You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@rave.apache.org by Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com> on 2012/10/25 18:13:02 UTC
Rave Momentum & Engagement
Over the past couple months there has been a growing worry of mine that we
are loosing some momentum/cohesiveness as a team. As a metric, if you look
at the dev mailing list, the traffic for the past three months has been
very low (September was awful). What finally spurred me to send this
message was the fact that I sent an email [1] on October 13th, asking for
some help reviewing a major change Matt and I had been working on and
haven't gotten a single response. I know it's not a sexy change but it's
something that people thought was a good idea when it was proposed a while
back. What I don't know is if the lack of response is because people are
too busy, they don't care or they don't support the change but don't want
to say that. The third option would concern me the most since we should
feel free to provide feedback, both positive and negative.
My suspicion is that people are just swamped at their day jobs and Rave has
taken back (maybe far back) seat to normal life which is understandable.
With that knowledge though, as a PMC we should probably spend some time
really coming up with a priority list of items we agree need to get done
and bubble those to the top of the queue over the next few months. Roadmap
anyone?
Thoughts?
Chris
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/rave-dev/201210.mbox/%3CCAFNO4Hh5LH37p9dD9P=W3MGQ=HECq-D4+LVqmsTpiHdDfHAn3A@mail.gmail.com%3E
Re: Rave Momentum & Engagement
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@gmail.com>.
> True. Next small tweak is multi-tenancy :-).
You definitely have an interesting definition of "small" :-) :-)
Craig
Re: Rave Momentum & Engagement
Posted by Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com>.
On Thursday, October 25, 2012, Franklin, Matthew B. wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Chris Geer [mailto:chris@cxtsoftware.com <javascript:;>]
> >Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:44 PM
> >To: dev@rave.apache.org <javascript:;>
> >Subject: Re: Rave Momentum & Engagement
> >
> >On Thursday, October 25, 2012, Jasha Joachimsthal wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Chris,
> >>
> >> it has been more quiet indeed on the mailinglist, but there is still a
> lot
> >> of development going on. We now have 2 branches and a sandbox for the
> >model
> >> split, MongoDB and content services. I hope they will merge into trunk
> >> soon, so it's more visible that new functionality is developed, and it
> will
> >> decrease the chance of merge problems.
> >
> >
> >You are right, maybe "momentum" was the wrong word choice. Maybe
> >collaboration would have been better. I'm with you, I look forward to
> >getting some of these major overhauls integrated. Just in time for the
> next
> >round of major overhauls :)
>
> What fun is having code that we don't get to rewrite to make it better :)
True. Next small tweak is multi-tenancy :)
>
> BTW, early indications on the Mongo effort are positive. I should have
> some comparison numbers at ApacheCon.
>
> >
> >>
> >> On 25 October 2012 18:55, Raminderjeet Singh
> ><raminderjsingh@gmail.com <javascript:;><javascript:;>
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thanks Chris for taking a lead to identify the problems with Rave
> >> > activities and Roadmap. I think everyone will agree with you here. I
> >> admit
> >> > that i missed your email Model Split email. We have requirements where
> >we
> >> > want to customize user model so i will take a look at the branch this
> >> week.
> >> > I volunteer for the feedback.
> >> >
> >> > My 2 cents on development activity is we need to set some Roadmap for
> >> Rave
> >> > 1.0( a wish list). We should not keep going with 0.xx. That will bring
> >> > everyone back with their choices about Rave 1.0. We can setup some
> >> > developer hackathon using Google hangout etc between now and
> >ApacheCon.
> >> We
> >> > made a great presence in ApacheCon 2011. We need to do the same for
> >> > ApacheCon 13. ApacheCon can be set as a milestone for Rave 1.0 (just
> an
> >> > idea). To achieve that milestone community need to start talk about
> 1.0
> >> and
> >> > document it on wiki [1]. We need to expand on little details on
> >> > architecture documents also for new users to start.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The next ApacheCon starts in 10 days ;) Unfortunately I can't be there,
> but
> >> would love to join a hangout in one of the evenings. I know some of the
> >> other Rave committers will be there.
> >>
> >> Jasha
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I agree with Ross that we can better spend time implementing than
> >> > documenting but have a wish list for 1.0 can give a better direction
> to
> >> the
> >> > community.
> >> >
> >> > 1. http://wiki.apache.org/rave/RoadMap
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> > Raminder
> >> >
> >> > On Oct 25, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I'm a little out of touch with Rave as I'm busy elsewhere, as you
> >> > > surmise many people in your thoughtful mail below.
> >> > >
> >> > > In general though it is normal for a community to go quiet
> >> > > periodically. Things tend to happen in waves. When one individual
> gets
> >> > > busy they motivate others to get busy simply through their actions.
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm never much of a fan of roadmaps being formally defined by a
> PMC. A
> >> > > projects roadmap is set by the people with time to work on it at
> that
> >> > > point in time. Putting a list of things that the PMC considers
> >> > > important on a website doesn't make those things happen. That being
> >> > > said, a little periodic re-evaluation of objectives and updating of
> >> > > the website certainly doesn't hurt. For example, I noticed that the
> >> > > home page still reflects the very high level roadmap that was
> defined
> >> > > during at proposal to the incubator. Some of the items on the
> "future"
> >> > > list have been implemented. Of course, I could have updated the home
> >> > > page when I noticed this, but I didn't because I was too busy at the
> >> > > time (and still am).
> >> > >
> >> > > If you have the time and the desire to define a roadmap that you
> think
> >> > > is important and you wish to ask for feedback on roadmap then go for
> >> > > it. However, personally, if I find I have some time for Rave I'll
> >> > > probably spend that time just implementing what is at the top of my
> >> > > personal agenda.
> >> > >
> >> > > Finally, with respect to your mail that has had no response, lazy
> >> > > consensus means that no objections means agreement. I've reviewed
> >your
> >> > > mail but don't have any opinion on it since I have not reviewed or
> >> > > tested your code. But you are a committer so I'm +0 on supporting
> your
> >> > > recommendations (not +1 as I don't have the time top properly
> review).
> >> > > If you want a little more explicit support for the proposed merge
> then
> >> > > post a reply to your own mail saying "no feedback so I assume all is
> >> > > good. I'm going to merge in the next few days". That will bring it
> >> > > back to the top of peoples inboxes and possibly prompt more review.
