> On 03 Sep 15, at 09:25, jan i <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 3 September 2015 at 15:16, Louis Suárez-Potts <lui...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Bertrand, >> I, along with some others currently or formerly with this project will be >> in Budapest and a post-mortem (or just mortem) discussion could maybe be >> had there. Unfortunately, not all involved with this project will be there. >> Perhaps something can be arranged. >> > It sounds like a good idea, but might be a bit difficult, because at least > for me, it was IPMC private that broke my hopes. > > > It is surely a good idea to look at the history leading upto the last > couple of days...of course only if IPMC is interested.
They ought to be :-) The reasons are both particular and general and have as much to do with what makes for a successful podling -> project and community with code as for what does the opposite, and seemingly with the best of intentions. The broad issue of Apache’s reputation as being too thick with bureaucracy was raised by me last year, at the Corinthia. The summary complaint of those leaving the project, me included, was that a fetish for otherwise-good rules ground the project’s esprit de corps into dust. Understanding the quality of the community (read: people motivated by a recursive shared identity to work together) that started small but claimed huge ambition is crucial, if not for Corinthia, then for other projects I hope to see at Apache. I know this kind of thing has been done and more than once; and that the rules, the guidelines that exist have been sedimented into still-soft rock by years of experience. There’s a lot of bend; I know that. But… The problem is that Apache does not exist in a vacuum, nor is it the only meta-project offering developers useful tools. Others do that too. What Apache offers that’s very valuable is a logic that deprecates exploitation by asserting the primacy of community; but also the possibility of close association with people at other projects working on different but similar technologies and for companies, perhaps, that can make the difference. But to be able to reap these benefits we need to understand, and if possible, fix, problems like those that beset Corinthia. Hence my desire for a post-mortem. -louis > rgds > jan i. > > >> >> Louis >> >> >>> On 03 Sep 15, at 09:13, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Peter Kelly <pmke...@apache.org> wrote: >>>> ...I suggest though that a “post-mortem”, so to speak, may be useful >> for Incubator >>>> to help understand the causes of the project’s failure and consider how >> a >>>> similar outcome could be avoided in the future.... >>> >>> That might be helpful if it can avoid mentioning people's names. It >>> (or its URL) can be sent here or to the gene...@incubator.apache.org >>> list. >>> >>> -Bertrand >> >>
