I have not been active for a long time, so I will also be leaving. On Mar 26, 2017 3:08 PM, "Jason Dillon" <jdil...@apache.org> wrote:
I will be leaving as well. —jason On March 26, 2017 at 12:01:05 PM, Kevan Miller (kevan.mil...@gmail.com) wrote: I'll be leaving. On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau <rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 > > Le 25 mars 2017 00:17, "David Jencks" <david.a.jen...@gmail.com> a écrit : > >> I like this approach. Thank you for making a concrete suggestion and >> taking the lead. I intend to stay on the PMC and at least occasionally help >> out. >> >> david jencks >> >> > On Mar 24, 2017, at 8:55 AM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> wrote: >> > >> > Of course we do not have a huge community. But a very long lasting one. >> And there is not really standstill. There have been 64 committs in the last >> 3 monts. This is actually not too bad! >> > >> > So how to move on? >> > >> > Who wants to remain active in the PMC? Who wants to leave? >> > >> > We already pinned down the parts where there certainly IS community. >> > In addition to that I would like to bring in Geronimo-Config as an >> implementation of the Microprofile-Config specification. >> > Discussions have been going on last year all work has been done by me >> on my github account. But would love to bring it over here. >> > >> > I'll dig the old projects charter and try to kick off a reboot together >> with Romain, Jean-Louis, Reinhard, Guillaume and whoever else is willing to >> have a helping hand from time to time. Note that everyone is welcome, even >> if he currently has no time to commit but only wants to provide guide and >> feedback. >> > >> > The first step I recommend is be to merge various mailing lists >> together. >> > Then we need to verify the charter and probably tweak it for the new >> goal. >> > We also need to communicate that we do not further maintain the >> Geronimo Server parts. >> > >> > Any objection? >> > >> > LieGrue, >> > strub >> > >> > >> >> Am 13.03.2017 um 20:46 schrieb Kevan Miller <kevan.mil...@gmail.com>: >> >> >> >> "need" and "in use" does not necessarily translate into community. The >> need for the geronimo components that have been discussed is not new. As >> far as I can tell, so far, that has not translated into a community. >> >> >> >> If we want to continue the project, demonstrate the community that is >> needed for the project to continue. As I stated previously, a good starting >> point: create a new charter for the project, identify active PMC >> members/committers, and obtain board approval. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Alan! >> >> >> >> There are quite a few things which fit into this scenario imo. >> >> >> >> I think we really miss some 'toolbox project' for EE components at the >> ASF. >> >> There was a tendency to make all those projects own TLPs for some >> time. But that approach simply doesn't scale, and we end up with the same >> people in most of those projects anyway. >> >> So moving the ones with lower activity into a common TLP would solve >> this problem. Geronimo could probably become this project. >> >> >> >> There are a lot old EE folks around which have tremendous knowledge. >> And there are certain technologies which are really cool, but have the >> classical EE-lifecycle up-down in terms of activity. >> >> That + the already existing components could be a great chance. >> >> >> >> As you already said yourself: the terms of the big fat EE servers is >> over. But nevertheless the technology and requirement behind most of the >> single parts is still valid and often unbeaten. >> >> But nowadays it's more about making it easy to plug & play those >> technology libs together more freely as they are needed. Thus moving the >> focus on maintaining the components and not the server could be really >> appreciated by the community. >> >> >> >> You said there will be community if there is a need. I fully agree, >> and even more I see a need for those parts. >> >> >> >> LieGrue, >> >> strub >> >> >> >>> Am 12.03.2017 um 19:15 schrieb Alan Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com>: >> >>> >> >>> After a good night’s sleep, I re-read this thread and I’ll respond >> without trying to guide you in where and how you decide to go with your >> efforts; thanks in advance for letting me reboot my reply. :) >> >>> >> >>> Any pivot that this community decides upon, will have to be justified >> to the ASF board. We will need to explain what will be different and >> justify how it will generate sustainable community activity. With regards >> to that, I have two general concerns: >> >>> • Will this this specific endeavor generate any new sustainable >> community activity? >> >>> • Will any new activity of this specific endeavor represent >> activity that is unique to Geronimo or are we doing the chores of other >> projects to provide the appearance of activity? >> >>> The current level activity, is due to spec maintenance for downstream >> dependencies and we must admit that it is quite low. Being an upstream >> “aggregator” does not provide appreciable added value at the cost of the >> doubled administration. The specter of duplicate work will, in reality, >> never arise; this de facto efficiency is due to the awesomeness of the ASL >> 2.0 license. The case for being an aggregator weakens even more given the >> fact that there just isn't a lot of work involved in maintaining specs. >> >>> >> >>> Things aren’t much better for the shared sub-systems. If there was >> something compelling that needed to be done on the shared sub-systems, it >> would have been begun already; given the industry’s penchant for greenfield >> development (NIH) I doubt they will ever be revamped. >> >>> >> >>> This is why I went on my “need” soapbox. Some new need must be found >> for Geronimo to provide. