As strong users of aurora but weak contributors, we at Chartbeat apologize for our lack of participation. We’re several versions behind on mesos/aurora upgrades and that’s honestly because it works for us :)
Going forward we’re hoping to be able to participate more, at least with testing new releases. We thank you though! Rick and the rest of Chartbeat Engineering > On May 4, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Renan DelValle <re...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hello all, > > I wanted to bring up a few points for discussion with the community. I'd > really like to hear what the community's thoughts are on these issues and > how can resolve them. > > 1. Lack of participation. This is due to many members moving on from the > project and becoming dormant. More concerning is the fact that our PMC > roster sits at 21 members [1] of which fewer than half have participated in > the project during the last 6 months. > > This inactivity has led the voting process for releases to be held up by > the inability to reach the required minimum 3 votes for releases (both > tar.gz and binary). Our latest binary packaging vote has been going on for > more than a month. [2] > > With the recent additions of Santhosh Kumar Shanmugham and Jordan Ly to the > Aurora PMC, we hope to mitigate this issue. > > It would be fantastic to see some initiative from long contributing members > to make a case for themselves for being considered for committer and/or PMC > membership. > > 2. Binary packages. While we have been struggling to get enough votes for > making the release official, the voting process has been marked by a lack > of enthusiasm from the community. > > I know that many folks are using these packages (including myself), but we > need to hear feedback when we call votes. It is not enough to stand by > silently if everything works; please let us know about it. > > As it stands, the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) for binary packages doesn't > justify the overhead involved in releasing them. Therefore I propose that > we drop official binary packages for the next release. This is up for > discussion and I'd love to hear everyone's opinion on this. > > An alternative to ending binary packages would be to automate the process > on tar.gz releases, but that would most likely need to be a community > contribution. > > 3. Version 1.0. I realize this is a touchy subject. While other projects > that were started around the same time as Aurora, such as Mesos itself, > have gone on to make a 1.0 release (indicating the projects maturity), we > have stuck to our 0.X.0 releases. > > Aurora is a mature project wether it is labeled 0.X.0 or X.0.0, but I > wanted to bring up for discussion how everyone felt about making our next > release a 1.0 release to reflect the stability and maturity of the project. > > That is all from me, if anyone else has any other concerns regarding the > Aurora community, feel free to bring it up in this thread! > > -Renan > > > [1] https://projects.apache.org/committee.html?aurora > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/9df9d142408efffd11a1cdc5e4c1e3 > 67208cf8e618730f7c761b0f35@%3Cdev.aurora.apache.org%3E
