On Thursday, October 25, 2012, Jasha Joachimsthal wrote: > 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.
You are right, maybe "momentum" was the wrong word choice. Maybe collaboration would have been better. I'm with you, I look forward to getting some of these major overhauls integrated. Just in time for the next round of major overhauls :) > > On 25 October 2012 18:55, Raminderjeet Singh > <[email protected]<javascript:;> > >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<
