Mailing List Archive

I think this sounds reasonable. Though I feel like you already sent
out the same notice before.

+1


On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org> wrote:
> The failure of any of the Lucene.NET committers to respond to status request for the Board Report this month doesn't exactly instill confidence in the life of this project.  Additionally, it seems several projects have forked off over at Codeplex.  I would appreciate hearing everyone's thoughts on where this project should go next.  At this 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.
>
> Thanks,
> Grant

On Dec 16, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Ryan McKinley wrote:

> I think this sounds reasonable. Though I feel like you already sent
> out the same notice before.
>
> +1
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org> wrote:
>> The failure of any of the Lucene.NET committers to respond to status request for the Board Report this month doesn't exactly instill confidence in the life of this project. Additionally, it seems several projects have forked off over at Codeplex. I would appreciate hearing everyone's thoughts on where this project should go next. At this 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.

The last one was "you need to do these 4 things and say what you want to do going forward". This one is a bit more direct as in go to the Incubator or go to the Attic and fork.

-Grant

: 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.

-Hoss

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.

OK, I'm not sure either. I will check. We could certainly just mothball it here, but I don't think that is necessarily what we want either.

>
> In either case, having a hard date seems like a good idea -- i thought one
> had been established before, but i guess not.

The hard date of addressing the 4 issues was set for the end of the year. I don't think any of them have been addressed. There was a big discussion for a while, but it doesn't seem like anyone has done any of the actual work, even something as simple as updating the website. This next date, in my mind, is to make it clear that the Lucene PMC is done being responsible for Lucene.NET by Jan. 31. I am more than willing to help them move somewhere else, but it is up to them to say where that is.

-Grant

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):
<DRAFT>
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.

Resolution:
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.

Vote:
[] +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.

Grant Ingersoll
Lucene PMC Chair
</DRAFT>

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.
>
> -Hoss

Personally, I would be *very* interested whether moving Lucene.NET to GitHub
will make a difference in terms of progress and style of development. Maybe
forking, pull requests, and the whole "social" thing makes it easier for people
to participate. Since Lucene.NET has struggled for years at ASF, this would be
a great opportunity to see if the above makes a difference.

My 0.02 NT

Otis
----
Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/



----- Original Message ----
> From: Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org>
> To: general@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Thu, December 23, 2010 10:41:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [PMC] Next Steps on Lucene.NET
>
>
> 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.
>
> OK, I'm not sure either. I will check. We could certainly just mothball it
>here, but I don't think that is necessarily what we want either.
>
> >
> > In either case, having a hard date seems like a good idea -- i thought one
> > had been established before, but i guess not.
>
> The hard date of addressing the 4 issues was set for the end of the year. I
>don't think any of them have been addressed. There was a big discussion for a
>while, but it doesn't seem like anyone has done any of the actual work, even
>something as simple as updating the website. This next date, in my mind, is to
>make it clear that the Lucene PMC is done being responsible for Lucene.NET by
>Jan. 31. I am more than willing to help them move somewhere else, but it is up
>to them to say where that is.
>
> -Grant

The ASF has read-only Git mirrors already and is working on adding RW Git capability. There are also already several forks for .NET. The main problem seems to be lack of committers/contributors time. I think the project could be successful at the ASF if they were under their own PMC, but their doesn't seem to be interest in that either, given the lack of response to suggestions to go back to the Incubator and do just that.

-Grant

On Dec 25, 2010, at 1:28 AM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote:

> Personally, I would be *very* interested whether moving Lucene.NET to GitHub
> will make a difference in terms of progress and style of development. Maybe
> forking, pull requests, and the whole "social" thing makes it easier for people
> to participate. Since Lucene.NET has struggled for years at ASF, this would be
> a great opportunity to see if the above makes a difference.
>
> My 0.02 NT
>
> Otis
> ----
> Sematext :: http://sematext.com/ :: Solr - Lucene - Nutch
> Lucene ecosystem search :: http://search-lucene.com/
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Grant Ingersoll <gsingers@apache.org>
>> To: general@lucene.apache.org
>> Sent: Thu, December 23, 2010 10:41:18 AM
>> Subject: Re: [PMC] Next Steps on Lucene.NET
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> OK, I'm not sure either. I will check. We could certainly just mothball it
>> here, but I don't think that is necessarily what we want either.
>>
>>>
>>> In either case, having a hard date seems like a good idea -- i thought one
>>> had been established before, but i guess not.
>>
>> The hard date of addressing the 4 issues was set for the end of the year. I
>> don't think any of them have been addressed. There was a big discussion for a
>> while, but it doesn't seem like anyone has done any of the actual work, even
>> something as simple as updating the website. This next date, in my mind, is to
>> make it clear that the Lucene PMC is done being responsible for Lucene.NET by
>> Jan. 31. I am more than willing to help them move somewhere else, but it is up
>> to them to say where that is.
>>
>> -Grant

--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com