I don't think any of it's a showstopper, but at the same time we should try to address the concerns of those who voted -1 and see if a better solution can be developed so that they hopefully can become at least a 0 if not a +1. The whole point of the move is to build a stronger community, not a weaker one. At the same time, we should also remember that a large part of the motivation for this move comes from people wanting things that are in Solr to be moved to Lucene in the first place (Analyzers, Faceting, Function Queries, Open Bit Set, Spatial, Schema to name a few past and present ones; these constitute a lot of Solr's functionality, BTW.) If there are baby steps that bring the two together, we should consider them. Personally, I think the proposal contains said baby steps, but perhaps some would prefer smaller ones to begin with so they should outline them.
It should also be noted that a good chunk of the Solr committers are already Lucene committers, and of the remaining there are: Bill Au, Mike Klaas, Ryan McKinley, Shalin and Noble. Mike has been inactive for quite some time (and has elected to go emeritus even though it's not marked on the page) and and Ryan, Shalin and Noble already contribute to Lucene in various parts (AFAICT), so to me it's not a big stretch to say bring them into the fold. I haven't tracked Bill's involvement, but I also know Bill and trust he knows what it means to be a committer, i.e. he knows as much what not to touch as what to touch. Of course, we can do a separate vote on that if that helps satisfy Chris' issue on the committers. In the end, for me anyway, the current separation hurts Lucene a good deal as much as it hurts Solr, if not more. Likewise, I wish some of the Nutch committers would speak up, as I'm sure there are some pieces of Nutch that are "core" too, but for a lack of visibility down lower in Lucene committer wise, especially as Nutch as looking to refactor into more components. Obviously not the crawling stuff, but perhaps some of Nutch's analyzer and low level Lucene stuff would make sense to be pushed lower in the stack. In the end, I'm still +1 on the current move. We can consider the other moves separately if the community wishes. On Mar 8, 2010, at 9:52 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Michael Busch <[email protected]> wrote: >> Question: Is it sufficient to have more +1s than -1s for this vote to pass? > 3 +1s and more +1s than -1s is sufficient. > >> I thought for votes as significant as this one a -1 veto is a showstopper? > It's not really tied to significance - releases, acceptance to > incubate, etc, all require more +1s than -1s. > > -Yonik