> >>
RE: Rave Momentum & Engagement
Posted by "Franklin, Matthew B." <mf...@mitre.org>.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chris Geer [mailto:chris@cxtsoftware.com]
>Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 1:44 PM
>To: dev@rave.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Rave Momentum & Engagement
>
>On Thursday, October 25, 2012, Jasha Joachimsthal wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> it has been more quiet indeed on the mailinglist, but there is still a lot
>> of development going on. We now have 2 branches and a sandbox for the
>model
>> split, MongoDB and content services. I hope they will merge into trunk
>> soon, so it's more visible that new functionality is developed, and it will
>> decrease the chance of merge problems.
>
>
>You are right, maybe "momentum" was the wrong word choice. Maybe
>collaboration would have been better. I'm with you, I look forward to
>getting some of these major overhauls integrated. Just in time for the next
>round of major overhauls :)
What fun is having code that we don't get to rewrite to make it better :)
BTW, early indications on the Mongo effort are positive. I should have some comparison numbers at ApacheCon.
>
>>
>> On 25 October 2012 18:55, Raminderjeet Singh
><raminderjsingh@gmail.com<javascript:;>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks Chris for taking a lead to identify the problems with Rave
>> > activities and Roadmap. I think everyone will agree with you here. I
>> admit
>> > that i missed your email Model Split email. We have requirements where
>we
>> > want to customize user model so i will take a look at the branch this
>> week.
>> > I volunteer for the feedback.
>> >
>> > My 2 cents on development activity is we need to set some Roadmap for
>> Rave
>> > 1.0( a wish list). We should not keep going with 0.xx. That will bring
>> > everyone back with their choices about Rave 1.0. We can setup some
>> > developer hackathon using Google hangout etc between now and
>ApacheCon.
>> We
>> > made a great presence in ApacheCon 2011. We need to do the same for
>> > ApacheCon 13. ApacheCon can be set as a milestone for Rave 1.0 (just an
>> > idea). To achieve that milestone community need to start talk about 1.0
>> and
>> > document it on wiki [1]. We need to expand on little details on
>> > architecture documents also for new users to start.
>> >
>>
>> The next ApacheCon starts in 10 days ;) Unfortunately I can't be there, but
>> would love to join a hangout in one of the evenings. I know some of the
>> other Rave committers will be there.
>>
>> Jasha
>>
>>
>> >
>> > I agree with Ross that we can better spend time implementing than
>> > documenting but have a wish list for 1.0 can give a better direction to
>> the
>> > community.
>> >
>> > 1. http://wiki.apache.org/rave/RoadMap
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Raminder
>> >
>> > On Oct 25, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> >
>> > > I'm a little out of touch with Rave as I'm busy elsewhere, as you
>> > > surmise many people in your thoughtful mail below.
>> > >
>> > > In general though it is normal for a community to go quiet
>> > > periodically. Things tend to happen in waves. When one individual gets
>> > > busy they motivate others to get busy simply through their actions.
>> > >
>> > > I'm never much of a fan of roadmaps being formally defined by a PMC. A
>> > > projects roadmap is set by the people with time to work on it at that
>> > > point in time. Putting a list of things that the PMC considers
>> > > important on a website doesn't make those things happen. That being
>> > > said, a little periodic re-evaluation of objectives and updating of
>> > > the website certainly doesn't hurt. For example, I noticed that the
>> > > home page still reflects the very high level roadmap that was defined
>> > > during at proposal to the incubator. Some of the items on the "future"
>> > > list have been implemented. Of course, I could have updated the home
>> > > page when I noticed this, but I didn't because I was too busy at the
>> > > time (and still am).
>> > >
>> > > If you have the time and the desire to define a roadmap that you think
>> > > is important and you wish to ask for feedback on roadmap then go for
>> > > it. However, personally, if I find I have some time for Rave I'll
>> > > probably spend that time just implementing what is at the top of my
>> > > personal agenda.
>> > >
>> > > Finally, with respect to your mail that has had no response, lazy
>> > > consensus means that no objections means agreement. I've reviewed
>your
>> > > mail but don't have any opinion on it since I have not reviewed or
>> > > tested your code. But you are a committer so I'm +0 on supporting your
>> > > recommendations (not +1 as I don't have the time top properly review).
>> > > If you want a little more explicit support for the proposed merge then
>> > > post a reply to your own mail saying "no feedback so I assume all is
>> > > good. I'm going to merge in the next few days". That will bring it
>> > > back to the top of peoples inboxes and possibly prompt more review.
>> > > Finally, once you have done the merge if it all goes wrong or someone
>> > > wants to object for a solid technical reason the changes can be rolled
>> > > back.
>> > >
>> > > In summary, you are a committer. We operate a commit then review
>> > > policy here so don't be afraid to just get on with it :-)
>> > >
>> > > Ross
>> > >
>> > > On 25 October 2012 17:13, Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com> wrote:
>> > >> Over the past couple months there has been a growing worry of mine
>> that
>> > we
>> > >> are loosing some momentum/cohesiveness as a team. As a metric, if
>you
>> > look
>> > >> at the dev mailing list, the traffic for the past three months has
>> been
>> > >> very low (September was awful). What finally spurred me to send this
>> > >> message was the fact that I sent an email [1] on October 13th, asking
>> > for
>> > >> some help reviewing a major change Matt and I had been working on
>and
>> > >> haven't gotten a single response. I know it's not a sexy change but
>> it's
>> > >> something that people thought was a good idea when it was proposed
>a
>> > while
>> > >> back. What I don't know is if the lack of response is because people
>> are
>> > >> too busy, they don't care or they don't support the change but don't
>> > want
>> > >> to say that. The third option would concern me the most since we
>> should
>> > >> feel free to provide feedback, both positive and negative.
>> > >>
>> > >> My suspicion is that people are just swamped at their day jobs and
>> Rave
>> > has
>> > >> taken back (maybe far back) seat to normal life which is
>> understandable.
>> > >> With that knowledge though, as a PMC we should probably spend
>some
>> time
>> > >> really coming up with a priority list of items we agree need to get
>> done<
Re: Rave Momentum & Engagement
Posted by Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com>.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu> wrote:
> On 10/25/2012 07:44 PM, Chris Geer wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, October 25, 2012, Jasha Joachimsthal wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>>
>>> it has been more quiet indeed on the mailinglist, but there is still a
>>> lot
>>> of development going on. We now have 2 branches and a sandbox for the
>>> model
>>> split, MongoDB and content services. I hope they will merge into trunk
>>> soon, so it's more visible that new functionality is developed, and it
>>> will
>>> decrease the chance of merge problems.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You are right, maybe "momentum" was the wrong word choice. Maybe
>> collaboration would have been better. I'm with you, I look forward to
>> getting some of these major overhauls integrated. Just in time for the
>> next
>> round of major overhauls :)
>>
>> Right :)
>
> Let me first say I fully agree with the feedback from Ross and the
> thoughts about the practicalities of a roadmap. I'm all for cleaning and
> clearing up our longer term goals. Some of which maybe are outdated or no
> longer desired. And reaching agreement on a short term and practical
> feature set for a 1.0 release seems good to strive for.
