All good points. Eric can you update the report? Please make sure you only mention public interactions from this list or Jira. I can't make your numbers jive with what I see on mailing lists and Jira.
Regards, Alan On Jul 8, 2012, at 9:54 PM, Chris Douglas wrote: > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Bernd Fondermann > <[email protected]> wrote: >> If you feel this does not reflect our discussion on the private list, >> please feel free to correct it, but you did sign the report off back >> in April. >> >> http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/April2012 > > The discussion was in June, Bernd. In April, we saw the last release > as momentum that could pick up development. In June, we concluded that > retiring the podling was warranted because nothing had changed; if a > community developed outside the ASF, then we could revive it. The > report pivoted on information and conclusions that weren't discussed > with the rest of the PPMC and represented its position as unchanged. > >> There is no cost in waiting for Chukwa to gain more community. > > Not indefinitely. This incubation needs to wrap up. If patience and > optimism is rewarded, then that's fantastic, but the rest of the > PPMC's participation in the last six months has been limited to the +1 > to retire it after a release to establish licensing. > > Again, if there's cause to believe that will change presently: > *great*. But the report is problematic. It claims 5 new contributors, > but at least two of those were patches on private emails. It claims > there are no issues for the attention of the IPMC or board, despite > the undisputed fact that this project is held together by one > developer right now. > > To be completely clear: this is a problem with the report, not the > conclusion to continue incubation. If the PPMC wants to continue and > sees rational cause to continue, then I'm on board to help. But > mentors can't sign off on the report as written. > > On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Eric Yang <[email protected]> wrote: >> I agreed on retiring Chukwa, if the community does not revive itself. >> The agreement was before Hadoop summit. In Hadoop summit, there were >> a few talks that advertised Chukwa, and had trigger some activities >> and 2 people sent patches to me directly. I become optimistic again >> about Chukwa from those activities. Hence, thing did change when I >> was writing the report for July. I am sorry for the confusion, and >> Jukka was right that a over active lead may be preventing the growth >> of the community. > > Eric, your position is a difficult one. It is not realistic to ask you > to consult with a group that isn't currently developing Chukwa. That's > also my point. The ritual of writing to the dev lists and compiling > reports based on others' input is meaningless when you're the only one > with context. > > But those are all good reasons to be optimistic and wait another cycle > or two to see where it leads. > >> Hence, I think we should try some experiment that >> we open Chukwa for free enrollment for committers and see if any thing >> develop from this. If activities still decline in next report, then >> we can close Chukwa for good. Does this seem like a reasonable >> experiment? > > It's not as dire as that. There's no "closing Chukwa for good". The > idea of rebooting the project is a good one. -C
