You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@manifoldcf.apache.org by ka...@nokia.com on 2010/08/10 14:05:02 UTC
Project status and name
Folks,
Lucene Connectors Framework is currently an incubating subproject of Lucene. The PMC has indicated that it's not thrilled with the idea of LCF being a subproject, and that its status should change at some point in the future. Note that this status change would be theoretically independent of the project name, but potentially we'd consider changing the project name at that time as well.
There's beginning to be a considerable amount of content floating around that talks about LCF. If there is a possibility of a name change for this project, I'd like to open the discussion as to whether we should change the name, and if so, what to.
FWIW, the only other possibility I've heard mentioned so far is "Apache Connectors Framework".
Thoughts?
Karl
RE: Project status and name
Posted by ka...@nokia.com.
I've posted a question accordingly to general@incubator.a.o.
Karl
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 9:31 AM
To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Project status and name
I think it needs to be brought up on the general@incubator.a.o list. I'm not sure it's ever happened before.
FWIW: I'm +1 on ACF.
On Aug 15, 2010, at 5:16 PM, <ka...@nokia.com> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Grant, what are the next steps here?
> Karl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wright Karl (Nokia-MS/Cambridge)
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 5:53 PM
> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Project status and name
>
> I don't think the name change is tied at all to the incubation status.
>
> Are we ready to call a vote? After much consideration, +1 for ACF.
>
> Karl
>
> ________________________________________
> From: ext Jack Krupansky [jack.krupansky@lucidimagination.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 5:51 PM
> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Project status and name
>
> Any "consensus" on the name change? I am okay with either name. ACF should
> be fine. Presumably the nominal name change is contingent on its project
> status as no longer incubating under Lucene?
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Grant Ingersoll" <gs...@apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 5:19 PM
> To: <co...@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Project status and name
>
>> I'd leave it open for another day or two.
>>
>> -Grant
>>
>> On Aug 10, 2010, at 2:16 PM, <ka...@nokia.com>
>> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Shall we call a vote on the name change? Or should we leave the floor
>>> open for other proposals for a while?
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ext Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:09 PM
>>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Project status and name
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 10, 2010, at 8:05 AM, <ka...@nokia.com>
>>> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> Lucene Connectors Framework is currently an incubating subproject of
>>>> Lucene. The PMC has indicated that it's not thrilled with the idea of
>>>> LCF being a subproject,
>>>
>>> Minor clarification: The PMC hasn't said no at this point, but it also
>>> hasn't been discussed. Given some of the recent restructuring, I was
>>> merely speculating privately to Karl that it likely would not accept it,
>>> but that is not anything official. Not that it needs to be decided now
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> FWIW, the Board isn't usually happy w/ PMC's that are umbrella projects,
>>> with separate SVN, JIRA, etc. See the discussions in the archives
>>> around Mahout, Nutch, Lucy and Tika. When LCF was brought into
>>> incubation, there wasn't as much of a concern as there is now, so it is
>>> not that LCF did anything wrong. Besides, LCF is really independent of
>>> Lucene and useful w/o connecting to search and should have it's own
>>> management anyway.
>>>
>>>> and that its status should change at some point in the future. Note
>>>> that this status change would be theoretically independent of the
>>>> project name, but potentially we'd consider changing the project name at
>>>> that time as well.
>>>>
>>>> There's beginning to be a considerable amount of content floating around
>>>> that talks about LCF. If there is a possibility of a name change for
>>>> this project, I'd like to open the discussion as to whether we should
>>>> change the name, and if so, what to.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, the only other possibility I've heard mentioned so far is "Apache
>>>> Connectors Framework".
>>>
>>> I think this works well and abbreviates nicely to ACF (of course, I was
>>> the one who suggested it, so I'm biased). Note, there is no reason it
>>> can't be called the Lucene Connectors Framework, but that might
>>> pigeonhole it such that people think it only works with Lucene, which
>>> simply isn't true.
>>>
>>> I agree, we should do this change sooner rather than later, if it is
>>> going to be done.