>
At the end of the day, I also agree having a long term roadmap isn't
useful, I just picked it as a term because everyone understands the concept
and we have one on our wiki (kind of). I guess my intent was to get people
thinking about the big impact changes we wanted to see before 1.0.
>
> I also agree having multiple major overhauls in separate branches doesn't
> seem to work well from a collaboration and community perspective.
> Especially not if they are too widely scoped, experimental or time
> consuming, like what I think the content integration sandbox turned out to
> be.
> Maybe we should strive for not spawning off more than one active branch at
> a time? And keep them as short-lived and concretely scoped as possible.
>
Well said, if I could just take parts of everyone's responses and redo my
email I think it would have been much better :) Maybe after we get the
model-split branch merged, and content-services wraps up we can really dig
into any major things we want to see over the next couple months.
>
> With respect to our sandbox work for content services integration: I'm in
> the process of wrapping that up, technically I think it is about done (for
> a sandbox) and IMO worked out quite well actually. But it also gave us some
> new insights causing us to pause and ponder a bit more about how to proceed
> from here. And that very much does relate to the roadmap and how we want to
> leverage and integrate Rave in our environments.
> Not going into detail here now, I will come back on this next week and
> start the discussion about if or how to merge and integrate some or all of
> these features into the trunk.
I'm looking forward to seeing this.
>
> Ate
>
>
>>> On 25 October 2012 18:55, Raminderjeet Singh <raminderjsingh@gmail.com<*
>>> *javascript:;>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks Chris for taking a lead to identify the problems with Rave
>>>> activities and Roadmap. I think everyone will agree with you here. I
>>>>
>>> admit
>>>
>>>> that i missed your email Model Split email. We have requirements where
>>>> we
>>>> want to customize user model so i will take a look at the branch this
>>>>
>>> week.
>>>
>>>> I volunteer for the feedback.
>>>>
>>>> My 2 cents on development activity is we need to set some Roadmap for
>>>>
>>> Rave
>>>
>>>> 1.0( a wish list). We should not keep going with 0.xx. That will bring
>>>> everyone back with their choices about Rave 1.0. We can setup some
>>>> developer hackathon using Google hangout etc between now and ApacheCon.
>>>>
>>> We
>>>
>>>> made a great presence in ApacheCon 2011. We need to do the same for
>>>> ApacheCon 13. ApacheCon can be set as a milestone for Rave 1.0 (just an
>>>> idea). To achieve that milestone community need to start talk about 1.0
>>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>> document it on wiki [1]. We need to expand on little details on
>>>> architecture documents also for new users to start.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The next ApacheCon starts in 10 days ;) Unfortunately I can't be there,
>>> but
>>> would love to join a hangout in one of the evenings. I know some of the
>>> other Rave committers will be there.
>>>
>>> Jasha
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I agree with Ross that we can better spend time implementing than
>>>> documenting but have a wish list for 1.0 can give a better direction to
>>>>
>>> the
>>>
>>>> community.
>>>>
>>>> 1. http://wiki.apache.org/rave/**RoadMap<http://wiki.apache.org/rave/RoadMap>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Raminder
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 25, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm a little out of touch with Rave as I'm busy elsewhere, as you
>>>>> surmise many people in your thoughtful mail below.
>>>>>
>>>>> In general though it is normal for a community to go quiet
>>>>> periodically. Things tend to happen in waves. When one individual gets
>>>>> busy they motivate others to get busy simply through their actions.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm never much of a fan of roadmaps being formally defined by a PMC. A
>>>>> projects roadmap is set by the people with time to work on it at that
>>>>> point in time. Putting a list of things that the PMC considers
>>>>> important on a website doesn't make those things happen. That being
>>>>> said, a little periodic re-evaluation of objectives and updating of
>>>>> the website certainly doesn't hurt. For example, I noticed that the
>>>>> home page still reflects the very high level roadmap that was defined
>>>>> during at proposal to the incubator. Some of the items on the "future"
>>>>> list have been implemented. Of course, I could have updated the home
>>>>> page when I noticed this, but I didn't because I was too busy at the
>>>>> time (and still am).
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have the time and the desire to define a roadmap that you think
>>>>> is important and you wish to ask for feedback on roadmap then go for
>>>>> it. However, personally, if I find I have some time for Rave I'll
>>>>> probably spend that time just implementing what is at the top of my
>>>>> personal agenda.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, with respect to your mail that has had no response, lazy
>>>>> consensus means that no objections means agreement. I've reviewed your
>>>>> mail but don't have any opinion on it since I have not reviewed or
>>>>> tested your code. But you are a committer so I'm +0 on supporting your
>>>>> recommendations (not +1 as I don't have the time top properly review).
>>>>> If you want a little more explicit support for the proposed merge then
>>>>> post a reply to your own mail saying "no feedback so I assume all is
>>>>> good. I'm going to merge in the next few days". That will bring it
>>>>> back to the top of peoples inboxes and possibly prompt more review.
>>>>> Finally, once you have done the merge if it all goes wrong or someone
>>>>> wants to object for a solid technical reason the changes can be rolled
>>>>> back.
>>>>>
>>>>> In summary, you are a committer. We operate a commit then review
>>>>> policy here so don't be afraid to just get on with it :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Ross
>>>>>
>>>>> On 25 October 2012 17:13, Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Over the past couple months there has been a growing worry of mine
>>>>>>
>>>>> that
>>>
>>>> we
>>>>
>>>>> are loosing some momentum/cohesiveness as a team. As a metric, if you
>>>>>>
>>>>> look
>>>>
>>>>> at the dev mailing list, the traffic for the past three months has
>>>>>>
>>>>> been
>>>
>>>> very low (September was awful). What finally spurred me to send this
>>>>>> message was the fact that I sent an email [1] on October 13th, asking
>>>>>>
>>>>> for
>>>>
>>>>> some help reviewing a major change Matt and I had been working on and
>>>>>> haven't gotten a single response. I know it's not a sexy change but
>>>>>>
>>>>> it's
>>>
>>>> something that people thought was a good idea when it was proposed a
>>>>>>
>>>>> while
>>>>
>>>>> back. What I don't know is if the lack of response is because people
>>>>>>
>>>>> are
>>>
>>>> too busy, they don't care or they don't support the change but don't
>>>>>>
>>>>> want
>>>>
>>>>> to say that. The third option would concern me the most since we
>>>>>>
>>>>> should
>>>
>>>> feel free to provide feedback, both positive and negative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My suspicion is that people are just swamped at their day jobs and
>>>>>>
>>>>> Rave
>>>
>>>> has
>>>>
>>>>> taken back (maybe far back) seat to normal life which is
>>>>>>
>>>>> understandable.
