Re: [DISCUSS] Community - call for help [Was: Setting priorities for our next few releases]

[Steve Blackmon <sb...@apache.org>]

Will do. I was leaving vote open for the full 72 hour duration. Is that
optional once a quorum to release is reached?

On Sep 30, 2016 6:20 PM, "Suneel Marthi" <sm...@apache.org> wrote:

> @Steve I see 3 +1 binding iPMC votes for 0.3-incubating release, u may
> want to close the vote and finalize the release.
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:30 PM, sblackmon <sb...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Suneel!
>>
>> One key point from the original thread was the need to have a shared
>> vision of what improvements would position the project well for community
>> and user growth over the short and medium term.
>>
>> I’ve begun adding issues in line with the themes I mentioned and
>> associating them to the releases labelled 0.4 - 0.6 and intend to come back
>> to the list with some proposals shortly.
>>
>> One thing you could help with immediately is to validate our
>> 0.3-incubating release and contribute an IPMC vote over on general.
>>
>>
>> On September 29, 2016 at 5:46:43 PM, Suneel Marthi (smarthi@apache.org)
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ate and Steve,
>>
>> I will be glad to contribute code too and be more involved in keeping the
>> project moving. If u could point me to jiras I could tackle I'll get
>> started on that.
>>
>> Suneel
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Steve, community, silent followers,
>> >
>> > In general the proposal and suggestions from Steve are all good steps
>> > forward.
>> >
>> > But I'm for now top posting and forking that discussion to try address
>> > everyone
>> > in the community directly, because I think there are other and more
>> > critical
>> > actions needed to make clear to the Incubator PMC that cancelling of
>> this
>> > project retirement will not end up to be just a temporary pause.
>> >
>> > The first and highest priority action should be getting more and
>> diverse
>> > involvement and active participation from the community.
>> > The steps suggested by Steve are definitely helpful and needed as well.
>> > But it just as well might end up remaining a one man's task list...
>> >
>> > Instead, we need to get more active input and suggestions/questions
>> from
>> > others
>> > in the community, like Joey, our new mentor Suneel, and hopefully as
>> well
>> > from
>> > the W3C ActivityStream 2.0 working group people, like Benjamin Young.
>> >
>> > And we need not just 'talk' feedback, but actual interest and
>> participation
>> > with concrete contributions.
>> > (Suneel: I know you signed up just to mentor, which of course also is
>> > needed)
>> >
>> > We need to see and show serious promise for growth of the project
>> > community to
>> > the IPMC, and in a reasonable short time frame (a few months at most).
>> > Without that I think the changes of getting this project back on its
>> feet
>> > will
>> > remain unrealistic, and then better be stopped.
>> >
>> > This also was indicated by the request from John Ament (the Incubator
>> > Chair), to
>> > switch back to monthly reporting for the coming 3 months, so the IPMC
>> can
>> > monitor the progress and chances for success. And if not, probably will
>> > decide
>> > (or at least vote) for a final retirement after all.
>> > I agree with John this make perfectly sense, and I'll update the
>> reporting
>> > schedule for Streams shortly to make it so.
>> >
>> > Meaning: a next Incubator board report will need to be delivered
>> monthly
>> > for
>> > at least the coming 3 months.
>> > We better make sure there is positive news to report :-)
>> >
>> > I also cc'ed Benjamin Young (who AFAIK hasn't subscribed to this list)
>> > to see what ideas he has and what concrete actions can take in getting
