[REPORT] Lucene Board Report

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

=== Lucene Status Report: Dec 2010 ===

TLP

Simon Willnauer and Koji Sekiguchi were added to the PMC. 
This brings our total to 17 PMC members from 12 different 
companies, spanning the globe. The flagship Lucene/Solr
has 26 total committers from 20 different companies, again
spanning the globe.


Trademarks:
    * Project Naming And Descriptions : 
      We believe this is complete, but are still reviewing.
    * Website Navigation Links : navbar links included, link to www.apache.org
	 included
      Likely complete, but under review.
    * Trademark Attributions : attribution for all ASF marks included in footers, etc.
      The main TLP site is converted, subproject sites have not.  
    * Logos and Graphics : include TM, use consistent product logo on your site
      In progress.  Some have been converted to have TM, some not.  We don't 
      seem to have ready volunteers on the graphical front, so it is slower
      than we'd like
    * Project Metadata : DOAP file checkedin and up to date
      Done

Also, we are beginning the migration to the new ASF CMS, so may push
some of this work to that process.


Issues:
The Lucene.NET subproject community has
been stagnating for some time now and the PMC has stepped in and 
asked the community to respond to growing concerns about the 
viability of the community.  See http://s.apache.org/lucenenet
for the first thread in a very long discussion.  At some point,
we expect Lucene.NET will either apply to be a TLP (after going
back through the Incubator, possibly) or apply for
the Attic (it is clear that the current PMC is not the appropriate place
for it despite the common name since most of us are not .NET users)
and fork off somewhere else under a different name.
See the Lucene.NET section below for more details.  We do not
believe there is any Board action required at this point, but
there likely will be in the not too distant future once the 
community has decided on their future direction.  We do not
hold out much hope for this community since the committers
did not even respond to repeated requests to file it's portion of
this report.


LUCENE JAVA/Solr

Lucene Java is a search-engine toolkit and Solr is a search server
built on top of Lucene. The community is very active.
The community has just released Lucene 2.9.4 and 3.0.3 and is 
actively working on future releases.

Steven Rowe and Adriano Crestani were added as committers this quarter.

LUCENE.NET

Lucene.NET is a .NET based port of Lucene Java.

Open Relevance Project

The Open Relevance Project is a project aimed at providing Lucene
and others tools for judging the quality of search and machine
learning approaches.  The community is not very active, but
we don't expect it to be very high volume either as it is a niche
area.  Having said that, we have discussed if it might be better
served as simply being a part of Lucene/Solr.  

PyLucene

PyLucene is a Python integration of Lucene Java.  Development is
almost entirely an automated port, so this project will never
require a lot of developers.  The user community is active.
The PyLucene 2.9.4 and 3.0.3 releases that reflect the just-occurred Lucene
java releases are ready.

Re: [REPORT] Lucene Board Report

[Grant Ingersoll <gr...@gmail.com>]

Slight amendment.  See snip below.

Thanks,
Grant

On Dec 12, 2010, at 8:02 AM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> 
> Issues:
> The Lucene.NET subproject community has
> been stagnating for some time now and the PMC has stepped in and 
> asked the community to respond to growing concerns about the 
> viability of the community.  See http://s.apache.org/lucenenet
> for the first thread in a very long discussion.  At some point,
> we expect Lucene.NET will either apply to be a TLP (after going
> back through the Incubator, possibly) or apply for
> the Attic (it is clear that the current PMC is not the appropriate place
> for it despite the common name since most of us are not .NET users)
> and fork off somewhere else under a different name.

<remove>
> See the Lucene.NET section below for more details.
</remove>


>  We do not
> believe there is any Board action required at this point, but
> there likely will be in the not too distant future once the 
> community has decided on their future direction.  We do not
> hold out much hope for this community since the committers
> did not even respond to repeated requests to file it's portion of
> this report.