Note, also, I intend to call a PMC vote on this next week (I'll wait until then due to the pending Christmas holiday).
It will likely read something like (please don't vote now):
Subject: [VOTE] Close down the Lucene.NET project, effective January 31, 2011
Background: Please see the December Lucene Board report for description and mailing list threads on the background of this vote.
Whereas the Lucene.NET project has stagnated due to lack of committer activity and,
Whereas the Lucene PMC is no longer interested in maintaining the community due to lack of interest in working on the .NET platform by PMC Members
Therefore, be it resolved that the Lucene PMC shut down the Lucene.NET community, effective January 31, 2011.
 +1 - Shut it down
 0 - Don't care
 -1 - Do not shut it down
A positive vote result means we will shut down SVN access, put a notice on the website and send one to the mailing lists as well as close down any other resources.
PMC votes are binding and a majority of +1's are all that is needed (i.e. no vetoes). Due to the Holidays, I plan to leave this vote open for 5 days.
Note, a positive vote does not mean that this project cannot go back to the Incubator or that it must die completely, it just means that the Lucene PMC is discharging it's responsibility for the project by shutting down the resources it is responsible for and removing commit access.
Lucene PMC Chair
On Dec 21, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Chris Hostetter wrote: >
> : point, it's either the Attic or Incubator and I'm leaning toward Attic.
> : However, I think it makes sense to give one more chance by saying: You
> : have until January 31 to put together a proposal for going back to the
> : Incubator. Please see http://incubator.apache.org for what such a
> : proposal entails.
> I'm not certain the attic is appropriate -- my understanding is that it's
> the final resting place for "projects" (TLP, ie: an entire PMC) that are
> being disolved at a foundation level via board resolution.
> Within a PMC, like Lucene, the decision to retire a specific sub-projects
> and mailing lists probably doesn't need to require a board resolution.
> but i could be wrong.
> In either case, having a hard date seems like a good idea -- i thought one
> had been established before, but i guess not.