lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Grant Ingersoll <gsing...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Lucene.NET Community Status
Date Tue, 02 Nov 2010 18:20:41 GMT

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.

See http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html

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,
Grant
Mime
View raw message