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Regards, >> >>> Alan >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 8:49 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> I have quite a hard time to understand why it is an issue having a >> project led by the aggregation of others and not by itself? Assume one sec >> we close Geronimo or it doesnt exist, then we'll move the bit of code in >> one of the project - let say tomee - and tomee will becomes the exact same >> kind of project. The alternative is to split in a lot of small projects but >> as mentionned a lot of overlap is in these projects in term of forces and >> it doesn't work really better, it just multiply the work load for each >> contributor. That's why I think G is not a bad solution as it is today. >> Scope surely needs to be refined like Mark started to do and objectives are >> clearly a bit different than a project pushing its own server/solution but >> I think there is a space for it and for Apache I think it is saner this way. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE Factory >> >>>> >> >>>> 2017-03-09 17:01 GMT+01:00 Alan Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com>: >> >>>> It has been my personal experience that need is the catalyst for a >> vibrant OSS project. The product and community spring forth from that. >> Adopting an “if we build it they will come” tactic does not usually result >> in success. Rather than rummaging through the trunk to see what bits >> people might be attracted to, maybe it might be better to look at the >> existing JEE-related OSS communities out there and ask “what need are they >> not fulfilling?” >> >>>> >> >>>> That would answer passersby’s questions of “why would I be >> interested in this project?” >> >>>> >> >>>> That would be a slam dunk to present to the ASF board, “Geronimo is >> now focused on fulfilling a new need, X”. >> >>>> >> >>>> What unfulfilled need is out there? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Regards, >> >>>> Alan >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 7:04 AM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> >> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I totally agree. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> But interest from the community is always a product of a good >> product and feature roadmap. >> >>>>> Without any good product you will not be able to build a >> sustainable community around it. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Of course there are many things which can trash a community despite >> a good product. But without product there is no community. >> >>>>> At the end we are not here only because the people are great, but >> because we see a benefit in the product we create in this project - AND the >> people are great ;) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> So my first goal was to identify the features which might be of >> interest. >> >>>>> The next step is to check whether there is enough community >> interest in those features or whether we could move then to another >> community. Ideally with still using the org.apache.geronimo groupId and >> packages. Otherwise it would be quite some problem for the users. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> LieGrue, >> >>>>> strub >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> Am 09.03.2017 um 14:46 schrieb Alex Karasulu <akaras...@apache.org >> >: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I think more important than whether or not JEE is popular (or >> whatever along those lines), are the questions about community health and >> is the PMC still capable of fulfilling its duties. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> My 2 cents, >> >>>>>> --Alex >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de> >> wrote: >> >>>>>> Romain and I went through the Geronimo SVN and made a list of >> which components are used by other projects. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Useful Geronimo components from https://svn.apache.org/repos/a >> sf/geronimo/ >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/KEYS >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/txmanager >> >>>>>> • TomEE (txmgr+connector) >> >>>>>> • Meecrowave (txmgr) >> >>>>>> • Aries (txmgr) >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/components/geronim >> o-schema-javaee_6 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/genesis/ >> >>>>>> • Maven parents for geronimo-specs >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/javamail/ >> >>>>>> • TomEE as delivery >> >>>>>> • Lot of standalone >> >>>>>> • -> we can ask Hendrik pby >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/specs/ >> >>>>>> • TomEE >> >>>>>> • OpenWebBeans >> >>>>>> • Meecrowave >> >>>>>> • OpenJPA >> >>>>>> • Johnzon >> >>>>>> • BatchEE >> >>>>>> • Karaf >> >>>>>> • Aries >> >>>>>> • Tons of external customer projects which don’t want to use >> some official javax jars due to licensing concerns >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/xbean/ >> >>>>>> • TomEE >> >>>>>> • OpenWebBeans >> >>>>>> • Meecrowave >> >>>>>> • Aries >> >>>>>> • Karaf >> >>>>>> • OpenJPA >> >>>>>> • CXF (supported) >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Osgi-locator too but guess this one can drop and belong to karaf >> or servicemix. >> >>>>>> Q: well we need the osgi locator in our geronimo-specs, isn’t? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I've created a google doc. Just ping me if you want to edit >> something and I'll share it. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> David, you mentioned JASPIC. I could not find that even. Is this >> inside the geronimo-server probably? >> >>>>>> Are there other gems which are not maintained as components but >> just inside geronimo? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> txs and LieGrue, >> >>>>>> strub >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Am 09.03.2017 um 08:44 schrieb David Jencks < >> david.a.jen...@gmail.com>: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I go back and forth on whether to shut G down completely. >> Perhaps it would be useful to inventory which parts are used by which other >> projects? Off the top of my head…. