Hi Chris, it has been more quiet indeed on the mailinglist, but there is still a lot of development going on. We now have 2 branches and a sandbox for the model split, MongoDB and content services. I hope they will merge into trunk soon, so it's more visible that new functionality is developed, and it will decrease the chance of merge problems.
On 25 October 2012 18:55, Raminderjeet Singh <[email protected]>wrote: > Thanks Chris for taking a lead to identify the problems with Rave > activities and Roadmap. I think everyone will agree with you here. I admit > that i missed your email Model Split email. We have requirements where we > want to customize user model so i will take a look at the branch this week. > I volunteer for the feedback. > > My 2 cents on development activity is we need to set some Roadmap for Rave > 1.0( a wish list). We should not keep going with 0.xx. That will bring > everyone back with their choices about Rave 1.0. We can setup some > developer hackathon using Google hangout etc between now and ApacheCon. We > made a great presence in ApacheCon 2011. We need to do the same for > ApacheCon 13. ApacheCon can be set as a milestone for Rave 1.0 (just an > idea). To achieve that milestone community need to start talk about 1.0 and > document it on wiki [1]. We need to expand on little details on > architecture documents also for new users to start. > The next ApacheCon starts in 10 days ;) Unfortunately I can't be there, but would love to join a hangout in one of the evenings. I know some of the other Rave committers will be there. Jasha > > I agree with Ross that we can better spend time implementing than > documenting but have a wish list for 1.0 can give a better direction to the > community. > > 1. http://wiki.apache.org/rave/RoadMap > > Thanks > Raminder > > On Oct 25, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Ross Gardler wrote: > > > I'm a little out of touch with Rave as I'm busy elsewhere, as you > > surmise many people in your thoughtful mail below. > > > > In general though it is normal for a community to go quiet > > periodically. Things tend to happen in waves. When one individual gets > > busy they motivate others to get busy simply through their actions. > > > > I'm never much of a fan of roadmaps being formally defined by a PMC. A > > projects roadmap is set by the people with time to work on it at that > > point in time. Putting a list of things that the PMC considers > > important on a website doesn't make those things happen. That being > > said, a little periodic re-evaluation of objectives and updating of > > the website certainly doesn't hurt. For example, I noticed that the > > home page still reflects the very high level roadmap that was defined > > during at proposal to the incubator. Some of the items on the "future" > > list have been implemented. Of course, I could have updated the home > > page when I noticed this, but I didn't because I was too busy at the > > time (and still am). > > > > If you have the time and the desire to define a roadmap that you think > > is important and you wish to ask for feedback on roadmap then go for > > it. However, personally, if I find I have some time for Rave I'll > > probably spend that time just implementing what is at the top of my > > personal agenda. > > > > Finally, with respect to your mail that has had no response, lazy > > consensus means that no objections means agreement. I've reviewed your > > mail but don't have any opinion on it since I have not reviewed or > > tested your code. But you are a committer so I'm +0 on supporting your > > recommendations (not +1 as I don't have the time top properly review). > > If you want a little more explicit support for the proposed merge then > > post a reply to your own mail saying "no feedback so I assume all is > > good. I'm going to merge in the next few days". That will bring it > > back to the top of peoples inboxes and possibly prompt more review. > > Finally, once you have done the merge if it all goes wrong or someone > > wants to object for a solid technical reason the changes can be rolled > > back. > > > > In summary, you are a committer. We operate a commit then review > > policy here so don't be afraid to just get on with it :-) > > > > Ross > > > > On 25 October 2012 17:13, Chris Geer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Over the past couple months there has been a growing worry of mine that > we > >> are loosing some momentum/cohesiveness as a team. As a metric, if you > look > >> at the dev mailing list, the traffic for the past three months has been > >> very low (September was awful). What finally spurred me to send this > >> message was the fact that I sent an email [1] on October 13th, asking > for > >> some help reviewing a major change Matt and I had been working on and > >> haven't gotten a single response. I know it's not a sexy change but it's > >> something that people thought was a good idea when it was proposed a > while > >> back. What I don't know is if the lack of response is because people are > >> too busy, they don't care or they don't support the change but don't > want > >> to say that. The third option would concern me the most since we should > >> feel free to provide feedback, both positive and negative. > >> > >> My suspicion is that people are just swamped at their day jobs and Rave > has > >> taken back (maybe far back) seat to normal life which is understandable. > >> With that knowledge though, as a PMC we should probably spend some time > >> really coming up with a priority list of items we agree need to get done > >> and bubble those to the top of the queue over the next few months. > Roadmap > >> anyone? > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> Chris > >> > >> [1] > >> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/rave-dev/201210.mbox/%3CCAFNO4Hh5LH37p9dD9P=W3MGQ=hecq-d4+lvqmstpihddfha...@mail.gmail.com%3E > > > > > > > > -- > > Ross Gardler (@rgardler) > > Programme Leader (Open Development) > > OpenDirective http://opendirective.com > >
