Hi,
I see next to zero value in LABS the way they were intended. More inline.
If we were too keep the LABS, I see more value in Veneet Verma's
proposal and I would rather reply to his post.
Hadrian
On 02/07/2017 05:20 AM, jan iversen wrote:
On 7 Feb 2017, at 11:01, Danny Angus <da...@apache.org> wrote:
Right Labs subscribers, listen up...
At the last board meeting we were put on notice that we should stir
ourselves into action or be prepared to close down.
So I am looking for volunteers to do some outreach and awareness work with
commiters to see if we can generate wider participation in the debate about
our future, and hopefully from that to a proposal that would make labs
useful and relevant, and volunteers to execute it.
I'd now like to discuss possible activities here, agree a list of tasks and
find volunteers.
I think we need to have another discussion first, before adding many activities.
Long time ago, I tried approx. what you are trying, and I still believe there
is a space for a project like LABS, but we need to have a defined identify.
True. And it was tried more than once.
An important comparison is against GitHub, currently we do not offer any real
advantages, but a couple of disadvantages (like the time it takes to create a
new project). We could easily provide LABS with some advantages:
- be a foster home for project too small to start in Incubator and provide e.g.
mentoring (something the GitHub totally lacks), with the aim that as the
project hopefully grows it enters Incubator.
I cannot see any serious argument for doing that in labs vs github. One
could as easily move the code from github to incubator as it would from
the labs.
- make more active advertisement of active project among the ASF community to
attract more developers.
Not sure I get that, but I think projects already 'advertise' as best as
they can.
- Remove the “no release” blocker, which was a very good reason not to make a
LABS project.
That would imply a direct competition with the Incubator. Interesting
proposal, but I am not sure where it'd go. I can already hear Roman
screaming (and I probably would alongside him).
Remove might not be the right word, but allow release with a set of
restrictions (e.g. clearly mark releases as LABS releases, and not a normal ASF
release).
More restrictions? Come on. It's already confusing to the outside world
what an incubator release is, hence the disclaimer that it says little
about the quality of the code, but the health of the community. I am not
sure what the differentiator for a LABS release should be.
My proposal so far has..
First task is to revamp our website, to communicate that we are moving into
this phase.
+1
Second task is to prep some permalinked content describing ourselves, e.g.
an ASF blog post
for that we need to know our “identity"
Third task is to draft an email to commiters@ linking to the blog post,
website, and perhaps a survey.
Can be done, but I am unsure what the survey should contain, a total “how do
you want our identity to be”, will most likely not provide much information, we
can convert to a task list.
What do you think?
I hope LABS can be revived.
What other ideas do we have?
See above.
rgds
jan I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscr...@labs.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: labs-h...@labs.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: labs-unsubscr...@labs.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: labs-h...@labs.apache.org
