Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic
I have not been active for a long time, so I will also be leaving. On Mar 26, 2017 3:08 PM, "Jason Dillon" wrote: I will be leaving as well. —jason On March 26, 2017 at 12:01:05 PM, Kevan Miller (kevan.mil...@gmail.com) wrote: I'll be leaving. On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > +1 > > Le 25 mars 2017 00:17, "David Jencks" a écrit : > >> I like this approach. Thank you for making a concrete suggestion and >> taking the lead. I intend to stay on the PMC and at least occasionally help >> out. >> >> david jencks >> >> > On Mar 24, 2017, at 8:55 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >> > >> > Of course we do not have a huge community. But a very long lasting one. >> And there is not really standstill. There have been 64 committs in the last >> 3 monts. This is actually not too bad! >> > >> > So how to move on? >> > >> > Who wants to remain active in the PMC? Who wants to leave? >> > >> > We already pinned down the parts where there certainly IS community. >> > In addition to that I would like to bring in Geronimo-Config as an >> implementation of the Microprofile-Config specification. >> > Discussions have been going on last year all work has been done by me >> on my github account. But would love to bring it over here. >> > >> > I'll dig the old projects charter and try to kick off a reboot together >> with Romain, Jean-Louis, Reinhard, Guillaume and whoever else is willing to >> have a helping hand from time to time. Note that everyone is welcome, even >> if he currently has no time to commit but only wants to provide guide and >> feedback. >> > >> > The first step I recommend is be to merge various mailing lists >> together. >> > Then we need to verify the charter and probably tweak it for the new >> goal. >> > We also need to communicate that we do not further maintain the >> Geronimo Server parts. >> > >> > Any objection? >> > >> > LieGrue, >> > strub >> > >> > >> >> Am 13.03.2017 um 20:46 schrieb Kevan Miller : >> >> >> >> "need" and "in use" does not necessarily translate into community. The >> need for the geronimo components that have been discussed is not new. As >> far as I can tell, so far, that has not translated into a community. >> >> >> >> If we want to continue the project, demonstrate the community that is >> needed for the project to continue. As I stated previously, a good starting >> point: create a new charter for the project, identify active PMC >> members/committers, and obtain board approval. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Mark Struberg >> wrote: >> >> Hi Alan! >> >> >> >> There are quite a few things which fit into this scenario imo. >> >> >> >> I think we really miss some 'toolbox project' for EE components at the >> ASF. >> >> There was a tendency to make all those projects own TLPs for some >> time. But that approach simply doesn't scale, and we end up with the same >> people in most of those projects anyway. >> >> So moving the ones with lower activity into a common TLP would solve >> this problem. Geronimo could probably become this project. >> >> >> >> There are a lot old EE folks around which have tremendous knowledge. >> And there are certain technologies which are really cool, but have the >> classical EE-lifecycle up-down in terms of activity. >> >> That + the already existing components could be a great chance. >> >> >> >> As you already said yourself: the terms of the big fat EE servers is >> over. But nevertheless the technology and requirement behind most of the >> single parts is still valid and often unbeaten. >> >> But nowadays it's more about making it easy to plug & play those >> technology libs together more freely as they are needed. Thus moving the >> focus on maintaining the components and not the server could be really >> appreciated by the community. >> >> >> >> You said there will be community if there is a need. I fully agree, >> and even more I see a need for those parts. >> >> >> >> LieGrue, >> >> strub >> >> >> >>> Am 12.03.2017 um 19:15 schrieb Alan Cabrera : >> >>> >> >>> After a good night’s sleep, I re-read this thread and I’ll respond >> without trying to guide you in where and how you decide to go with your >> efforts; thanks in advance for letting me reboot my reply. :) >> >>> >> >>> Any pivot that this community decides upon, will have to be justified >> to the ASF board. We will need to explain what will be different and >> justify how it will generate sustainable community activity. With regards >> to that, I have two general concerns: >> >>> • Will this this specific endeavor generate any new sustainable >> community activity? >> >>> • Will any new activity of this specific endeavor represent >> activity that is unique to Geronimo or are we doing the chores of other >> projects to provide the appearance of activity? >> >>> The current level activity, is due to spec maintenance for downstream >> dependencies and we must admit that it is quite low. Being an upstream >> “aggregator” does not
Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic
I will be leaving as well. —jason On March 26, 2017 at 12:01:05 PM, Kevan Miller (kevan.mil...@gmail.com) wrote: I'll be leaving. On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: +1 Le 25 mars 2017 00:17, "David Jencks" a écrit : I like this approach. Thank you for making a concrete suggestion and taking the lead. I intend to stay on the PMC and at least occasionally help out. david jencks > On Mar 24, 2017, at 8:55 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: > > Of course we do not have a huge community. But a very long lasting one. And > there is not really standstill. There have been 64 committs in the last 3 > monts. This is actually not too bad! > > So how to move on? > > Who wants to remain active in the PMC? Who wants to leave? > > We already pinned down the parts where there certainly IS community. > In addition to that I would like to bring in Geronimo-Config as an > implementation of the Microprofile-Config specification. > Discussions have been going on last year all work has been done by me on my > github account. But would love to bring it over here. > > I'll dig the old projects charter and try to kick off a reboot together with > Romain, Jean-Louis, Reinhard, Guillaume and whoever else is willing to have a > helping hand from time to time. Note that everyone is welcome, even if he > currently has no time to commit but only wants to provide guide and feedback. > > The first step I recommend is be to merge various mailing lists together. > Then we need to verify the charter and probably tweak it for the new goal. > We also need to communicate that we do not further maintain the Geronimo > Server parts. > > Any objection? > > LieGrue, > strub > > >> Am 13.03.2017 um 20:46 schrieb Kevan Miller : >> >> "need" and "in use" does not necessarily translate into community. The need >> for the geronimo components that have been discussed is not new. As far as I >> can tell, so far, that has not translated into a community. >> >> If we want to continue the project, demonstrate the community that is needed >> for the project to continue. As I stated previously, a good starting point: >> create a new charter for the project, identify active PMC >> members/committers, and obtain board approval. >> >> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Mark Struberg wrote: >> Hi Alan! >> >> There are quite a few things which fit into this scenario imo. >> >> I think we really miss some 'toolbox project' for EE components at the ASF. >> There was a tendency to make all those projects own TLPs for some time. But >> that approach simply doesn't scale, and we end up with the same people in >> most of those projects anyway. >> So moving the ones with lower activity into a common TLP would solve this >> problem. Geronimo could probably become this project. >> >> There are a lot old EE folks around which have tremendous knowledge. And >> there are certain technologies which are really cool, but have the classical >> EE-lifecycle up-down in terms of activity. >> That + the already existing components could be a great chance. >> >> As you already said yourself: the terms of the big fat EE servers is over. >> But nevertheless the technology and requirement behind most of the single >> parts is still valid and often unbeaten. >> But nowadays it's more about making it easy to plug & play those technology >> libs together more freely as they are needed. Thus moving the focus on >> maintaining the components and not the server could be really appreciated by >> the community. >> >> You said there will be community if there is a need. I fully agree, and even >> more I see a need for those parts. >> >> LieGrue, >> strub >> >>> Am 12.03.2017 um 19:15 schrieb Alan Cabrera : >>> >>> After a good night’s sleep, I re-read this thread and I’ll respond without >>> trying to guide you in where and how you decide to go with your efforts; >>> thanks in advance for letting me reboot my reply. :) >>> >>> Any pivot that this community decides upon, will have to be justified to >>> the ASF board. We will need to explain what will be different and justify >>> how it will generate sustainable community activity. With regards to that, >>> I have two general concerns: >>> • Will this this specific endeavor generate any new sustainable >>>community activity? >>> • Will any new activity of this specific endeavor represent activity >>>that is unique to Geronimo or are we doing the chores of other projects to >>>provide the appearance of activity? >>> The current level activity, is due to spec maintenance for downstream >>> dependencies and we must admit that it is quite low. Being an upstream >>> “aggregator” does not provide appreciable added value at the cost of the >>> doubled administration. The specter of duplicate work will, in reality, >>> never arise; this de facto efficiency is due to the awesomeness of the ASL >>> 2.0 license. The case for being an aggregator weakens even more given the >>> f