>>>
>>> -Grant
>>
>> --------------------------
>> Grant Ingersoll
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/
>>
>> Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
>>
--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com/
Search the Lucene ecosystem using Solr/Lucene: http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
Re: Project status and name
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
I think it needs to be brought up on the general@incubator.a.o list. I'm not sure it's ever happened before.
FWIW: I'm +1 on ACF.
On Aug 15, 2010, at 5:16 PM, <ka...@nokia.com> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Grant, what are the next steps here?
> Karl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wright Karl (Nokia-MS/Cambridge)
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 5:53 PM
> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Project status and name
>
> I don't think the name change is tied at all to the incubation status.
>
> Are we ready to call a vote? After much consideration, +1 for ACF.
>
> Karl
>
> ________________________________________
> From: ext Jack Krupansky [jack.krupansky@lucidimagination.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 5:51 PM
> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Project status and name
>
> Any "consensus" on the name change? I am okay with either name. ACF should
> be fine. Presumably the nominal name change is contingent on its project
> status as no longer incubating under Lucene?
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Grant Ingersoll" <gs...@apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 5:19 PM
> To: <co...@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Project status and name
>
>> I'd leave it open for another day or two.
>>
>> -Grant
>>
>> On Aug 10, 2010, at 2:16 PM, <ka...@nokia.com>
>> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Shall we call a vote on the name change? Or should we leave the floor
>>> open for other proposals for a while?
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ext Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:09 PM
>>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Project status and name
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 10, 2010, at 8:05 AM, <ka...@nokia.com>
>>> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> Lucene Connectors Framework is currently an incubating subproject of
>>>> Lucene. The PMC has indicated that it's not thrilled with the idea of
>>>> LCF being a subproject,
>>>
>>> Minor clarification: The PMC hasn't said no at this point, but it also
>>> hasn't been discussed. Given some of the recent restructuring, I was
>>> merely speculating privately to Karl that it likely would not accept it,
>>> but that is not anything official. Not that it needs to be decided now
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> FWIW, the Board isn't usually happy w/ PMC's that are umbrella projects,
>>> with separate SVN, JIRA, etc. See the discussions in the archives
>>> around Mahout, Nutch, Lucy and Tika. When LCF was brought into
>>> incubation, there wasn't as much of a concern as there is now, so it is
>>> not that LCF did anything wrong. Besides, LCF is really independent of
>>> Lucene and useful w/o connecting to search and should have it's own
>>> management anyway.
>>>
>>>> and that its status should change at some point in the future. Note
>>>> that this status change would be theoretically independent of the
>>>> project name, but potentially we'd consider changing the project name at
>>>> that time as well.
>>>>
>>>> There's beginning to be a considerable amount of content floating around
>>>> that talks about LCF. If there is a possibility of a name change for
>>>> this project, I'd like to open the discussion as to whether we should
>>>> change the name, and if so, what to.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, the only other possibility I've heard mentioned so far is "Apache
>>>> Connectors Framework".
>>>
>>> I think this works well and abbreviates nicely to ACF (of course, I was
>>> the one who suggested it, so I'm biased). Note, there is no reason it
>>> can't be called the Lucene Connectors Framework, but that might
>>> pigeonhole it such that people think it only works with Lucene, which
>>> simply isn't true.
>>>
>>> I agree, we should do this change sooner rather than later, if it is
>>> going to be done.
>>>
>>> -Grant
>>
>> --------------------------
>> Grant Ingersoll
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/
>>
>> Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
>>
--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com/
Search the Lucene ecosystem using Solr/Lucene: http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
RE: Project status and name
Posted by ka...@nokia.com.
Grant, what are the next steps here?
Karl
-----Original Message-----
From: Wright Karl (Nokia-MS/Cambridge)
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 5:53 PM
To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: Project status and name
I don't think the name change is tied at all to the incubation status.
Are we ready to call a vote? After much consideration, +1 for ACF.
Karl
________________________________________
From: ext Jack Krupansky [jack.krupansky@lucidimagination.com]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 5:51 PM
To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Project status and name
Any "consensus" on the name change? I am okay with either name. ACF should
be fine. Presumably the nominal name change is contingent on its project
status as no longer incubating under Lucene?