>> the
>> > W3C
>> > ActivityStreams 2.0 people involved as well.
>> >
>> > And I'm explicitly calling out to the mostly silent community,
>> including
>> > the
>> > other committers, to speak up and let us know what you might be able to
>> do
>> > for
>> > the project *now*: ideas, feedback, testing, maybe even code
>> contributions?
>> >
>> > Kind regards, Ate
>> >
>> > On 2016-09-28 22:00, sblackmon wrote:
>> >
>> >> All,
>> >>
>> >> Joey brought this up over the weekend and I think a discussion is
>> overdue
>> >> on the topic.
>> >>
>> >> Encouraging community growth and performing regular releases are on
>> our
>> >> list of graduation criteria.
>> >>
>> >> A few easy behaviors we can adopt to take to make progress on these
>> goals:
>> >> - planning release versions around one or two significant improvements
>> >> - setting target dates to kick off upcoming releases
>> >> - prioritizing our backlog after each release
>> >> - discussing project and community milestones openly on the list
>> >> - organizing JIRA so that all contributors (especially new) can decide
>> >> where it’s most important to focus their efforts
>> >>
>> >> I think to get things moving again and demonstrate we are capable of
>> >> consistent progress, we should aim to perform a release once per month
>> >> around the end of the month.
>> >>
>> >> As for what to focus on, I think it’s time to discuss adopting
>> Activity
>> >> Streams 2.0, figure out what form that transition would take, and get
>> >> started down that path. Working implementations demonstrate the
>> >> suitability of the standard and drive it’s adoption, and the prospects
>> of
>> >> this project are closely tied to those of the standard. Separate
>> DISCUSS
>> >> coming on this topic.
>> >>
>> >> Also important for the ‘reboot’ theme, we should delete any modules we
>> >> aren’t going to maintain, and bring all modules we are going to
>> maintain up
>> >> to acceptable standards - exactly what that means is an open question
>> but
>> >> broadly they should have documentation, code comments, and tests at
>> the
>> >> level of a typical module in a typical TLP.
>> >>
>> >> Expanding the examples to demonstrate how to use streams providers and
>> >> processors within various execution engines and fixing any bugs that
>> have
>> >> been reported is desirable as well. Adding at least one new example
>> per
>> >> release is a good target for now.
>> >>
>> >> I have created some future versions with target release dates in JIRA
>> and
>> >> invite all committers to associate existing or new issues with those
>> >> releases, or anyone who can’t modify JIRA to summarize their thoughts
>> and
>> >> share with the list and I will incorporate those ideas into JIRA. This
>> >> should be the default reference for anyone looking for a way to help -
>> look
>> >> at issues associated with the next few releases and the top of the
>> backlog
>> >> and pick something that appeals and is in line with your experience.
>> >>
>> >> Anything else that should be a top priority for the rest of the year?
>> Or
>> >> other ideas on improving planning and coordination?
>> >>
>> >> Steve
>> >>
>> >> On September 24, 2016 at 1:01:02 PM, apache (sblackmon@apache.org)
>> wrote:
>> >> - This has already come up, but maybe ActivityStreams 2.0 support
>> would
>> >> broaden the community and motivate more work. It's also a concrete
>> >> goal to work toward so people would know where they can start.
>> >> - Steve and I did a little work here a few months ago, but the JIRA
>> could
>> >> reflect the priorities better and I think keep the community working
>> in a
>> >> common direction.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Community - call for help [Was: Setting priorities for our next few releases]