>>>
>>>> With that knowledge though, as a PMC we should probably spend some
>>>>>>
>>>>> time
>>>
>>>> really coming up with a priority list of items we agree need to get
>>>>>>
>>>>> done<
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Rave Momentum & Engagement
Posted by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>.
On 10/25/2012 07:44 PM, Chris Geer wrote:
> On Thursday, October 25, 2012, Jasha Joachimsthal wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>> it has been more quiet indeed on the mailinglist, but there is still a lot
>> of development going on. We now have 2 branches and a sandbox for the model
>> split, MongoDB and content services. I hope they will merge into trunk
>> soon, so it's more visible that new functionality is developed, and it will
>> decrease the chance of merge problems.
>
>
> You are right, maybe "momentum" was the wrong word choice. Maybe
> collaboration would have been better. I'm with you, I look forward to
> getting some of these major overhauls integrated. Just in time for the next
> round of major overhauls :)
>
Right :)
Let me first say I fully agree with the feedback from Ross and the thoughts
about the practicalities of a roadmap. I'm all for cleaning and clearing up our
longer term goals. Some of which maybe are outdated or no longer desired. And
reaching agreement on a short term and practical feature set for a 1.0 release
seems good to strive for.
I also agree having multiple major overhauls in separate branches doesn't seem
to work well from a collaboration and community perspective. Especially not if
they are too widely scoped, experimental or time consuming, like what I think
the content integration sandbox turned out to be.
Maybe we should strive for not spawning off more than one active branch at a
time? And keep them as short-lived and concretely scoped as possible.
With respect to our sandbox work for content services integration: I'm in the
process of wrapping that up, technically I think it is about done (for a
sandbox) and IMO worked out quite well actually. But it also gave us some new
insights causing us to pause and ponder a bit more about how to proceed from
here. And that very much does relate to the roadmap and how we want to leverage
and integrate Rave in our environments.
Not going into detail here now, I will come back on this next week and start the
discussion about if or how to merge and integrate some or all of these features
into the trunk.
Ate
>>
>> On 25 October 2012 18:55, Raminderjeet Singh <raminderjsingh@gmail.com<javascript:;>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Chris for taking a lead to identify the problems with Rave
>>> activities and Roadmap. I think everyone will agree with you here. I
>> admit
>>> that i missed your email Model Split email. We have requirements where we
>>> want to customize user model so i will take a look at the branch this
>> week.
>>> I volunteer for the feedback.
>>>
>>> My 2 cents on development activity is we need to set some Roadmap for
>> Rave
>>> 1.0( a wish list). We should not keep going with 0.xx. That will bring
>>> everyone back with their choices about Rave 1.0. We can setup some
>>> developer hackathon using Google hangout etc between now and ApacheCon.
>> We
>>> made a great presence in ApacheCon 2011. We need to do the same for
>>> ApacheCon 13. ApacheCon can be set as a milestone for Rave 1.0 (just an
>>> idea). To achieve that milestone community need to start talk about 1.0
>> and
>>> document it on wiki [1]. We need to expand on little details on
>>> architecture documents also for new users to start.
>>>
>>
>> The next ApacheCon starts in 10 days ;) Unfortunately I can't be there, but
>> would love to join a hangout in one of the evenings. I know some of the
>> other Rave committers will be there.
>>
>> Jasha
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I agree with Ross that we can better spend time implementing than
>>> documenting but have a wish list for 1.0 can give a better direction to
>> the
>>> community.
>>>
>>> 1. http://wiki.apache.org/rave/RoadMap
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Raminder
>>>
>>> On Oct 25, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm a little out of touch with Rave as I'm busy elsewhere, as you
>>>> surmise many people in your thoughtful mail below.
>>>>
>>>> In general though it is normal for a community to go quiet
>>>> periodically. Things tend to happen in waves. When one individual gets
>>>> busy they motivate others to get busy simply through their actions.
>>>>
>>>> I'm never much of a fan of roadmaps being formally defined by a PMC. A
>>>> projects roadmap is set by the people with time to work on it at that
>>>> point in time. Putting a list of things that the PMC considers
>>>> important on a website doesn't make those things happen. That being
>>>> said, a little periodic re-evaluation of objectives and updating of
>>>> the website certainly doesn't hurt. For example, I noticed that the
>>>> home page still reflects the very high level roadmap that was defined
>>>> during at proposal to the incubator. Some of the items on the "future"
>>>> list have been implemented. Of course, I could have updated the home
>>>> page when I noticed this, but I didn't because I was too busy at the
>>>> time (and still am).
>>>>
>>>> If you have the time and the desire to define a roadmap that you think
>>>> is important and you wish to ask for feedback on roadmap then go for
>>>> it. However, personally, if I find I have some time for Rave I'll
>>>> probably spend that time just implementing what is at the top of my
>>>> personal agenda.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, with respect to your mail that has had no response, lazy
>>>> consensus means that no objections means agreement. I've reviewed your
>>>> mail but don't have any opinion on it since I have not reviewed or
>>>> tested your code. But you are a committer so I'm +0 on supporting your
>>>> recommendations (not +1 as I don't have the time top properly review).
>>>> If you want a little more explicit support for the proposed merge then
>>>> post a reply to your own mail saying "no feedback so I assume all is
>>>> good. I'm going to merge in the next few days". That will bring it
>>>> back to the top of peoples inboxes and possibly prompt more review.
>>>> Finally, once you have done the merge if it all goes wrong or someone
>>>> wants to object for a solid technical reason the changes can be rolled
>>>> back.
