On 23 Apr 2012, at 11:10, Scott Wilson wrote: > > On 23 Apr 2012, at 10:59, Kris Popat wrote: > >> >> On 23 Apr 2012, at 10:37, Scott Wilson wrote: >> >>> >>> On 23 Apr 2012, at 09:49, Ross Gardler wrote: >>> >>>> Board report due: >>>> >>>> In February we said "Wookie has a small, reasonably active community, >>>> however, the majority of >>>> that activity is focussed around one or two individuals." >>>> >>>> We also said: >>>> >>>> "as it stands we could probably graduate as we meet >>>> the minimum criteria (5 committers from 3 organisations). We recognise that >>>> some IPMC members would suggest graduation at this point might help >>>> accelerate community growth. We intend to discuss this within the community >>>> over the next quarter whilst also seeking to expand our community." >>>> >>> >>> We're now 6 committers from 4 orgs... >>> >>>> However, we've pretty much failed to discuss this. This is not a good >>>> sign. None of us have had the time to drive this important issue. >>> >>> Easter holidays did kind of get in the way... >>> >>>> >>>> Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting there is a fundamental problem >>>> here. I'm just saying we need to crack on with it. In my opinion our >>>> incubator status is holding us back. Furthermore, Rave has graduated >>>> and if we are not careful our incubation status will hold Rave back >>>> too. >>>> >>>> I know from my own conversations with Wookie users that the >>>> "incuabting" label is holding some people back (although it may just >>>> as well be a convenient excuse). I propose that we undertake to >>>> graduate in the next quarter. >>> >>> +1. >>> >>>> To do this we really need to address the >>>> issues we identified last month: >>>> >>>> - [DONE] 0.9.2 release using an improved and simplified release process >>>> - Developer outreach activity (see above) >>>> - Improve communication about Wookie >>>> - ASF Widgets demo >>>> >>>> So, some questions/ideas: >>>> >>>> Matt can you help Wookie get to the point of doing regular releases, >>>> preferably synced with Rave. I don't mean Rave depends on a Wookie >>>> making a new release, I mean we aim to have a new Wookie release out >>>> two weeks before the next Rave release is due. >>> >>> I think 0.10.0 is almost ready to go. I'd say the only issue we need to >>> address before starting the next release process is WOOKIE-326, the rest >>> can be pushed back. >> >> Just looked over this. Is postWidget and deleteWidget the two main things >> that still need to be done on the connector? > > I updated the API doc, so you can check against this to see if anything is > missing: > > http://incubator.apache.org/wookie/docs/api.html > > Post widget with response is new, as is Delete widget.
Great thanks Did we take the idea of just returning the widget config file any further? I know we can get the whole widget package now, but the client has to extract the config from this if they have stored extra meta-data in the widget config and want to access it. I can't remember what we said about this now. > > >>> >>> I know Paul was also intending to write some doc on the release process. >>> >>>> >>>> Developer outreach - we should undertake to update the tutorials. >>>> Perhaps we need to focus more on the creation of widgets as a "simple >>>> step" in, if these widgets can run stand-alone (without Wookie) this >>>> will attract more people, however, we need to consider whether this is >>>> changing the make-up of what the Wookie project is. It might be better >>>> to do that in an associated apache-extras project. >>> >>> >>> As for other developer outreach activity, we have our GSoC engagement this >>> year. >>> >>> There will also be a good Wookie presence at both the DevEd and SURFNet >>> events in May/June. >>> >>>> >>>> Previously we discussed making it easy to create widgets that can be >>>> usefully reused in the Apache CMS. The trademarks people are, for >>>> example, looking at solutions for sponsor visibility. Concom need a >>>> way of getting information about upcoming ASF events onto peoples >>>> sites. It seems to me both of these are similar use cases. Can we >>>> build them as templates? >>> >>> Sounds feasible. >>> >>>> >>>> Ross >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Jukka Zitting <[email protected]> >>>> Date: 22 April 2012 12:55 >>>> Subject: May reports due in ten days >>>> To: general <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> It'll soon be time for the podlings reporting in May [1] to start >>>> drafting their reports. >>>> >>>> When doing so, please consider the review results from February [2]: >>>> >>>> IP clearance: Amber >>>> Release trouble: Clerezza, Stanbol >>>> Low activity: Ambari, Nuvem, PhotArk, SIS, Wink, Zeta Components >>>> Low diversity: Airavata, Droids, VCL, Wookie >>>> Ready to graduate: Jena, Lucene.NET, NPanday, OpenNLP >>>> >>>> Has the situation in your podling changed over the last three months? >>>> If not, what's your plan for improving the situation? >>>> >>>> For example, I notice that Clerezza has made a release, but Stanbol >>>> still needs one. Also, Lucene.NET and NPanday are yet to graduate. Did >>>> something come up to prevent progress, or have you just not gotten >>>> around to it yet (which BTW is fine; much better than having bigger >>>> issues)? >>>> >>>> And to any projects in the "Low activity" category that still aren't >>>> seeing increased activity: Do you have a good reason to expect >>>> activity to pick up, or should we consider retiring the project? >>>> >>>> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/May2012 >>>> [2] http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/February2012 >>>> >>>> BR, >>>> >>>> Jukka Zitting >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler) >>>> Programme Leader (Open Development) >>>> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com >>> >> >