[Suneel Marthi <su...@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu> wrote:

> On 2016-10-01 03:36, Suneel Marthi wrote:
>
>> It's optional, u need 3 +1 binding votes for a release to pass; so u r
>> good to close the vote and finalize the release
>>
>
> The 72h minimum is not optional and there was no reason to rush the vote.
> For sure 4 +1 binding votes are enough.
> But a later -1 vote concerning for example legal issues should still be
> considered blocking until resolved.
> However in this case I don't think there was anything to worry, certainly
> not
> after the +1 from Justin. So no harm done.


Hence, I took the liberty to close the Vote, since we had a +1 from Justin.
:)

Next time, definitely will honor the 72 hr deadline.


>

However for next time we should again honour the 72h minimum time.
>
> Thanks, Ate
>
>
>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Sep 30, 2016, at 9:31 PM, Steve Blackmon <sb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Will do. I was leaving vote open for the full 72 hour duration. Is that
>>> optional once a quorum to release is reached?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 30, 2016 6:20 PM, "Suneel Marthi" <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> @Steve I see 3 +1 binding iPMC votes for 0.3-incubating release, u may
>>>> want to close the vote and finalize the release.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:30 PM, sblackmon <sb...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Thanks Suneel!
>>>>>
>>>>> One key point from the original thread was the need to have a shared
>>>>> vision of what improvements would position the project well for community
>>>>> and user growth over the short and medium term.
>>>>>
>>>>> I’ve begun adding issues in line with the themes I mentioned and
>>>>> associating them to the releases labelled 0.4 - 0.6 and intend to come back
>>>>> to the list with some proposals shortly.
>>>>>
>>>>> One thing you could help with immediately is to validate our
>>>>> 0.3-incubating release and contribute an IPMC vote over on general.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On September 29, 2016 at 5:46:43 PM, Suneel Marthi (smarthi@apache.org)
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Ate and Steve,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will be glad to contribute code too and be more involved in keeping
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> project moving. If u could point me to jiras I could tackle I'll get
>>>>>> started on that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Suneel
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Steve, community, silent followers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In general the proposal and suggestions from Steve are all good steps
>>>>>>> forward.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I'm for now top posting and forking that discussion to try
>>>>>>> address
>>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>>> in the community directly, because I think there are other and more
>>>>>>> critical
>>>>>>> actions needed to make clear to the Incubator PMC that cancelling of
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> project retirement will not end up to be just a temporary pause.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first and highest priority action should be getting more and
>>>>>>> diverse
>>>>>>> involvement and active participation from the community.
>>>>>>> The steps suggested by Steve are definitely helpful and needed as
>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>> But it just as well might end up remaining a one man's task list...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Instead, we need to get more active input and suggestions/questions
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>> in the community, like Joey, our new mentor Suneel, and hopefully as
>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> the W3C ActivityStream 2.0 working group people, like Benjamin Young.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And we need not just 'talk' feedback, but actual interest and
>>>>>>> participation
>>>>>>> with concrete contributions.
>>>>>>> (Suneel: I know you signed up just to mentor, which of course also is
>>>>>>> needed)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We need to see and show serious promise for growth of the project
>>>>>>> community to
>>>>>>> the IPMC, and in a reasonable short time frame (a few months at
>>>>>>> most).
>>>>>>> Without that I think the changes of getting this project back on its
>>>>>>> feet
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> remain unrealistic, and then better be stopped.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This also was indicated by the request from John Ament (the Incubator
>>>>>>> Chair), to
>>>>>>> switch back to monthly reporting for the coming 3 months, so the
>>>>>>> IPMC can
>>>>>>> monitor the progress and chances for success. And if not, probably
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> decide
>>>>>>> (or at least vote) for a final retirement after all.
>>>>>>> I agree with John this make perfectly sense, and I'll update the
>>>>>>> reporting
>>>>>>> schedule for Streams shortly to make it so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meaning: a next Incubator board report will need to be delivered