>>>>
>>>> In summary, you are a committer. We operate a commit then review
>>>> policy here so don't be afraid to just get on with it :-)
>>>>
>>>> Ross
>>>>
>>>> On 25 October 2012 17:13, Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com> wrote:
>>>>> Over the past couple months there has been a growing worry of mine
>> that
>>> we
>>>>> are loosing some momentum/cohesiveness as a team. As a metric, if you
>>> look
>>>>> at the dev mailing list, the traffic for the past three months has
>> been
>>>>> very low (September was awful). What finally spurred me to send this
>>>>> message was the fact that I sent an email [1] on October 13th, asking
>>> for
>>>>> some help reviewing a major change Matt and I had been working on and
>>>>> haven't gotten a single response. I know it's not a sexy change but
>> it's
>>>>> something that people thought was a good idea when it was proposed a
>>> while
>>>>> back. What I don't know is if the lack of response is because people
>> are
>>>>> too busy, they don't care or they don't support the change but don't
>>> want
>>>>> to say that. The third option would concern me the most since we
>> should
>>>>> feel free to provide feedback, both positive and negative.
>>>>>
>>>>> My suspicion is that people are just swamped at their day jobs and
>> Rave
>>> has
>>>>> taken back (maybe far back) seat to normal life which is
>> understandable.
>>>>> With that knowledge though, as a PMC we should probably spend some
>> time
>>>>> really coming up with a priority list of items we agree need to get
>> done<
>
Re: Rave Momentum & Engagement
Posted by Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com>.
On Thursday, October 25, 2012, Jasha Joachimsthal wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> it has been more quiet indeed on the mailinglist, but there is still a lot
> of development going on. We now have 2 branches and a sandbox for the model
> split, MongoDB and content services. I hope they will merge into trunk
> soon, so it's more visible that new functionality is developed, and it will
> decrease the chance of merge problems.
You are right, maybe "momentum" was the wrong word choice. Maybe
collaboration would have been better. I'm with you, I look forward to
getting some of these major overhauls integrated. Just in time for the next
round of major overhauls :)
>
> On 25 October 2012 18:55, Raminderjeet Singh <raminderjsingh@gmail.com<javascript:;>
> >wrote:
>
> > Thanks Chris for taking a lead to identify the problems with Rave
> > activities and Roadmap. I think everyone will agree with you here. I
> admit
> > that i missed your email Model Split email. We have requirements where we
> > want to customize user model so i will take a look at the branch this
> week.
> > I volunteer for the feedback.
> >
> > My 2 cents on development activity is we need to set some Roadmap for
> Rave
> > 1.0( a wish list). We should not keep going with 0.xx. That will bring
> > everyone back with their choices about Rave 1.0. We can setup some
> > developer hackathon using Google hangout etc between now and ApacheCon.
> We
> > made a great presence in ApacheCon 2011. We need to do the same for
> > ApacheCon 13. ApacheCon can be set as a milestone for Rave 1.0 (just an
> > idea). To achieve that milestone community need to start talk about 1.0
> and
> > document it on wiki [1]. We need to expand on little details on
> > architecture documents also for new users to start.
> >
>
> The next ApacheCon starts in 10 days ;) Unfortunately I can't be there, but
> would love to join a hangout in one of the evenings. I know some of the
> other Rave committers will be there.
>
> Jasha
>
>
> >
> > I agree with Ross that we can better spend time implementing than
> > documenting but have a wish list for 1.0 can give a better direction to
> the
> > community.
> >
> > 1. http://wiki.apache.org/rave/RoadMap
> >
> > Thanks
> > Raminder
> >
> > On Oct 25, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >
> > > I'm a little out of touch with Rave as I'm busy elsewhere, as you
> > > surmise many people in your thoughtful mail below.
> > >
> > > In general though it is normal for a community to go quiet
> > > periodically. Things tend to happen in waves. When one individual gets
> > > busy they motivate others to get busy simply through their actions.
> > >
> > > I'm never much of a fan of roadmaps being formally defined by a PMC. A
> > > projects roadmap is set by the people with time to work on it at that
> > > point in time. Putting a list of things that the PMC considers
> > > important on a website doesn't make those things happen. That being
> > > said, a little periodic re-evaluation of objectives and updating of
> > > the website certainly doesn't hurt. For example, I noticed that the
> > > home page still reflects the very high level roadmap that was defined
> > > during at proposal to the incubator. Some of the items on the "future"
> > > list have been implemented. Of course, I could have updated the home
> > > page when I noticed this, but I didn't because I was too busy at the
> > > time (and still am).
> > >
> > > If you have the time and the desire to define a roadmap that you think
> > > is important and you wish to ask for feedback on roadmap then go for
> > > it. However, personally, if I find I have some time for Rave I'll
> > > probably spend that time just implementing what is at the top of my
> > > personal agenda.
> > >
> > > Finally, with respect to your mail that has had no response, lazy
> > > consensus means that no objections means agreement. I've reviewed your
> > > mail but don't have any opinion on it since I have not reviewed or
> > > tested your code. But you are a committer so I'm +0 on supporting your
> > > recommendations (not +1 as I don't have the time top properly review).
> > > If you want a little more explicit support for the proposed merge then
> > > post a reply to your own mail saying "no feedback so I assume all is
> > > good. I'm going to merge in the next few days". That will bring it
> > > back to the top of peoples inboxes and possibly prompt more review.
> > > Finally, once you have done the merge if it all goes wrong or someone
> > > wants to object for a solid technical reason the changes can be rolled
> > > back.
> > >
> > > In summary, you are a committer. We operate a commit then review
> > > policy here so don't be afraid to just get on with it :-)
> > >
> > > Ross
> > >
> > > On 25 October 2012 17:13, Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com> wrote:
> > >> Over the past couple months there has been a growing worry of mine
> that
> > we
> > >> are loosing some momentum/cohesiveness as a team. As a metric, if you
> > look
> > >> at the dev mailing list, the traffic for the past three months has
> been
> > >> very low (September was awful). What finally spurred me to send this
> > >> message was the fact that I sent an email [1] on October 13th, asking
> > for
> > >> some help reviewing a major change Matt and I had been working on and
> > >> haven't gotten a single response. I know it's not a sexy change but
> it's
> > >> something that people thought was a good idea when it was proposed a
> > while
> > >> back. What I don't know is if the lack of response is because people
> are
> > >> too busy, they don't care or they don't support the change but don't
> > want
> > >> to say that. The third option would concern me the most since we
> should
> > >> feel free to provide feedback, both positive and negative.
> > >>
> > >> My suspicion is that people are just swamped at their day jobs and
> Rave
> > has
> > >> taken back (maybe far back) seat to normal life which is
> understandable.
> > >> With that knowledge though, as a PMC we should probably spend some
> time
> > >> really coming up with a priority list of items we agree need to get
> done<
Re: Rave Momentum & Engagement
Posted by Jasha Joachimsthal <ja...@apache.org>.
