lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Digy" <>
Subject RE: Lucene.NET Community Status
Date Tue, 02 Nov 2010 19:41:49 GMT
> you basically only have one current person who is an active committer/PMC
Did you see
report.contributions%3Acontributionreport&Next=Next ?


-----Original Message-----
From: Grant Ingersoll [] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 8:21 PM
Cc:; Lucene mailing list
Subject: Re: Lucene.NET Community Status

On Nov 2, 2010, at 1:53 PM, Granroth, Neal V. wrote:

> Huh?  What I should have been clear and concise to anyone who has follow
the project for the past several years.
> Lucene.Net has already been through the official process of being promoted
out of incubator status.  Why is it necessary to repeat this process?
> The PMC failed to respond to the list when problems with updating the web
site were discussed.  So updating the web site is insufficient.
> There were also a number of issues with renaming the project to remove
"incubator" from the mailing lists and web site reverences.
> We should not repeat or reverse this unless absolutely necessary.
> A brief pause in development and list discussions should not cause the PMC
such worries about the vitality of the project.

You could write up a Board proposal to go straight to TLP status.  I'd have
a hard time recommending to the Board that they pass it but maybe they would
b/c as I outlined in my original email, this project isn't up to ASF
community standards and not only that you basically only have one current
person who is an active committer/PMC member.  As I also outlined in earlier
emails, the current Lucene PMC is not the appropriate place for Lucene.NET
b/c the members of the PMC are not interested in .NET.  George is the only
one and he has been gone for the past few months (if not more).  That isn't
to pick on George, it's to point out that a project has to be more than just
one committer to be a part of the ASF, especially one that has been around
this long.  So, in order  for this project to get more committers, people
need to step up and contribute.  Therein lies the conundrum.  The current
PMC is not equipped to judge those contributions since none of us use .NET.
Hence, going back to incubation gets you a new set of committers and it gets
you your own PMC where you can set the criteria for committership (within
ASF guidelines) and where the PMC is made up of the stakeholders in the
project.  Being a part of a project is about more than just the name, it's
about the community of people who use and contribute to that project.  The
.NET community is distinct from the Lucene Java community, despite it being
a port, therefore they should be separate.


As to those questions about forking somewhere else, that is certainly
something that can be done under a different name.  Lucene.NET is owned by
the ASF.  You can take the code and go call it something else, no problem.

As to what the ASF brings, that's up to the community to decide.  The number
one thing I think is our "community over code" approach.  Anyone can throw
code up on Github/Google Code, etc. and call it open source.  If you are
lucky, you might attract a following.  If the person who started that
project is nice, they might even allow other committers.  At the end of the
day, however, I think the ASF's meritocracy is why I choose to put my open
source efforts into the ASF.  It is just one way, not _the_ way.  Having
started other projects here at the ASF (Mahout), I can tell you the ASF is
one of the few orgs. out there that can attract large bases of
users/contributors almost instantaneously.  In other words, the ASF has
brand recognition like few other places.  Again, this is just my view.  I'm
not going to force it on you, but you are already here, so it seems like
it's less friction to go back to the incubator and graduate to TLP than to
fork and try to get people to go find you under a different name.

My two cents,

View raw message