>>>>>>> monthly
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> at least the coming 3 months.
>>>>>>> We better make sure there is positive news to report :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also cc'ed Benjamin Young (who AFAIK hasn't subscribed to this
>>>>>>> list)
>>>>>>> to see what ideas he has and what concrete actions can take in
>>>>>>> getting the
>>>>>>> W3C
>>>>>>> ActivityStreams 2.0 people involved as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And I'm explicitly calling out to the mostly silent community,
>>>>>>> including
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> other committers, to speak up and let us know what you might be able
>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> the project *now*: ideas, feedback, testing, maybe even code
>>>>>>> contributions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind regards, Ate
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2016-09-28 22:00, sblackmon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joey brought this up over the weekend and I think a discussion is
>>>>>>>> overdue
>>>>>>>> on the topic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Encouraging community growth and performing regular releases are on
>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>> list of graduation criteria.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A few easy behaviors we can adopt to take to make progress on these
>>>>>>>> goals:
>>>>>>>> - planning release versions around one or two significant
>>>>>>>> improvements
>>>>>>>> - setting target dates to kick off upcoming releases
>>>>>>>> - prioritizing our backlog after each release
>>>>>>>> - discussing project and community milestones openly on the list
>>>>>>>> - organizing JIRA so that all contributors (especially new) can
>>>>>>>> decide
>>>>>>>> where it’s most important to focus their efforts
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think to get things moving again and demonstrate we are capable of
>>>>>>>> consistent progress, we should aim to perform a release once per
>>>>>>>> month
>>>>>>>> around the end of the month.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for what to focus on, I think it’s time to discuss adopting
>>>>>>>> Activity
>>>>>>>> Streams 2.0, figure out what form that transition would take, and
>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>> started down that path. Working implementations demonstrate the
>>>>>>>> suitability of the standard and drive it’s adoption, and the
>>>>>>>> prospects of
>>>>>>>> this project are closely tied to those of the standard. Separate
>>>>>>>> DISCUSS
>>>>>>>> coming on this topic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also important for the ‘reboot’ theme, we should delete any modules
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> aren’t going to maintain, and bring all modules we are going to
>>>>>>>> maintain up
>>>>>>>> to acceptable standards - exactly what that means is an open
>>>>>>>> question but
>>>>>>>> broadly they should have documentation, code comments, and tests at
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> level of a typical module in a typical TLP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Expanding the examples to demonstrate how to use streams providers
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> processors within various execution engines and fixing any bugs
>>>>>>>> that have
>>>>>>>> been reported is desirable as well. Adding at least one new example
>>>>>>>> per
>>>>>>>> release is a good target for now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have created some future versions with target release dates in
>>>>>>>> JIRA and
>>>>>>>> invite all committers to associate existing or new issues with those
>>>>>>>> releases, or anyone who can’t modify JIRA to summarize their
>>>>>>>> thoughts and
>>>>>>>> share with the list and I will incorporate those ideas into JIRA.
>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>> should be the default reference for anyone looking for a way to
>>>>>>>> help - look
>>>>>>>> at issues associated with the next few releases and the top of the
>>>>>>>> backlog
>>>>>>>> and pick something that appeals and is in line with your experience.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anything else that should be a top priority for the rest of the
>>>>>>>> year? Or
>>>>>>>> other ideas on improving planning and coordination?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On September 24, 2016 at 1:01:02 PM, apache (sblackmon@apache.org)
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> - This has already come up, but maybe ActivityStreams 2.0 support
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> broaden the community and motivate more work. It's also a concrete
>>>>>>>> goal to work toward so people would know where they can start.
>>>>>>>> - Steve and I did a little work here a few months ago, but the JIRA
>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>> reflect the priorities better and I think keep the community
>>>>>>>> working in a
>>>>>>>> common direction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Community - call for help [Was: Setting priorities for our next few releases]

[Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>]

On 2016-10-01 03:36, Suneel Marthi wrote:
> It's optional, u need 3 +1 binding votes for a release to pass; so u r good to close the vote and finalize the release

The 72h minimum is not optional and there was no reason to rush the vote.
For sure 4 +1 binding votes are enough.
But a later -1 vote concerning for example legal issues should still be
considered blocking until resolved.
However in this case I don't think there was anything to worry, certainly not
after the +1 from Justin. So no harm done.
However for next time we should again honour the 72h minimum time.

Thanks, Ate

>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Sep 30, 2016, at 9:31 PM, Steve Blackmon <sb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Will do. I was leaving vote open for the full 72 hour duration. Is that optional once a quorum to release is reached?
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 30, 2016 6:20 PM, "Suneel Marthi" <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> @Steve I see 3 +1 binding iPMC votes for 0.3-incubating release, u may want to close the vote and finalize the release.
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:30 PM, sblackmon <sb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Thanks Suneel!
>>>>
>>>> One key point from the original thread was the need to have a shared vision of what improvements would position the project well for community and user growth over the short and medium term.
>>>>
>>>> I’ve begun adding issues in line with the themes I mentioned and associating them to the releases labelled 0.4 - 0.6 and intend to come back to the list with some proposals shortly.
>>>>
>>>> One thing you could help with immediately is to validate our 0.3-incubating release and contribute an IPMC vote over on general.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On September 29, 2016 at 5:46:43 PM, Suneel Marthi (smarthi@apache.org) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ate and Steve,
>>>>>
>>>>> I will be glad to contribute code too and be more involved in keeping the
>>>>> project moving. If u could point me to jiras I could tackle I'll get
>>>>> started on that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suneel
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Steve, community, silent followers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In general the proposal and suggestions from Steve are all good steps
>>>>>> forward.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I'm for now top posting and forking that discussion to try address
>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>> in the community directly, because I think there are other and more
>>>>>> critical
>>>>>> actions needed to make clear to the Incubator PMC that cancelling of this
>>>>>> project retirement will not end up to be just a temporary pause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first and highest priority action should be getting more and diverse
>>>>>> involvement and active participation from the community.
>>>>>> The steps suggested by Steve are definitely helpful and needed as well.
>>>>>> But it just as well might end up remaining a one man's task list...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Instead, we need to get more active input and suggestions/questions from
>>>>>> others
>>>>>> in the community, like Joey, our new mentor Suneel, and hopefully as well
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> the W3C ActivityStream 2.0 working group people, like Benjamin Young.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And we need not just 'talk' feedback, but actual interest and participation
>>>>>> with concrete contributions.
>>>>>> (Suneel: I know you signed up just to mentor, which of course also is
>>>>>> needed)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We need to see and show serious promise for growth of the project
>>>>>> community to
>>>>>> the IPMC, and in a reasonable short time frame (a few months at most).
>>>>>> Without that I think the changes of getting this project back on its feet
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> remain unrealistic, and then better be stopped.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This also was indicated by the request from John Ament (the Incubator
>>>>>> Chair), to
>>>>>> switch back to monthly reporting for the coming 3 months, so the IPMC can
>>>>>> monitor the progress and chances for success. And if not, probably will
>>>>>> decide
>>>>>> (or at least vote) for a final retirement after all.
>>>>>> I agree with John this make perfectly sense, and I'll update the reporting
>>>>>> schedule for Streams shortly to make it so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meaning: a next Incubator board report will need to be delivered monthly
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> at least the coming 3 months.
>>>>>> We better make sure there is positive news to report :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also cc'ed Benjamin Young (who AFAIK hasn't subscribed to this list)
>>>>>> to see what ideas he has and what concrete actions can take in getting the
>>>>>> W3C
>>>>>> ActivityStreams 2.0 people involved as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I'm explicitly calling out to the mostly silent community, including
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> other committers, to speak up and let us know what you might be able to do
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> the project *now*: ideas, feedback, testing, maybe even code contributions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards, Ate
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2016-09-28 22:00, sblackmon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joey brought this up over the weekend and I think a discussion is overdue
>>>>>>> on the topic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Encouraging community growth and performing regular releases are on our
>>>>>>> list of graduation criteria.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A few easy behaviors we can adopt to take to make progress on these goals:
>>>>>>> - planning release versions around one or two significant improvements
>>>>>>> - setting target dates to kick off upcoming releases
>>>>>>> - prioritizing our backlog after each release
>>>>>>> - discussing project and community milestones openly on the list
>>>>>>> - organizing JIRA so that all contributors (especially new) can decide
>>>>>>> where it’s most important to focus their efforts
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think to get things moving again and demonstrate we are capable of
>>>>>>> consistent progress, we should aim to perform a release once per month
>>>>>>> around the end of the month.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for what to focus on, I think it’s time to discuss adopting Activity
>>>>>>> Streams 2.0, figure out what form that transition would take, and get
>>>>>>> started down that path. Working implementations demonstrate the
>>>>>>> suitability of the standard and drive it’s adoption, and the prospects of
>>>>>>> this project are closely tied to those of the standard. Separate DISCUSS
>>>>>>> coming on this topic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also important for the ‘reboot’ theme, we should delete any modules we
>>>>>>> aren’t going to maintain, and bring all modules we are going to maintain up
>>>>>>> to acceptable standards - exactly what that means is an open question but
>>>>>>> broadly they should have documentation, code comments, and tests at the
>>>>>>> level of a typical module in a typical TLP.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Expanding the examples to demonstrate how to use streams providers and
>>>>>>> processors within various execution engines and fixing any bugs that have
>>>>>>> been reported is desirable as well. Adding at least one new example per
>>>>>>> release is a good target for now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have created some future versions with target release dates in JIRA and
>>>>>>> invite all committers to associate existing or new issues with those
>>>>>>> releases, or anyone who can’t modify JIRA to summarize their thoughts and
>>>>>>> share with the list and I will incorporate those ideas into JIRA. This
>>>>>>> should be the default reference for anyone looking for a way to help - look
>>>>>>> at issues associated with the next few releases and the top of the backlog
>>>>>>> and pick something that appeals and is in line with your experience.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anything else that should be a top priority for the rest of the year? Or
>>>>>>> other ideas on improving planning and coordination?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On September 24, 2016 at 1:01:02 PM, apache (sblackmon@apache.org) wrote:
>>>>>>> - This has already come up, but maybe ActivityStreams 2.0 support would
>>>>>>> broaden the community and motivate more work. It's also a concrete
>>>>>>> goal to work toward so people would know where they can start.
>>>>>>> - Steve and I did a little work here a few months ago, but the JIRA could
>>>>>>> reflect the priorities better and I think keep the community working in a
>>>>>>> common direction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Community - call for help [Was: Setting priorities for our next few releases]

