+1. I don't see any point in rushing it either, but I don't feel like
we are, other than the sense that some decision needs to be made based
on this thread. Like I said before, this conversation isn't news to
those who are involved. I'm totally fine w/ giving the benefit of the
doubt, I trust Marvin is working on it, but likely needs a reminder of
how Apache projects work.
I'd _suggest_ a few other things beyond just code commits, however:
1. When discussing ideas on java-dev, at least send a message to lucy-
dev saying "See thread X on java-dev" (however, please don't cross-
post). Do this religiously. At some point, after you start seeing
Lucy members commenting on java-dev, you will realize you have enough
of a group to sustain the conversations on lucy (or, even general;
General is likely a good place for cross-fertilization too) at which
point you will likely be sending a msg to java-dev saying, "hey check
out lucy-dev for a great conversation on X"
2. Update the website to show a current status and/or post some news.
3. Move beyond the "Eventful and I" are figuring out this stuff and
start thinking in terms of how you can build community in Lucy. As
should be clear now, Apache is more than just code. Code can be
stored in a number of places (SF, Google, etc.). Apache is about
building community around code.
4. Related to #3: Actively start searching for replacements for Doug
and Dave (hint, I think you have two volunteers on this thread
already). Keep in mind the litmus test for an Apache project: Would
this project survive a committer leaving? In the short term, we know
the answer is no, but in the long term the answer must be yes. Try to
figure out some specific areas you could get help. Sign up to be a
mentor for GSOC and try to get a student to help out. Blog/Twitter/
Whatever about Lucy and what you are up to. In short, start promoting
Lucy as Lucy, not as some offshoot of KS.
5. Try to think in terms of how KS can leverage Lucy and less in terms
of how Lucy can be extracted from KS at some point in the future
(which is very much the sense I get from reading the responses). In
other words, even if you think people aren't capable of doing the low-
level grunt work you allude to in prior posts, assume that any and
everyone on the Lucy list does grok that stuff and discuss it there.
I often don't understand everything some of the guys on Mahout talk
about, but it is a great learning place and eventually it gets through
my skull.
Finally, six months or so does sound like the right time frame.
HTH,
Grant
On Mar 9, 2009, at 6:06 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
Grant Ingersoll wrote:
Therefore, it is with some hesitation that I suggest we mothball
Lucy.
When committers are inactive for a year, we ask them if they'd like
to be made emeritus. Usually they either don't respond or they say
yes. If they say "no" we give them the benefit of the doubt for a
while longer. A similar process is followed for Apache members
who've been inactive. Inactivity should not be punished: we're all
volunteers.
If there's a decent chance that Lucy will become active soon then we
don't want to further burden that. Marvin has argued that there's a
strong chance Lucy will become active soon. I'm inclined to give
him the benefit of the doubt for another six months or so before we
do anything that would be nontrivial to reverse.
So if "mothballing" would be easy to reverse, it might be okay. We
could just, e.g., change the website to say, "inactive", remove the
website from the TLP's website and remove commit privileges, but not
remove accounts, mailing lists or JIRA instances. Then reversal
would take about 10 minutes of the PMC chair's time. Marvin or
others could petition this list to have it reversed.
But I'd also be fine with putting the project on notice for a few
months, with the understanding that if activity doesn't pick up
soon, it will be mothballed, as outlined above. Then, after
mothballing, if nothing happens for a while longer, we remove it
altogether. At each transition we should invite discussion. I
don't see much point in rushing this.
This path does risk dragging out the pain, so we shouldn't go down
it too lightly. Marvin, do you expect you'll be actively committing
code to Lucy over the next six months? If so, I think we should
give him that, if not, we should mothball now as outlined above.
Another analysis to consider: If Marvin came to us today and pitched
Lucy, would we accept it as a single-committer subproject? If not,
then we should mothball now. If so, then we can give him the
benefit of the doubt for a bit longer.
Note that, if we give notice now, and nothing happens in six months,
that's likely to considerably reduce our patience.
Doug
P.S. I hereby resign as a Lucy committer.
