I apologize for the spare report submitted this quarter:
> mt: No response so far to my request for some background on the long
period since the last release. Why were the "nuget.org and 4.8"
and "Lucene.Net repository access" threads on private@ ? It
looks like they could have been held on dev@
Over quarters we have reported the ebb and flow of our community involvement.
It has gone from some, to a little, to none, to a little, to a bit more, to a
little, etc. Our group is relatively small for the size of the code base (even
though we are a port), and until recently (last ~6months) we haven't had more
than one contributor at a time who was available to make progress. Opining, as
I think many others could, to keep momentum when there is only one person at a
time contributing is difficult to do, invariably that one contributor gets side
tracked or busy, and someone else jumps in to help, only to have to review what
was done, where we are at. Additionally, we have added pressure of realizing
that Java Lucene continues to iterate and get further ahead. We started with a
4.0 port, which didn't make progress fast enough, we got a large commit for 4.8
and that has been very slowly winding its way to completion. At this time it
feels like we have a lot more activity and a lot more involvement. For a more
complete picture of our current status please see the email thread here:
https://s.apache.org/bEho
"Nuget.org and 4.8" was originally on dev@. I moved it to private when I who
wanted ownership of our nuget packages. I felt limiting that ask to the PMC
members was the right call. In retrospect, it could have been left on dev@ and
I could have only honored ownership requests if they came from PMC members.
Only the tail end of that tread was on private.
"Lucene.Net repository access" could have been on dev@. I can't fault our
latest member for asking for write access to our repo's on private@, nor the
group for continuing the conversation there. Nothing private in the thread, but
I'm not sure there is much relevance to the dev@ either.
> mh: Good to see the new committer/PMC as anticipated last report
cycle. It will be great if you can come through on a new release
this cycle!
Agreed - maybe one or two more based on feedback. We're all ready for it!
> rb: This report is pretty much the bare minimum, with no detail on
what "strong community involvement" means. We'd really like to
see more commentary than this. Please have a look at some of the
other board reports this month for some ideas of what we're
looking for in a strong report.
Again, I apologize, I will review other reports and try to incorporate more
metrics in my attempt to show that for us, we are very healthy relative to our
past. I'm thinking: # of commits last quarter (vs some trend?), messages to
mailing lists, new mailing list members, pull requests. I already include
various download metrics of our packages. Are there other items you believe we
could speak to that would objectively show the strength of our community
involvement?
~Prescott
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig L Russell [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 3:19 PM
To: Prescott Nasser <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Board feedback on 2016-12-21 Lucene.Net report
Comments:
mt: No response so far to my request for some background on the long
period since the last release. Why were the "nuget.org and 4.8"
and "Lucene.Net repository access" threads on private@ ? It
looks like they could have been held on dev@
mh: Good to see the new committer/PMC as anticipated last report
cycle. It will be great if you can come through on a new release
this cycle!
rb: This report is pretty much the bare minimum, with no detail on
what "strong community involvement" means. We'd really like to
see more commentary than this. Please have a look at some of the
other board reports this month for some ideas of what we're
looking for in a strong report.
This feedback was generated automatically by the secretary from the comments
made on your board report.
Comments that do not ask specific questions should be noted by the PMC and
taken into consideration as appropriate for future board reports.
Where a comment asks a specific question, it should be answered in your next
board report unless otherwise stated in the comment.
If you have any queries or concerns regarding any of the comments they should
be sent to the board@ mailing list.