[Suneel Marthi <su...@gmail.com>]

It's optional, u need 3 +1 binding votes for a release to pass; so u r good to close the vote and finalize the release

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 30, 2016, at 9:31 PM, Steve Blackmon <sb...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> Will do. I was leaving vote open for the full 72 hour duration. Is that optional once a quorum to release is reached?
> 
> 
>> On Sep 30, 2016 6:20 PM, "Suneel Marthi" <sm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> @Steve I see 3 +1 binding iPMC votes for 0.3-incubating release, u may want to close the vote and finalize the release. 
>> 
>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:30 PM, sblackmon <sb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Thanks Suneel!
>>> 
>>> One key point from the original thread was the need to have a shared vision of what improvements would position the project well for community and user growth over the short and medium term.
>>> 
>>> I’ve begun adding issues in line with the themes I mentioned and associating them to the releases labelled 0.4 - 0.6 and intend to come back to the list with some proposals shortly.
>>> 
>>> One thing you could help with immediately is to validate our 0.3-incubating release and contribute an IPMC vote over on general.  
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On September 29, 2016 at 5:46:43 PM, Suneel Marthi (smarthi@apache.org) wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Ate and Steve, 
>>>> 
>>>> I will be glad to contribute code too and be more involved in keeping the 
>>>> project moving. If u could point me to jiras I could tackle I'll get 
>>>> started on that. 
>>>> 
>>>> Suneel 
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu> wrote: 
>>>> 
>>>> > Hi Steve, community, silent followers, 
>>>> > 
>>>> > In general the proposal and suggestions from Steve are all good steps 
>>>> > forward. 
>>>> > 
>>>> > But I'm for now top posting and forking that discussion to try address 
>>>> > everyone 
>>>> > in the community directly, because I think there are other and more 
>>>> > critical 
>>>> > actions needed to make clear to the Incubator PMC that cancelling of this 
>>>> > project retirement will not end up to be just a temporary pause. 
>>>> > 
>>>> > The first and highest priority action should be getting more and diverse 
>>>> > involvement and active participation from the community. 
>>>> > The steps suggested by Steve are definitely helpful and needed as well. 
>>>> > But it just as well might end up remaining a one man's task list... 
>>>> > 
>>>> > Instead, we need to get more active input and suggestions/questions from 
>>>> > others 
>>>> > in the community, like Joey, our new mentor Suneel, and hopefully as well 
>>>> > from 
>>>> > the W3C ActivityStream 2.0 working group people, like Benjamin Young. 
>>>> > 
>>>> > And we need not just 'talk' feedback, but actual interest and participation 
>>>> > with concrete contributions. 
>>>> > (Suneel: I know you signed up just to mentor, which of course also is 
>>>> > needed) 
>>>> > 
>>>> > We need to see and show serious promise for growth of the project 
>>>> > community to 
>>>> > the IPMC, and in a reasonable short time frame (a few months at most). 
>>>> > Without that I think the changes of getting this project back on its feet 
>>>> > will 
>>>> > remain unrealistic, and then better be stopped. 
>>>> > 
>>>> > This also was indicated by the request from John Ament (the Incubator 
>>>> > Chair), to 
>>>> > switch back to monthly reporting for the coming 3 months, so the IPMC can 
>>>> > monitor the progress and chances for success. And if not, probably will 
>>>> > decide 
>>>> > (or at least vote) for a final retirement after all. 
>>>> > I agree with John this make perfectly sense, and I'll update the reporting 
>>>> > schedule for Streams shortly to make it so. 
>>>> > 
>>>> > Meaning: a next Incubator board report will need to be delivered monthly 
>>>> > for 
>>>> > at least the coming 3 months. 
>>>> > We better make sure there is positive news to report :-) 
>>>> > 
>>>> > I also cc'ed Benjamin Young (who AFAIK hasn't subscribed to this list) 
>>>> > to see what ideas he has and what concrete actions can take in getting the 
