lucene-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simone Chiaretta <simone.chiare...@gmail.com>
Subject RE: Request for cancellation of current vote regarding Lucene.Net status change
Date Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:55:55 GMT
I understand that this is how the ASF works, but I don't under why a
product that is used by everyone that needs a fulltext search engine
has to be shutdown (thus preventing anybody to download and use it).
And for the lack of commits, ok, it is not uptodate with the java
Lucene, but it works fine for everyone.

If it was not into the ASF this would have been a great oss project
where the mailing list is sustained by the users directly (vs most
other projects where the ppl answering are the devs). 6 months without
a commit is not the end of the world.
I fear that most possible committers are scared away by the
over-political and burocratic approach of the ASF.

I'd be fine if the project is shutdown but the ML and the svn
repository are kept online.

Simone

Sent from my Windows Phone From: Grant Ingersoll
Sent: giovedì 30 dicembre 2010 15:07
To: general@lucene.apache.org
Cc: lucene-net-user@lucene.apache.org; lucene-net-dev@lucene.apache.org
Subject: Re: Request for cancellation of current vote regarding
Lucene.Net status change
Hi Troy,

I appreciate the effort and I think what you are asking for in the end
is exactly how the Incubator process works.  As I've stated several
times before, Incubation is a way for the Lucene.NET community to be
on the path of a self-determined PMC and to start with a clean slate
of committers.   As I have suggested multiple times before, I would go
do http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html.  The process is
quite simple, for example see
http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenNLPProposal.  Name your list of
committers, etc. and then put it up for a vote on
general@incubator.apache.org.  I'm happy to help set that up for you
if you are throwing your name in the hat.

Some more thoughts inline below.

Sincerely,
Grant

On Dec 30, 2010, at 12:09 AM, Troy Howard wrote:

> Dear Lucene PMC,
>
>
<snip/>

>
> This is following the pattern of 'Revolution' as defined in
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/glossary.html#Revolution and detailed
> by James Duncan Davison. Unfortunately none of the current committers
> are involved in this process, and as such, this revolution is occuring
> outside of ASF, rather than in ASF's source control. It also means
> that these forks will never have the opportunity to be merged back
> into the trunk.
>
> There is a strong community around this project.

I would agree there is a decent user community (strong seems, well, a
bit strong) but there is almost zero development community AFAICT (and
I don't just mean committers.)

> There are numerous
> other significant and active open source projects in the .NET space
> which depend on Lucene.Net as a library, as well as countless
> commercial products that depend on it. There is a strong community
> interest in seeing this project move forward and remain vital and
> active.
>
> The sensible and correct action for the Lucene PMC is to remove all
> four of the current committers from the Lucene.Net project, and
> establish a vote for new committers to be assigned to the project from
> the users community.

Unfortunately, this is a conundrum for the current PMC.  As I have
stated before, none of us feel capable of judging who those people are
and whether they get how the ASF works or what it takes to be a
committer.

>
> A change of status will not help this project or it's community in any
> possible way. New committers, who are interested, motivated, and
> responsive are what this project needs.
>
> This is my personal request, but I believe that I speak for a
> substantial portion of the Lucene.Net community by asking the Lucene
> PMC to please cancel the current vote and address this problem in a
> more appropriate and responsible manner.
>
> Please grant the Lucene.Net community the power to be self-determined
> by enabling it's active and motivated members to choose a new group of
> committers.

Who are those people?  Please name them and add them to a proposal.  I
would be happy to help guide you through the Incubator process.  There
was a bunch of people who volunteered on the original Oct. thread,
gather their names, confirm their interest and add them to the
proposal.

>
> On a related subject, it is notable that unlike other Lucene
> sub-projects, Lucene.Net does not have representation within the
> Lucene PMC,

George is on the PMC.  But yes, this is exactly the problem with
Lucene.NET being a sub-project of Lucene and why it belongs as a
standalone project.  Even if .NET had 2 or 3 or 10, it is clear to me
that it is not the right way to run the PMC (trust me, we tried it for
a long time with many subprojects such as Nutch, Tika, Mahout, etc.)
The ASF Board has made it clear that large umbrella projects are not
best practice.

> and as such, the PMC's decision making process is
> occurring without any PMC member being directly involved with the
> community or project. I further propose that once a new group of
> committers is established for the Lucene.Net project that one of those
> members be made a Lucene PMC member. This will assist the PMC in
> better managing the project in the future.


Why only one?  Why not have your whole entire PMC be made up of people
who care about Lucene.NET and have complete say over the direction of
the community, the committers, etc?  Being a TLP will do nothing to
diminish your relationship with Lucene itself and will likely expand
the visibility of the project.

Mime
View raw message