball now as outlined above.
> Another analysis to consider: If Marvin came to us today and pitched  
> Lucy, would we accept it as a single-committer subproject?  If not,  
> then we should mothball now.  If so, then we can give him the  
> benefit of the doubt for a bit longer.
> Note that, if we give notice now, and nothing happens in six months,  
> that's likely to considerably reduce our patience.
> Doug
> P.S. I hereby resign as a Lucy committer.

View raw message