I understand and I am in total agreement with your points above. I think we definitely need more visibility into the marketing aspect of DeviceMap presentations.
So on another note, maybe I should lay out some of my frustrations which led to this thread... I guess I still have lingering concerns regarding this project. I have been thinking about them more and more and I will continue to think about them in the coming months. Basically, do we have the right PMC in place to properly foster and guide this project? This has more to do with the future and 2.0 than it does our current releases and path. For me, in my mind, 2.0 is a big step forward and finally a chance to get things correct (this summer will be 4 years of working on OpenDDR and DeviceMap). Having this clean separation between pattern data and pattern matching is key and will open the door to many great things. But as the pieces for 2.0 are coming together, Im seeing the problems. Would we really be getting things correct if we ignored something as important as the project foundation? If there was a way to reboot, maybe re-enter the incubator and reform the PMC, I would do that in a second. Just not sure what is feasible given the effort it took to get to this point. Maybe spin off a new project? Will this project stay on Apache? These are all possibilities in my mind. As for the examples of why I have these concerns, just look at JIRA, mailing list, SVN, etc... I just see problems. Focus, technology, software practices, direction. Rarely can any future looking statement be left alone without some kind of comment saying that the old way is better. Maybe im just tired and seeing things, who knows. Anyway, I have some more thinking to do and hopefully by the time 1.0.3 gets released, it will be more clear what direction 2.0 will take. On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <[email protected] > wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Reza Naghibi <[email protected]> wrote: > > ...The concern is that as this project evolves, we need to make sure > that any > > sort of public facing material matches the goals and reality of the > > project.... > > It's the same with all Apache projects, what's important when talking > about them publicly is to clearly separate between one's own opinion > and the project's "official direction", whatever that is. > > In general no one represents Apache projects officially in public, we > all just give our own opinion about what we are doing or planning to > do in the projects. I would argue that Apache projects don't have an > official opinion, they are just the sum of their community member's > opinions. > > This is similar to the foundation not having a technical strategy or > plan and "just" providing a space for its projects to exist - our > projects provide a space for committers to do good stuff, but exactly > what that good stuff is might not be known before it happens. > > More concretely, what DeviceMap can do is > > a) agree on a set of goals and maybe a roadmap, and publish that at > http://devicemap.apache.org/ > > b) maintain a list of links to talks, blog posts etc. that the project > agree go in the right direction, also at http://devicemap.apache.org/ > > c) make sure no one makes promises in the name of DeviceMap, which I > think is not realistic. Once we have a) people are free to point at it > however, so having that is a big plus. > > Note that I don't mention any votes in these three items, the best is > if all this can happen by natural consensus, but if people want to > vote on things to make the consensus clearer that's also ok. > > -Bertrand >
