Grant, I think the problem at this point is that the community at large does not understand why a change of status is necessary to continue the project.
Does Lucene.Net have to back to the Incubator and become a TLP? Why is this beneficial to either Lucene.Net or the existing Lucene TLP? Why was Lucene.Net moved to Lucene sub-project status in the first place? Why is that no longer a reasonable place for the project to exist? To me, a port of Lucene belongs as a sub-project of Lucene. That said, I've noticed that Lucy has recently moved in the same direction for the same end goal of becoming a TLP, however PyLucene has not. The inconsistency is confusing. Regarding putting together a proposal to the Incubator, I will gladly do that work, as well as assembling a group of committers. However, I don't feel like I yet understand why the project needs to do that. It seems to me that simply bringing in new committers without changing the project status is the best course of action. It's also the least amount of work in terms of infrastructural changes, etc. Beyond that, the project *just* graduated out of the Incubator... How often does a ASF project need to go through this process of status change? Did it not already prove itself and end up at the most reasonable destination? Thanks, Troy On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 30, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Heath Aldrich wrote: > >> Hi Grant, >> >> Thanks for taking the time to respond. >> >> While I have developed extensively against Lucene.net, I do not possess the >> java skills needed to do a port of the code... So, while I wouldn't mind >> being a committer, I do not think I am qualified. (I guess if I was, I could >> just use Lucene proper and that would be that) >> >> As to other duties of a committer, I think the ASF is perceived as a black >> box of questions for most of us. >> >> For one, I don't think anyone outside the 4 committers even understand *why* >> it is a good thing to be on the ASF vs. CodePlex, Sourceforge, etc. Maybe >> if there was an understanding of the why, the requirements of the ASF would >> make more sense. I think a lot of us right now just perceive the ASF as the >> group that is wanting to kill Lucene.net. > > I don't think we have a desire to kill it, I just think we are faced with the > unfortunate reality that the project is already dead and now us on the PMC > have the unfortunate job of cleaning up the mess as best we can. Again, it > is not even that we want to see it go away, we on the PMC just don't want to > be responsible for it's upkeep. You give me the names of 4 people who are > willing to be committers (i.e. people willing to volunteer their time) and I > will do my best to get the project into the Incubator. However, I have to > tell you, my willingness to help is diminishing with every trip we take > around this same circle of discussion. > > Simply put, given the way the vote has gone so far, the Lucene PMC is no > longer interested in sustaining this project. If the community wishes to see > it live at the ASF then one of you had better step up and spend 20-30 minutes > of your time writing up the draft proposal (most of it can be copied and > pasted) and circulating it. In fact, given the amount of time some of you > have no doubt spent writing on this and other related threads you could have > put together the large majority of the proposal, circulated the draft and got > other volunteers to help and already be moving forward in a positive > direction. Truth be told, I would do it, but I am explicitly not going to > because I think that if the community can't take that one step to move > forward, then it truly doesn't deserve to. > >> >> I get your comments about the slower than slow development, but that is also >> somewhat of a sign that it works. While 2.9.2 may be behind, it seems very >> stable with very few issues. If we send the project to the attic, how will >> anyone be able to submit bugfixes ever? Frankly, I use 2.9.2 every day and >> have not found bugs in the areas that I use... but I'm sure they are in >> there somewhere. >> >> As for the name, I thought Lucene.net was the name of the project back in >> the SourceForge days... >> So my question is based on the premise that "if the lucene.net name was >> brought *to* ASF, why can the community not leave with it?" > > Again, IANAL, but just b/c it was improperly used beforehand does not mean it > is legally owned by some other entity. The Lucene name has been at the ASF > since 2001 and Lucene.NET is also now a part of the ASF. (If your > interested, go look at the discussions around iBatis and the movement of that > community to MyBatis) > > -Grant