Hi Chris,
it has been more quiet indeed on the mailinglist, but there is still a lot
of development going on. We now have 2 branches and a sandbox for the model
split, MongoDB and content services. I hope they will merge into trunk
soon, so it's more visible that new functionality is developed, and it will
decrease the chance of merge problems.
On 25 October 2012 18:55, Raminderjeet Singh <ra...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Thanks Chris for taking a lead to identify the problems with Rave
> activities and Roadmap. I think everyone will agree with you here. I admit
> that i missed your email Model Split email. We have requirements where we
> want to customize user model so i will take a look at the branch this week.
> I volunteer for the feedback.
>
> My 2 cents on development activity is we need to set some Roadmap for Rave
> 1.0( a wish list). We should not keep going with 0.xx. That will bring
> everyone back with their choices about Rave 1.0. We can setup some
> developer hackathon using Google hangout etc between now and ApacheCon. We
> made a great presence in ApacheCon 2011. We need to do the same for
> ApacheCon 13. ApacheCon can be set as a milestone for Rave 1.0 (just an
> idea). To achieve that milestone community need to start talk about 1.0 and
> document it on wiki [1]. We need to expand on little details on
> architecture documents also for new users to start.
>
The next ApacheCon starts in 10 days ;) Unfortunately I can't be there, but
would love to join a hangout in one of the evenings. I know some of the
other Rave committers will be there.
Jasha
>
> I agree with Ross that we can better spend time implementing than
> documenting but have a wish list for 1.0 can give a better direction to the
> community.
>
> 1. http://wiki.apache.org/rave/RoadMap
>
> Thanks
> Raminder
>
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> > I'm a little out of touch with Rave as I'm busy elsewhere, as you
> > surmise many people in your thoughtful mail below.
> >
> > In general though it is normal for a community to go quiet
> > periodically. Things tend to happen in waves. When one individual gets
> > busy they motivate others to get busy simply through their actions.
> >
> > I'm never much of a fan of roadmaps being formally defined by a PMC. A
> > projects roadmap is set by the people with time to work on it at that
> > point in time. Putting a list of things that the PMC considers
> > important on a website doesn't make those things happen. That being
> > said, a little periodic re-evaluation of objectives and updating of
> > the website certainly doesn't hurt. For example, I noticed that the
> > home page still reflects the very high level roadmap that was defined
> > during at proposal to the incubator. Some of the items on the "future"
> > list have been implemented. Of course, I could have updated the home
> > page when I noticed this, but I didn't because I was too busy at the
> > time (and still am).
> >
> > If you have the time and the desire to define a roadmap that you think
> > is important and you wish to ask for feedback on roadmap then go for
> > it. However, personally, if I find I have some time for Rave I'll
> > probably spend that time just implementing what is at the top of my
> > personal agenda.
> >
> > Finally, with respect to your mail that has had no response, lazy
> > consensus means that no objections means agreement. I've reviewed your
> > mail but don't have any opinion on it since I have not reviewed or
> > tested your code. But you are a committer so I'm +0 on supporting your
> > recommendations (not +1 as I don't have the time top properly review).
> > If you want a little more explicit support for the proposed merge then
> > post a reply to your own mail saying "no feedback so I assume all is
> > good. I'm going to merge in the next few days". That will bring it
> > back to the top of peoples inboxes and possibly prompt more review.
> > Finally, once you have done the merge if it all goes wrong or someone
> > wants to object for a solid technical reason the changes can be rolled
> > back.
> >
> > In summary, you are a committer. We operate a commit then review
> > policy here so don't be afraid to just get on with it :-)
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > On 25 October 2012 17:13, Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com> wrote:
> >> Over the past couple months there has been a growing worry of mine that
> we
> >> are loosing some momentum/cohesiveness as a team. As a metric, if you
> look
> >> at the dev mailing list, the traffic for the past three months has been
> >> very low (September was awful). What finally spurred me to send this
> >> message was the fact that I sent an email [1] on October 13th, asking
> for
> >> some help reviewing a major change Matt and I had been working on and
> >> haven't gotten a single response. I know it's not a sexy change but it's
> >> something that people thought was a good idea when it was proposed a
> while
> >> back. What I don't know is if the lack of response is because people are
> >> too busy, they don't care or they don't support the change but don't
> want
> >> to say that. The third option would concern me the most since we should
> >> feel free to provide feedback, both positive and negative.
> >>
> >> My suspicion is that people are just swamped at their day jobs and Rave
> has
> >> taken back (maybe far back) seat to normal life which is understandable.
> >> With that knowledge though, as a PMC we should probably spend some time
> >> really coming up with a priority list of items we agree need to get done
> >> and bubble those to the top of the queue over the next few months.
> Roadmap
> >> anyone?
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >> [1]
> >>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/rave-dev/201210.mbox/%3CCAFNO4Hh5LH37p9dD9P=W3MGQ=HECq-D4+LVqmsTpiHdDfHAn3A@mail.gmail.com%3E
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> > Programme Leader (Open Development)
> > OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
>
Re: Rave Momentum & Engagement
Posted by Raminderjeet Singh <ra...@gmail.com>.
Thanks Chris for taking a lead to identify the problems with Rave activities and Roadmap. I think everyone will agree with you here. I admit that i missed your email Model Split email. We have requirements where we want to customize user model so i will take a look at the branch this week. I volunteer for the feedback.
My 2 cents on development activity is we need to set some Roadmap for Rave 1.0( a wish list). We should not keep going with 0.xx. That will bring everyone back with their choices about Rave 1.0. We can setup some developer hackathon using Google hangout etc between now and ApacheCon. We made a great presence in ApacheCon 2011. We need to do the same for ApacheCon 13. ApacheCon can be set as a milestone for Rave 1.0 (just an idea). To achieve that milestone community need to start talk about 1.0 and document it on wiki [1]. We need to expand on little details on architecture documents also for new users to start.
I agree with Ross that we can better spend time implementing than documenting but have a wish list for 1.0 can give a better direction to the community.
1. http://wiki.apache.org/rave/RoadMap
Thanks
Raminder
On Oct 25, 2012, at 12:36 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> I'm a little out of touch with Rave as I'm busy elsewhere, as you
> surmise many people in your thoughtful mail below.
>
> In general though it is normal for a community to go quiet
> periodically. Things tend to happen in waves. When one individual gets
> busy they motivate others to get busy simply through their actions.