-- Jack Krupansky
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Grant Ingersoll" <gs...@apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 5:19 PM
To: <co...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Project status and name
> I'd leave it open for another day or two.
>
> -Grant
>
> On Aug 10, 2010, at 2:16 PM, <ka...@nokia.com>
> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
>
>> Shall we call a vote on the name change? Or should we leave the floor
>> open for other proposals for a while?
>>
>> Karl
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ext Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:09 PM
>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Project status and name
>>
>>
>> On Aug 10, 2010, at 8:05 AM, <ka...@nokia.com>
>> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> Lucene Connectors Framework is currently an incubating subproject of
>>> Lucene. The PMC has indicated that it's not thrilled with the idea of
>>> LCF being a subproject,
>>
>> Minor clarification: The PMC hasn't said no at this point, but it also
>> hasn't been discussed. Given some of the recent restructuring, I was
>> merely speculating privately to Karl that it likely would not accept it,
>> but that is not anything official. Not that it needs to be decided now
>> anyway.
>>
>> FWIW, the Board isn't usually happy w/ PMC's that are umbrella projects,
>> with separate SVN, JIRA, etc. See the discussions in the archives
>> around Mahout, Nutch, Lucy and Tika. When LCF was brought into
>> incubation, there wasn't as much of a concern as there is now, so it is
>> not that LCF did anything wrong. Besides, LCF is really independent of
>> Lucene and useful w/o connecting to search and should have it's own
>> management anyway.
>>
>>> and that its status should change at some point in the future. Note
>>> that this status change would be theoretically independent of the
>>> project name, but potentially we'd consider changing the project name at
>>> that time as well.
>>>
>>> There's beginning to be a considerable amount of content floating around
>>> that talks about LCF. If there is a possibility of a name change for
>>> this project, I'd like to open the discussion as to whether we should
>>> change the name, and if so, what to.
>>>
>>> FWIW, the only other possibility I've heard mentioned so far is "Apache
>>> Connectors Framework".
>>
>> I think this works well and abbreviates nicely to ACF (of course, I was
>> the one who suggested it, so I'm biased). Note, there is no reason it
>> can't be called the Lucene Connectors Framework, but that might
>> pigeonhole it such that people think it only works with Lucene, which
>> simply isn't true.
>>
>> I agree, we should do this change sooner rather than later, if it is
>> going to be done.
>>
>> -Grant
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/
>
> Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
>
Re: Project status and name
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@gmail.com>.
+1 from me too.
On Aug 14, 2010, at 4:17 AM, Simon Willnauer wrote:
> +1
>
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Jack Krupansky <
> jack.krupansky@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 for ACF.
>>
>> -- Jack Krupansky
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: <ka...@nokia.com>
>> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 5:53 PM
>>
>> To: <co...@incubator.apache.org>
>> Subject: RE: Project status and name
>>
>>
>> I don't think the name change is tied at all to the incubation
>> status.
>>>
>>> Are we ready to call a vote? After much consideration, +1 for ACF.
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: ext Jack Krupansky [jack.krupansky@lucidimagination.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 5:51 PM
>>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Project status and name
>>>
>>> Any "consensus" on the name change? I am okay with either name.
>>> ACF should
>>> be fine. Presumably the nominal name change is contingent on its
>>> project
>>> status as no longer incubating under Lucene?
>>>
>>> -- Jack Krupansky
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>> From: "Grant Ingersoll" <gs...@apache.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 5:19 PM
>>> To: <co...@incubator.apache.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Project status and name
>>>
>>> I'd leave it open for another day or two.
>>>>
>>>> -Grant
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 10, 2010, at 2:16 PM, <ka...@nokia.com>
>>>> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Shall we call a vote on the name change? Or should we leave the
>>>> floor
>>>>> open for other proposals for a while?
