>-----Original Message----- >From: Chris Geer [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:44 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Rave Momentum & Engagement > >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 :)
What fun is having code that we don't get to rewrite to make it better :) BTW, early indications on the Mongo effort are positive. I should have some comparison numbers at ApacheCon. > >> >> 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<