>
> I'm never much of a fan of roadmaps being formally defined by a PMC. A
> projects roadmap is set by the people with time to work on it at that
> point in time. Putting a list of things that the PMC considers
> important on a website doesn't make those things happen. That being
> said, a little periodic re-evaluation of objectives and updating of
> the website certainly doesn't hurt. For example, I noticed that the
> home page still reflects the very high level roadmap that was defined
> during at proposal to the incubator. Some of the items on the "future"
> list have been implemented. Of course, I could have updated the home
> page when I noticed this, but I didn't because I was too busy at the
> time (and still am).
>
> If you have the time and the desire to define a roadmap that you think
> is important and you wish to ask for feedback on roadmap then go for
> it. However, personally, if I find I have some time for Rave I'll
> probably spend that time just implementing what is at the top of my
> personal agenda.
>
> Finally, with respect to your mail that has had no response, lazy
> consensus means that no objections means agreement. I've reviewed your
> mail but don't have any opinion on it since I have not reviewed or
> tested your code. But you are a committer so I'm +0 on supporting your
> recommendations (not +1 as I don't have the time top properly review).
> If you want a little more explicit support for the proposed merge then
> post a reply to your own mail saying "no feedback so I assume all is
> good. I'm going to merge in the next few days". That will bring it
> back to the top of peoples inboxes and possibly prompt more review.
> Finally, once you have done the merge if it all goes wrong or someone
> wants to object for a solid technical reason the changes can be rolled
> back.
>
> In summary, you are a committer. We operate a commit then review
> policy here so don't be afraid to just get on with it :-)
>
> Ross
>
> On 25 October 2012 17:13, Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com> wrote:
>> Over the past couple months there has been a growing worry of mine that we
>> are loosing some momentum/cohesiveness as a team. As a metric, if you look
>> at the dev mailing list, the traffic for the past three months has been
>> very low (September was awful). What finally spurred me to send this
>> message was the fact that I sent an email [1] on October 13th, asking for
>> some help reviewing a major change Matt and I had been working on and
>> haven't gotten a single response. I know it's not a sexy change but it's
>> something that people thought was a good idea when it was proposed a while
>> back. What I don't know is if the lack of response is because people are
>> too busy, they don't care or they don't support the change but don't want
>> to say that. The third option would concern me the most since we should
>> feel free to provide feedback, both positive and negative.
>>
>> My suspicion is that people are just swamped at their day jobs and Rave has
>> taken back (maybe far back) seat to normal life which is understandable.
>> With that knowledge though, as a PMC we should probably spend some time
>> really coming up with a priority list of items we agree need to get done
>> and bubble those to the top of the queue over the next few months. Roadmap
>> anyone?
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> [1]
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/rave-dev/201210.mbox/%3CCAFNO4Hh5LH37p9dD9P=W3MGQ=HECq-D4+LVqmsTpiHdDfHAn3A@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
RE: Rave Momentum & Engagement
Posted by "Franklin, Matthew B." <mf...@mitre.org>.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ross Gardler [mailto:rgardler@opendirective.com]
>Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2012 12:37 PM
>To: dev@rave.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Rave Momentum & Engagement
>
>I'm a little out of touch with Rave as I'm busy elsewhere, as you
>surmise many people in your thoughtful mail below.
>
>In general though it is normal for a community to go quiet
>periodically. Things tend to happen in waves. When one individual gets
>busy they motivate others to get busy simply through their actions.
>
>I'm never much of a fan of roadmaps being formally defined by a PMC. A
>projects roadmap is set by the people with time to work on it at that
>point in time. Putting a list of things that the PMC considers
>important on a website doesn't make those things happen. That being
>said, a little periodic re-evaluation of objectives and updating of
>the website certainly doesn't hurt. For example, I noticed that the
>home page still reflects the very high level roadmap that was defined
>during at proposal to the incubator. Some of the items on the "future"
>list have been implemented. Of course, I could have updated the home
>page when I noticed this, but I didn't because I was too busy at the
>time (and still am).
>
>If you have the time and the desire to define a roadmap that you think
>is important and you wish to ask for feedback on roadmap then go for
>it. However, personally, if I find I have some time for Rave I'll
>probably spend that time just implementing what is at the top of my
>personal agenda.
I completely agree that we don't want to have an overly constrained roadmap, but I do think we need to have some consistency in general direction and what that means in terms of major milestone releases (capability, not timeframe). As you say, this can be just a set of high-level items like we have on the homepage. IMO, an updated website with a few goals and status help pull in new community members to help drive the project forward with their own agendas.
>
>Finally, with respect to your mail that has had no response, lazy
>consensus means that no objections means agreement. I've reviewed your
>mail but don't have any opinion on it since I have not reviewed or
>tested your code. But you are a committer so I'm +0 on supporting your
>recommendations (not +1 as I don't have the time top properly review).
>If you want a little more explicit support for the proposed merge then
>post a reply to your own mail saying "no feedback so I assume all is
>good. I'm going to merge in the next few days". That will bring it
>back to the top of peoples inboxes and possibly prompt more review.
>Finally, once you have done the merge if it all goes wrong or someone
>wants to object for a solid technical reason the changes can be rolled
>back.
+1
>
>In summary, you are a committer. We operate a commit then review
>policy here so don't be afraid to just get on with it :-)
>
>Ross
>
>On 25 October 2012 17:13, Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com> wrote:
>> Over the past couple months there has been a growing worry of mine that
>we
>> are loosing some momentum/cohesiveness as a team. As a metric, if you
>look
>> at the dev mailing list, the traffic for the past three months has been
>> very low (September was awful). What finally spurred me to send this
>> message was the fact that I sent an email [1] on October 13th, asking for
>> some help reviewing a major change Matt and I had been working on and
>> haven't gotten a single response. I know it's not a sexy change but it's
>> something that people thought was a good idea when it was proposed a
>while
>> back. What I don't know is if the lack of response is because people are
>> too busy, they don't care or they don't support the change but don't want
>> to say that. The third option would concern me the most since we should
>> feel free to provide feedback, both positive and negative.
>>
>> My suspicion is that people are just swamped at their day jobs and Rave has
>> taken back (maybe far back) seat to normal life which is understandable.
>> With that knowledge though, as a PMC we should probably spend some
>time
>> really coming up with a priority list of items we agree need to get done
>> and bubble those to the top of the queue over the next few months.
>Roadmap
>> anyone?
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> [1]
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/rave-
>dev/201210.mbox/%3CCAFNO4Hh5LH37p9dD9P=W3MGQ=HECq-
>D4+LVqmsTpiHdDfHAn3A@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
>
>
>--
>Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>Programme Leader (Open Development)
>OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
Re: Rave Momentum & Engagement
Posted by Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com>.
