I'll take a look at jira once more and see if we can't get to a rc. Are we good on the Groovy version and that's proving successful for this application?
Sincerely, Matthew On Jan 12, 2012, at 4:32 PM, Alessandro Novarini <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Matthew, hi all, > > Glad to read you again :) > > As I said, as far as development is concerned, count me in. > > Regards, > Ale > > On 12/01/2012 22:36, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> I thought I would chime in to put things in perspective a bit. >> The original goal was originally to find a universal, fast, command line JMX >> client. >> Such a tool would be incredibly useful, Java applications and application >> servers, and JMX are not going anywhere, and each one has its own management >> tool. Jmxsh and Jmanage fall short, and are not fast and easy to use. This >> tool, I think became a bit convoluted in the community process, with people >> checking in whatever they felt should go into it. I still believe this tool >> fits a crucial need, as was agreed upon when I presented this utility to >> LAJUG. Lack of talent certainly isn't the problem here. I think that someone >> just has to take the lead and get brave about rejecting commits and leading >> the direction. I'm fine with that, as long as someone is willing to do the >> development work. I'm also ok with retiring the project, if that's what the >> community wants and votes on, but I think that there will still be a void in >> the Java app world that will go unfulfilled which this utility was supposed >> to serve. >> >> With that perspective expressed, what are the communities sentiments? >> >> Sincerely, >> msacks >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: "Alessandro Novarini"<[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 5:05am >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Incubator PMC/Board report for Jan 2012 ([ppmc]) >> >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> As I stated, I spoke basically for myself and the report may not >> reflect the general feeling of the current team. >> I wasn't blaming anyone, that has to be clear, because otherwise I'll >> be the first one to be blamed for having been away for such a long >> time. >> >> I completely understand everybody has its own >> life/job/interest/whatever, my regret is that we still haven't reached >> a critical mass for keeping the project going even if some of the >> developer stop working on the project. >> Unfortunately, I don't have a solution for that; as you said, some >> projects are interesting enough to attract more people, some other >> projects are not. >> >> This has nothing to do with the technical aspect of the project nor >> with the quality of the code; when I remarked that it was for pointing >> out that when Matthew started the project he was - i guess - the only >> one with a clear idea of how the project would progress. >> Now I think the only one left is Pid, but for my understanding he's >> quite busy at the moment, I really do hope he will have some time in >> the nearly future to hop on again, I enjoyed the time we all worked >> together. >> >> About the meritocracy thing: yes, I agree again with you here >> everybody as a team could be the PO, what I think is that some of the >> 'power' you get from acquired merit won't last a lifetime, but it >> could also be lost. To me that's something everybody should aim to >> keep what he gained, and there is no shame in changing their mind >> during the whole process. That's why I raised the point about how many >> people are still interested in Kitty. >> >> I honestly have no idea what the features for a project like Kitty >> should be added or improved, so I'm sorry, but I'm simply not fitted >> for that role. >> >> I would really read from other people their thoughts about the >> project, I hope everybody will find some spare time to join the >> discussion. >> >> Thanks and have a good day >> Ale >> >> On 12 January 2012 02:19, Kevan Miller<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Jan 11, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Alessandro Novarini wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I've just finished writing the report on the wiki page. >>>> Sorry if I might seem rude or not polite, I only tried to base the report >>>> on facts relevant to me, as we didn't discuss together about the actual >>>> status of the project. >>>> I trust if anybody had something to complain, he could freely update the >>>> report with the due corrections. >>> >>> Hi Ale, >>> Thanks for the report. I don't have many quibbles with what you've written. >>> >>> I do have a few general comments: >>> >>> Communities ebb and flow. Sometimes communities go through slow periods. >>> This is not necessarily a problem. >>> >>> Sometimes Incubating projects retire. Not all projects work out. Not all >>> projects attract a critical mass for an effective community. This is not a >>> failure -- and in no way necessarily reflects on the technical aspects of >>> the code. Nor does it reflect on the people who contribute to the community. >>> >>> That said, if people care about the project. They can keep it going, >>> contribute, and eventually graduate from Incubator. I have no doubt that >>> can easily happen for Kitty… People make successful projects and >>> communities. They don't just happen... >>> >>> And a specific comment: >>> >>> Re: "The lack of a "Product Owner"" -- the "community" is the "product >>> owner". Anyone (or group of people) can assume this role. Apache is a >>> meritocracy. If someone has ideas on where the project should go, wants to >>> define/prioritize tasks, and provide the community with what features need >>> to be implemented -- they can do so. Anyone can do this -- current >>> committers or someone completely new to the project can initiate this. So, >>> if someone is interested in the project, don't just wait for someone to >>> tell you what to do -- *do*. Or, better yet, do *and* tell other people >>> what to do… ;-) >>> >>> --kevan >>> >>> > > > -- > Alessandro Novarini