>>>> > W3C 
>>>> > ActivityStreams 2.0 people involved as well. 
>>>> > 
>>>> > And I'm explicitly calling out to the mostly silent community, including 
>>>> > the 
>>>> > other committers, to speak up and let us know what you might be able to do 
>>>> > for 
>>>> > the project *now*: ideas, feedback, testing, maybe even code contributions? 
>>>> > 
>>>> > Kind regards, Ate 
>>>> > 
>>>> > On 2016-09-28 22:00, sblackmon wrote: 
>>>> > 
>>>> >> All, 
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Joey brought this up over the weekend and I think a discussion is overdue 
>>>> >> on the topic. 
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Encouraging community growth and performing regular releases are on our 
>>>> >> list of graduation criteria. 
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> A few easy behaviors we can adopt to take to make progress on these goals: 
>>>> >> - planning release versions around one or two significant improvements 
>>>> >> - setting target dates to kick off upcoming releases 
>>>> >> - prioritizing our backlog after each release 
>>>> >> - discussing project and community milestones openly on the list 
>>>> >> - organizing JIRA so that all contributors (especially new) can decide 
>>>> >> where it’s most important to focus their efforts 
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> I think to get things moving again and demonstrate we are capable of 
>>>> >> consistent progress, we should aim to perform a release once per month 
>>>> >> around the end of the month. 
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> As for what to focus on, I think it’s time to discuss adopting Activity 
>>>> >> Streams 2.0, figure out what form that transition would take, and get 
>>>> >> started down that path. Working implementations demonstrate the 
>>>> >> suitability of the standard and drive it’s adoption, and the prospects of 
>>>> >> this project are closely tied to those of the standard. Separate DISCUSS 
>>>> >> coming on this topic. 
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Also important for the ‘reboot’ theme, we should delete any modules we 
>>>> >> aren’t going to maintain, and bring all modules we are going to maintain up 
>>>> >> to acceptable standards - exactly what that means is an open question but 
>>>> >> broadly they should have documentation, code comments, and tests at the 
>>>> >> level of a typical module in a typical TLP. 
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Expanding the examples to demonstrate how to use streams providers and 
>>>> >> processors within various execution engines and fixing any bugs that have 
>>>> >> been reported is desirable as well. Adding at least one new example per 
>>>> >> release is a good target for now. 
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> I have created some future versions with target release dates in JIRA and 
>>>> >> invite all committers to associate existing or new issues with those 
>>>> >> releases, or anyone who can’t modify JIRA to summarize their thoughts and 
>>>> >> share with the list and I will incorporate those ideas into JIRA. This 
>>>> >> should be the default reference for anyone looking for a way to help - look 
>>>> >> at issues associated with the next few releases and the top of the backlog 
>>>> >> and pick something that appeals and is in line with your experience. 
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Anything else that should be a top priority for the rest of the year? Or 
>>>> >> other ideas on improving planning and coordination? 
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> Steve 
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> On September 24, 2016 at 1:01:02 PM, apache (sblackmon@apache.org) wrote: 
>>>> >> - This has already come up, but maybe ActivityStreams 2.0 support would 
>>>> >> broaden the community and motivate more work. It's also a concrete 
>>>> >> goal to work toward so people would know where they can start. 
>>>> >> - Steve and I did a little work here a few months ago, but the JIRA could 
>>>> >> reflect the priorities better and I think keep the community working in a 
>>>> >> common direction. 
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> 
>>>> > 
>>>> > 
>>