Ross, thanks for the feedback.
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>wrote:
> I'm a little out of touch with Rave as I'm busy elsewhere, as you
> surmise many people in your thoughtful mail below.
>
> In general though it is normal for a community to go quiet
> periodically. Things tend to happen in waves. When one individual gets
> busy they motivate others to get busy simply through their actions.
>
> I'm never much of a fan of roadmaps being formally defined by a PMC. A
> projects roadmap is set by the people with time to work on it at that
> point in time. Putting a list of things that the PMC considers
> important on a website doesn't make those things happen. That being
> said, a little periodic re-evaluation of objectives and updating of
> the website certainly doesn't hurt. For example, I noticed that the
> home page still reflects the very high level roadmap that was defined
> during at proposal to the incubator. Some of the items on the "future"
> list have been implemented. Of course, I could have updated the home
> page when I noticed this, but I didn't because I was too busy at the
> time (and still am).
>
> If you have the time and the desire to define a roadmap that you think
> is important and you wish to ask for feedback on roadmap then go for
> it. However, personally, if I find I have some time for Rave I'll
> probably spend that time just implementing what is at the top of my
> personal agenda.
>
> Finally, with respect to your mail that has had no response, lazy
> consensus means that no objections means agreement. I've reviewed your
> mail but don't have any opinion on it since I have not reviewed or
> tested your code. But you are a committer so I'm +0 on supporting your
> recommendations (not +1 as I don't have the time top properly review).
> If you want a little more explicit support for the proposed merge then
> post a reply to your own mail saying "no feedback so I assume all is
> good. I'm going to merge in the next few days". That will bring it
> back to the top of peoples inboxes and possibly prompt more review.
> Finally, once you have done the merge if it all goes wrong or someone
> wants to object for a solid technical reason the changes can be rolled
> back.
>
Most of the time I'm a huge fan of lazy consensus but in this case, given
the impact of the change, I was trying to be a little more proactive about
review. At this point though I will take your advice and just push forward.
>
> In summary, you are a committer. We operate a commit then review
> policy here so don't be afraid to just get on with it :-)
>
> Ross
>
> On 25 October 2012 17:13, Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com> wrote:
> > Over the past couple months there has been a growing worry of mine that
> we
> > are loosing some momentum/cohesiveness as a team. As a metric, if you
> look
> > at the dev mailing list, the traffic for the past three months has been
> > very low (September was awful). What finally spurred me to send this
> > message was the fact that I sent an email [1] on October 13th, asking for
> > some help reviewing a major change Matt and I had been working on and
> > haven't gotten a single response. I know it's not a sexy change but it's
> > something that people thought was a good idea when it was proposed a
> while
> > back. What I don't know is if the lack of response is because people are
> > too busy, they don't care or they don't support the change but don't want
> > to say that. The third option would concern me the most since we should
> > feel free to provide feedback, both positive and negative.
> >
> > My suspicion is that people are just swamped at their day jobs and Rave
> has
> > taken back (maybe far back) seat to normal life which is understandable.
> > With that knowledge though, as a PMC we should probably spend some time
> > really coming up with a priority list of items we agree need to get done
> > and bubble those to the top of the queue over the next few months.
> Roadmap
> > anyone?
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > [1]
> >
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/rave-dev/201210.mbox/%3CCAFNO4Hh5LH37p9dD9P=W3MGQ=HECq-D4+LVqmsTpiHdDfHAn3A@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
>
>
> --
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
>
Re: Rave Momentum & Engagement
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
I'm a little out of touch with Rave as I'm busy elsewhere, as you
surmise many people in your thoughtful mail below.
In general though it is normal for a community to go quiet
periodically. Things tend to happen in waves. When one individual gets
busy they motivate others to get busy simply through their actions.
I'm never much of a fan of roadmaps being formally defined by a PMC. A
projects roadmap is set by the people with time to work on it at that
point in time. Putting a list of things that the PMC considers
important on a website doesn't make those things happen. That being
said, a little periodic re-evaluation of objectives and updating of
the website certainly doesn't hurt. For example, I noticed that the
home page still reflects the very high level roadmap that was defined
during at proposal to the incubator. Some of the items on the "future"
list have been implemented. Of course, I could have updated the home
page when I noticed this, but I didn't because I was too busy at the
time (and still am).
If you have the time and the desire to define a roadmap that you think
is important and you wish to ask for feedback on roadmap then go for
it. However, personally, if I find I have some time for Rave I'll
probably spend that time just implementing what is at the top of my
personal agenda.
Finally, with respect to your mail that has had no response, lazy
consensus means that no objections means agreement. I've reviewed your
mail but don't have any opinion on it since I have not reviewed or
tested your code. But you are a committer so I'm +0 on supporting your
recommendations (not +1 as I don't have the time top properly review).
If you want a little more explicit support for the proposed merge then
post a reply to your own mail saying "no feedback so I assume all is
good. I'm going to merge in the next few days". That will bring it
back to the top of peoples inboxes and possibly prompt more review.
Finally, once you have done the merge if it all goes wrong or someone
wants to object for a solid technical reason the changes can be rolled
back.
In summary, you are a committer. We operate a commit then review
policy here so don't be afraid to just get on with it :-)
Ross
On 25 October 2012 17:13, Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com> wrote:
> Over the past couple months there has been a growing worry of mine that we
> are loosing some momentum/cohesiveness as a team. As a metric, if you look
> at the dev mailing list, the traffic for the past three months has been
> very low (September was awful). What finally spurred me to send this
> message was the fact that I sent an email [1] on October 13th, asking for
> some help reviewing a major change Matt and I had been working on and
> haven't gotten a single response. I know it's not a sexy change but it's
> something that people thought was a good idea when it was proposed a while
> back. What I don't know is if the lack of response is because people are
> too busy, they don't care or they don't support the change but don't want
> to say that. The third option would concern me the most since we should
> feel free to provide feedback, both positive and negative.
>
> My suspicion is that people are just swamped at their day jobs and Rave has
> taken back (maybe far back) seat to normal life which is understandable.
> With that knowledge though, as a PMC we should probably spend some time
> really coming up with a priority list of items we agree need to get done
> and bubble those to the top of the queue over the next few months. Roadmap
> anyone?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Chris
>
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/rave-dev/201210.mbox/%3CCAFNO4Hh5LH37p9dD9P=W3MGQ=HECq-D4+LVqmsTpiHdDfHAn3A@mail.gmail.com%3E
--
Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
Programme Leader (Open Development)
OpenDirective http://opendirective.com