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Specs …. who uses G’s and who has their own? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Components…. I think there are several users of the transaction >> manager, I don’t know about the connector framework, and I’m pretty sure no >> one uses my jaspic implementation. The TM is stable but now that faster >> than spinning rust persistent memory is popular the logger could probably >> be rewritten to be much faster. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> xbean …. tomee I believe, anyone else? Does activemq still use >> xbean-spring? Knowing more about osgi now I might be able to gets >> xbean-blueprint to work:-) >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> yoko is used by IBM, I doubt anyone else will get all excited >> about CORBA and start contributing. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Any other bits being used? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> If we kept G around in a reduced state, how will we maintain >> enough interest to file the board reports? Some days I think I might have >> enough interest and some days not. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> If we did not shut down the whole project would we mark the >> removed bits (server primarily) as not being developed or move them to the >> attic? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> thanks >> >>>>>>> david jencks >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:15 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau < >> rmannibu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> A valid point is activity related to G happens elsewhere, >> However elsewhere is not "tomee" which would make things simple to move but >> A, B, C so shutting down G is likely the easiest solution for G itself but >> also the worse for all its dependent projects - and ASF consistency since G >> is now seen as the owner of specs, xbean etc....Today G is the result of >> communities and I don't see it as a bad thing even if not common @ASF. It >> allows new interactions with sometimes completely different area of >> knowledge which is actually great and can't happen elsewhere IMHO (the dead >> of G would mean fork per project probably). >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Romain Manni-Bucau >> >>>>>>>> @rmannibucau | Blog | Old Blog | Github | LinkedIn | JavaEE >> Factory >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> 2017-03-09 5:13 GMT+01:00 Matt Hogstrom <m...@hogstrom.org>: >> >>>>>>>> I’ve monitored G for several years since my departure. For me, >> JEE is not my main area of focus and as such, I’ve invested little time in >> the project apart from reading the e-mail threads. This is a community >> decision and posting the discussion to dev@ is the right venue. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> As an inactive member I don’t have a strong vote, but, my >> observation is that most of the community has moved on and there is little >> activity. If those that are still active want to keep going then God’s >> speed. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Matt Hogstrom >> >>>>>>>> m...@hogstrom.org >> >>>>>>>> +1-919-656-0564 <(919)%20656-0564> >> >>>>>>>> PGP Key: 0x90ECB270 >> >>>>>>>> Facebook LinkedIn Twitter >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> "I’m smart enough to know how dumb I am." >> >>>>>>>> - Hogstrom >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 9, 2017, at 08:47, Jason Dillon <jdil...@apache.org> >> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On March 8, 2017 at 10:44:45 AM, Mark Struberg ( >> strub...@yahoo.de) wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> Alan, I understand that you don't want to put much more energy >> into this project. That is totally understandable and fine. >> >>>>>>>>>> But while you are PMC chair you still cannot declare that the >> project is dead as long as there are enough PMC members still active to >> keep the project going. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Mark, I agree with Alan and Kevan, though put into my own words >> I think the project and community is no longer viable (and has not been for >> a while). I do believe there are still useful aspects to the project, but >> I don’t think its enough to leave on its own. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> We can certainly wait for more PMC members to chime in if they >> are still monitoring. As Jeff recommended I’m including the private@ >> list for PMC folks that may not be paying as much attention to the dev@ >> list. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Before we dump the project I suggest we start with an analysis >> of where we are right now. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> What about starting look into >> >>>>>>>>>> .) Who is still active and willing to continue Geronimo as a >> ee-commons project? >> >>>>>>>>> So far I’ve not really seen anyone over the past days of >> communication about this. But we’ll see. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> —jason >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> .) Which project parts of the project are of some shared >> interest and might be good to get some maintenance love and some realistic >> chance that this is gonna happening? >> >>>>>>>>> I can’t speak for the others, but I have zero interested in >> putting any love in to any of what is presently here. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> I will defer to others to explain if they feel otherwise, >> though I do recall some chatter on private@ but will probably need those >> folks to re-post to dev@ to include that discussion. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> —jason >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -- >> >>>>>> Best Regards, >> >>>>>> -- Alex >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >>
