Re: [Lucy] Re: [Lucy Wiki] Update of "LucyIncubatorProposal" by PeterKarman

[Peter Karman <pe...@peknet.com>]

Marvin Humphrey wrote on 6/28/10 12:34 PM:

> Random thoughts:
> 
>  * I think it would be good to emphasize that this proposal is a response to
>    suggestions from the Lucene PMC about community growth and fast releases.
>    I'd like to show that we intend to make good, conscientious use of the
>    mentoring that the Incubator offers, and also that this is a logical,
>    natural move for Lucy to make.

Seems to fit under Proposal or Background. It's a key part of the story, and as
such should probably not be "safely ignored by domain experts" in the Background
section. That seems to be the litmus test for what goes in Background vs Proposal.

>  * Somewhere we should indicate that the technical goals of the original Lucy
>    project has been achieved, and that now that that's happened we are ready
>    for a new phase focusing on community growth.

Under Proposal?

>  * The Apache values I care about most are code base transparency and
>    controlled competition.  Code base transparency is important because making
>    the code easy to work with makes it easier to contribute, increasing both
>    quantity and quality of contributions.  Controlled competition provides
>    motivation which increases quality of contribution.  I'm not sure where to
>    put those items; community is one possibility.

Looks like you have this under Alignment now?




-- 
Peter Karman  .  http://peknet.com/  .  peter@peknet.com

Re: [Lucy] Re: [Lucy Wiki] Update of "LucyIncubatorProposal" by PeterKarman

[Marvin Humphrey <ma...@rectangular.com>]

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 09:00:46PM -0500, Peter Karman wrote:
> Marvin Humphrey wrote on 6/28/10 12:34 PM:
> 
> > Random thoughts:
> > 
> >  * I think it would be good to emphasize that this proposal is a response to
> >    suggestions from the Lucene PMC about community growth and fast releases.
> >    I'd like to show that we intend to make good, conscientious use of the
> >    mentoring that the Incubator offers, and also that this is a logical,
> >    natural move for Lucy to make.
> 
> Seems to fit under Proposal or Background. It's a key part of the story, and as
> such should probably not be "safely ignored by domain experts" in the Background
> section. That seems to be the litmus test for what goes in Background vs Proposal.

I was leaning towards Current Status, but Background seems like a better
choice, looking at what e.g. Chukwa, BlueSky, and ChatterBot put in that
section.  

> >  * Somewhere we should indicate that the technical goals of the original Lucy
> >    project has been achieved, and that now that that's happened we are ready
> >    for a new phase focusing on community growth.
> 
> Under Proposal?

I think probably under Background again, but I'm not sure.  Ordinarily
Proposal just describes what the project *does*, but our case is a little odd.

The guidelines explicitly state that we don't have to adhere to the template
exactly, so we can add, remove, or expand sections -- so long as we address
the spirit of all concerns.  

Ah well, things will probably become clear as the draft nears completion...

> >  * The Apache values I care about most are code base transparency and
> >    controlled competition.  Code base transparency is important because making
> >    the code easy to work with makes it easier to contribute, increasing both
> >    quantity and quality of contributions.  Controlled competition provides
> >    motivation which increases quality of contribution.  I'm not sure where to
> >    put those items; community is one possibility.
> 
> Looks like you have this under Alignment now?

Yes.  I'm pleased with how that section turned out; it accurately describes
what I feel are some of the biggest reasons why Lucy belongs at Apache, but
perhaps more importantly, I think it demonstrates that we have a sophisticated
understanding of what Apache is looking for.  And hopefully it expresses
values that you (idiomatic APIs, usability) and Nate (code simplicity) feel
are important as well.

...

Schedule-wise, I'd like to get rough draft language in all sections by the end
of tomorrow.  That leaves us Thursday to revise, followed by a final QA pass
on Friday morning prior to submission.  I'll also draw up a draft of the
accompanying post to general@lucene tomorrow.  Sound like a plan?

It doesn't have to be perfect, but the better it is, the better a position
we'll be in to take advantage of the feedback we get from the Lucene PMC.  And
FWIW, both Grant and Doug are on the Incubator PMC as well.

Marvin Humphrey