>>>>>
>>>>> Karl
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: ext Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:09 PM
>>>>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: Project status and name
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 10, 2010, at 8:05 AM, <ka...@nokia.com>
>>>>> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lucene Connectors Framework is currently an incubating
>>>>>> subproject of
>>>>>> Lucene. The PMC has indicated that it's not thrilled with the
>>>>>> idea of
>>>>>> LCF being a subproject,
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Minor clarification: The PMC hasn't said no at this point, but
>>>>> it also
>>>>> hasn't been discussed. Given some of the recent restructuring,
>>>>> I was
>>>>> merely speculating privately to Karl that it likely would not
>>>>> accept it,
>>>>> but that is not anything official. Not that it needs to be
>>>>> decided now
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW, the Board isn't usually happy w/ PMC's that are umbrella
>>>>> projects,
>>>>> with separate SVN, JIRA, etc. See the discussions in the
>>>>> archives
>>>>> around Mahout, Nutch, Lucy and Tika. When LCF was brought into
>>>>> incubation, there wasn't as much of a concern as there is now,
>>>>> so it is
>>>>> not that LCF did anything wrong. Besides, LCF is really
>>>>> independent of
>>>>> Lucene and useful w/o connecting to search and should have it's
>>>>> own
>>>>> management anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> and that its status should change at some point in the future.
>>>>> Note
>>>>>> that this status change would be theoretically independent of the
>>>>>> project name, but potentially we'd consider changing the
>>>>>> project name
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> that time as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's beginning to be a considerable amount of content floating
>>>>>> around
>>>>>> that talks about LCF. If there is a possibility of a name
>>>>>> change for
>>>>>> this project, I'd like to open the discussion as to whether we
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> change the name, and if so, what to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FWIW, the only other possibility I've heard mentioned so far is
>>>>>> "Apache
>>>>>> Connectors Framework".
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this works well and abbreviates nicely to ACF (of
>>>>> course, I was
>>>>> the one who suggested it, so I'm biased). Note, there is no
>>>>> reason it
>>>>> can't be called the Lucene Connectors Framework, but that might
>>>>> pigeonhole it such that people think it only works with Lucene,
>>>>> which
>>>>> simply isn't true.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree, we should do this change sooner rather than later, if
>>>>> it is
>>>>> going to be done.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Grant
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------
>>>> Grant Ingersoll
>>>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/
>>>>
>>>> Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
>>>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
>>>>
>>>>
Re: Project status and name
Posted by Simon Willnauer <si...@googlemail.com>.
+1
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Jack Krupansky <
jack.krupansky@lucidimagination.com> wrote:
> +1 for ACF.
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: <ka...@nokia.com>
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 5:53 PM
>
> To: <co...@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: RE: Project status and name
>
>
> I don't think the name change is tied at all to the incubation status.
>>
>> Are we ready to call a vote? After much consideration, +1 for ACF.
>>
>> Karl
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: ext Jack Krupansky [jack.krupansky@lucidimagination.com]
>> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 5:51 PM
>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Project status and name
>>
>> Any "consensus" on the name change? I am okay with either name. ACF should
>> be fine. Presumably the nominal name change is contingent on its project
>> status as no longer incubating under Lucene?
>>
>> -- Jack Krupansky
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Grant Ingersoll" <gs...@apache.org>
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 5:19 PM
>> To: <co...@incubator.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: Project status and name
>>
>> I'd leave it open for another day or two.
>>>
>>> -Grant
>>>
>>> On Aug 10, 2010, at 2:16 PM, <ka...@nokia.com>
>>> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Shall we call a vote on the name change? Or should we leave the floor
>>>> open for other proposals for a while?