Re: Discuss: Move Geronimo to Attic
I'll be leaving. On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > +1 > > Le 25 mars 2017 00:17, "David Jencks" a écrit : > >> I like this approach. Thank you for making a concrete suggestion and >> taking the lead. I intend to stay on the PMC and at least occasionally help >> out. >> >> david jencks >> >> > On Mar 24, 2017, at 8:55 AM, Mark Struberg wrote: >> > >> > Of course we do not have a huge community. But a very long lasting one. >> And there is not really standstill. There have been 64 committs in the last >> 3 monts. This is actually not too bad! >> > >> > So how to move on? >> > >> > Who wants to remain active in the PMC? Who wants to leave? >> > >> > We already pinned down the parts where there certainly IS community. >> > In addition to that I would like to bring in Geronimo-Config as an >> implementation of the Microprofile-Config specification. >> > Discussions have been going on last year all work has been done by me >> on my github account. But would love to bring it over here. >> > >> > I'll dig the old projects charter and try to kick off a reboot together >> with Romain, Jean-Louis, Reinhard, Guillaume and whoever else is willing to >> have a helping hand from time to time. Note that everyone is welcome, even >> if he currently has no time to commit but only wants to provide guide and >> feedback. >> > >> > The first step I recommend is be to merge various mailing lists >> together. >> > Then we need to verify the charter and probably tweak it for the new >> goal. >> > We also need to communicate that we do not further maintain the >> Geronimo Server parts. >> > >> > Any objection? >> > >> > LieGrue, >> > strub >> > >> > >> >> Am 13.03.2017 um 20:46 schrieb Kevan Miller : >> >> >> >> "need" and "in use" does not necessarily translate into community. The >> need for the geronimo components that have been discussed is not new. As >> far as I can tell, so far, that has not translated into a community. >> >> >> >> If we want to continue the project, demonstrate the community that is >> needed for the project to continue. As I stated previously, a good starting >> point: create a new charter for the project, identify active PMC >> members/committers, and obtain board approval. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Mark Struberg >> wrote: >> >> Hi Alan! >> >> >> >> There are quite a few things which fit into this scenario imo. >> >> >> >> I think we really miss some 'toolbox project' for EE components at the >> ASF. >> >> There was a tendency to make all those projects own TLPs for some >> time. But that approach simply doesn't scale, and we end up with the same >> people in most of those projects anyway. >> >> So moving the ones with lower activity into a common TLP would solve >> this problem. Geronimo could probably become this project. >> >> >> >> There are a lot old EE folks around which have tremendous knowledge. >> And there are certain technologies which are really cool, but have the >> classical EE-lifecycle up-down in terms of activity. >> >> That + the already existing components could be a great chance. >> >> >> >> As you already said yourself: the terms of the big fat EE servers is >> over. But nevertheless the technology and requirement behind most of the >> single parts is still valid and often unbeaten. >> >> But nowadays it's more about making it easy to plug & play those >> technology libs together more freely as they are needed. Thus moving the >> focus on maintaining the components and not the server could be really >> appreciated by the community. >> >> >> >> You said there will be community if there is a need. I fully agree, >> and even more I see a need for those parts. >> >> >> >> LieGrue, >> >> strub >> >> >> >>> Am 12.03.2017 um 19:15 schrieb Alan Cabrera : >> >>> >> >>> After a good night’s sleep, I re-read this thread and I’ll respond >> without trying to guide you in where and how you decide to go with your >> efforts; thanks in advance for letting me reboot my reply. :) >> >>> >> >>> Any pivot that this community decides upon, will have to be justified >> to the ASF board. We will need to explain what will be different and >> justify how it will generate sustainable community activity. With regards >> to that, I have two general concerns: >> >>> • Will this this specific endeavor generate any new sustainable >> community activity? >> >>> • Will any new activity of this specific endeavor represent >> activity that is unique to Geronimo or are we doing the chores of other >> projects to provide the appearance of activity? >> >>> The current level activity, is due to spec maintenance for downstream >> dependencies and we must admit that it is quite low. Being an upstream >> “aggregator” does not provide appreciable added value at the cost of the >> doubled administration. The specter of duplicate work will, in reality, >> never arise; this de facto efficiency is due to the awesomeness of the ASL >> 2.0 license. The case for
