Scott, I will gladly help put this proposal together and would like to volunteer as a committer. I am communicating with others to find some additional candidates to be committers.
Regarding Heath, a quote from his last message in this thread: "While I have developed extensively against Lucene.net, I do not possess the java skills needed to do a port of the code... So, while I wouldn't mind being a committer, I do not think I am qualified." Thanks, Troy On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Lombard, Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > Grant, > > Thanks for your time explaining all the details. I will be willing work on a > proposal to put Lucene.Net back in to incubation. I will need other people > to step up and be committers as well. Heath has volunteered and as Grant has > stated 4 committers are needed to for incubation. Who else is willing to be > a committer? > > Grant I will definitely be taking you up on your offer to help on bring > Lucene.Net into incubation. > > Scott > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Grant Ingersoll [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 12:32 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Vote thread started on [email protected] > > > On Dec 30, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Heath Aldrich wrote: > >> Hi Grant, >> >> Thanks for taking the time to respond. >> >> While I have developed extensively against Lucene.net, I do not possess the >> java skills needed to do a port of the code... So, while I wouldn't mind >> being a committer, I do not think I am qualified. (I guess if I was, I could >> just use Lucene proper and that would be that) >> >> As to other duties of a committer, I think the ASF is perceived as a black >> box of questions for most of us. >> >> For one, I don't think anyone outside the 4 committers even understand *why* >> it is a good thing to be on the ASF vs. CodePlex, Sourceforge, etc. Maybe >> if there was an understanding of the why, the requirements of the ASF would >> make more sense. I think a lot of us right now just perceive the ASF as the >> group that is wanting to kill Lucene.net. > > I don't think we have a desire to kill it, I just think we are faced with the > unfortunate reality that the project is already dead and now us on the PMC > have the unfortunate job of cleaning up the mess as best we can. Again, it > is not even that we want to see it go away, we on the PMC just don't want to > be responsible for it's upkeep. You give me the names of 4 people who are > willing to be committers (i.e. people willing to volunteer their time) and I > will do my best to get the project into the Incubator. However, I have to > tell you, my willingness to help is diminishing with every trip we take > around this same circle of discussion. > > Simply put, given the way the vote has gone so far, the Lucene PMC is no > longer interested in sustaining this project. If the community wishes to see > it live at the ASF then one of you had better step up and spend 20-30 minutes > of your time writing up the draft proposal (most of it can be copied and > pasted) and circulating it. In fact, given the amount of time some of you > have no doubt spent writing on this and other related threads you could have > put together the large majority of the proposal, circulated the draft and got > other volunteers to help and already be moving forward in a positive > direction. Truth be told, I would do it, but I am explicitly not going to > because I think that if the community can't take that one step to move > forward, then it truly doesn't deserve to. > >> >> I get your comments about the slower than slow development, but that is also >> somewhat of a sign that it works. While 2.9.2 may be behind, it seems very >> stable with very few issues. If we send the project to the attic, how will >> anyone be able to submit bugfixes ever? Frankly, I use 2.9.2 every day and >> have not found bugs in the areas that I use... but I'm sure they are in >> there somewhere. >> >> As for the name, I thought Lucene.net was the name of the project back in >> the SourceForge days... >> So my question is based on the premise that "if the lucene.net name was >> brought *to* ASF, why can the community not leave with it?" > > Again, IANAL, but just b/c it was improperly used beforehand does not mean it > is legally owned by some other entity. The Lucene name has been at the ASF > since 2001 and Lucene.NET is also now a part of the ASF. (If your > interested, go look at the discussions around iBatis and the movement of that > community to MyBatis) > > -Grant > > > This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the > use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may > contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or > constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient > you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or > distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, > is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, > please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting > it from your computer. Thank you, King Industries, Inc. >
