On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Alan Cabrera <l...@toolazydogs.com> wrote: >> As I mentioned in an earlier email, we did have this conversation seven >> months ago. We came to a consensus to give it another try. We even added >> a few committers a "bit early" with the hopes that they would infuse the >> project >> with more energy. > > That doesn't take away the fact that there are still people who are > clearly interested in continuing work on the project. Instead of > telling the community to pick up their toys and leave, I'd much rather > ask them to come up with a credible alternative. The failure of past > attempts to grow the community does not necessarily mean that future > attempts will also fail, so I'd give the community the benefit of > doubt as long as there are new ideas and people willing to try them. > > If I understand correctly the problems in Chukwa are two-fold: 1) the > community isn't diverse, i.e. there are only few people involved, and > 2) the community isn't active, in that even the involved people don't > have too many cycles to spend on the project. > > Thus I'd raise the following questions to Eric and others who want to > keep Chukwa alive at the ASF: > > a) Is it reasonable to expect existing community members to become > more active in near future? If yes, will such increased activity be > sustainable over a longer period of time? Why? IIUC there was some > recent legal progress that might help here. What would be the best way > to measure the expected increase in activity? > > b) How do you expect to get more people involved in the project? What > concrete actions will be taken to increase the chances of new > contributors showing up? Why do you believe these things will work > better than the mentioned earlier attempts at growing the community? > Good ideas of concrete actions are for example cutting new releases, > improving project documentation, presenting the project at various > venues, simplifying the project build and initial setup, and giving > more timely answers and feedback to new users and contributors (see > also my observation from October [1]). How can we best tell whether > such efforts are working? > > Coming up with good answers to such questions is not necessarily easy > (and it's fine if not all of them can yet be answered), but going > through that effort should give us a good reason to continue the > incubation of Chukwa at least for a few more months until we should > start seeing some concrete and sustainable improvements in community > activity and diversity.
This is exactly what we did for the last months (years, actually). Give it yet more time. Honestly, I don't understand why we should continue in this mode "for another few months" when it failed for the past years. Is this the extra-bonus IPMC time? The legal issues only made it more clear to me that and why this Incubation failed. The much I'd love to see Chukwa fly, this is getting ridiculous. Bernd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