>>>>
>>>> Karl
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: ext Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:09 PM
>>>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: Project status and name
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 10, 2010, at 8:05 AM, <ka...@nokia.com>
>>>> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Lucene Connectors Framework is currently an incubating subproject of
>>>>> Lucene. The PMC has indicated that it's not thrilled with the idea of
>>>>> LCF being a subproject,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Minor clarification: The PMC hasn't said no at this point, but it also
>>>> hasn't been discussed. Given some of the recent restructuring, I was
>>>> merely speculating privately to Karl that it likely would not accept it,
>>>> but that is not anything official. Not that it needs to be decided now
>>>> anyway.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, the Board isn't usually happy w/ PMC's that are umbrella projects,
>>>> with separate SVN, JIRA, etc. See the discussions in the archives
>>>> around Mahout, Nutch, Lucy and Tika. When LCF was brought into
>>>> incubation, there wasn't as much of a concern as there is now, so it is
>>>> not that LCF did anything wrong. Besides, LCF is really independent of
>>>> Lucene and useful w/o connecting to search and should have it's own
>>>> management anyway.
>>>>
>>>> and that its status should change at some point in the future. Note
>>>>> that this status change would be theoretically independent of the
>>>>> project name, but potentially we'd consider changing the project name
>>>>> at
>>>>> that time as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's beginning to be a considerable amount of content floating
>>>>> around
>>>>> that talks about LCF. If there is a possibility of a name change for
>>>>> this project, I'd like to open the discussion as to whether we should
>>>>> change the name, and if so, what to.
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW, the only other possibility I've heard mentioned so far is "Apache
>>>>> Connectors Framework".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think this works well and abbreviates nicely to ACF (of course, I was
>>>> the one who suggested it, so I'm biased). Note, there is no reason it
>>>> can't be called the Lucene Connectors Framework, but that might
>>>> pigeonhole it such that people think it only works with Lucene, which
>>>> simply isn't true.
>>>>
>>>> I agree, we should do this change sooner rather than later, if it is
>>>> going to be done.
>>>>
>>>> -Grant
>>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------
>>> Grant Ingersoll
>>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/
>>>
>>> Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
>>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
>>>
>>>
Re: Project status and name
Posted by Jack Krupansky <ja...@lucidimagination.com>.
+1 for ACF.
-- Jack Krupansky
--------------------------------------------------
From: <ka...@nokia.com>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 5:53 PM
To: <co...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Project status and name
> I don't think the name change is tied at all to the incubation status.
>
> Are we ready to call a vote? After much consideration, +1 for ACF.
>
> Karl
>
> ________________________________________
> From: ext Jack Krupansky [jack.krupansky@lucidimagination.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 5:51 PM
> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Project status and name
>
> Any "consensus" on the name change? I am okay with either name. ACF should
> be fine. Presumably the nominal name change is contingent on its project
> status as no longer incubating under Lucene?
>
> -- Jack Krupansky
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Grant Ingersoll" <gs...@apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 5:19 PM
> To: <co...@incubator.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Project status and name
>
>> I'd leave it open for another day or two.
>>
>> -Grant
>>
>> On Aug 10, 2010, at 2:16 PM, <ka...@nokia.com>
>> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Shall we call a vote on the name change? Or should we leave the floor
>>> open for other proposals for a while?
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: ext Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:09 PM
>>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Project status and name
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 10, 2010, at 8:05 AM, <ka...@nokia.com>
>>> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> Lucene Connectors Framework is currently an incubating subproject of
>>>> Lucene. The PMC has indicated that it's not thrilled with the idea of
>>>> LCF being a subproject,
>>>
>>> Minor clarification: The PMC hasn't said no at this point, but it also
>>> hasn't been discussed. Given some of the recent restructuring, I was
>>> merely speculating privately to Karl that it likely would not accept it,
>>> but that is not anything official. Not that it needs to be decided now
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> FWIW, the Board isn't usually happy w/ PMC's that are umbrella projects,
>>> with separate SVN, JIRA, etc. See the discussions in the archives
>>> around Mahout, Nutch, Lucy and Tika. When LCF was brought into
>>> incubation, there wasn't as much of a concern as there is now, so it is
>>> not that LCF did anything wrong. Besides, LCF is really independent of
>>> Lucene and useful w/o connecting to search and should have it's own
>>> management anyway.
>>>
>>>> and that its status should change at some point in the future. Note
>>>> that this status change would be theoretically independent of the
>>>> project name, but potentially we'd consider changing the project name
>>>> at
>>>> that time as well.
>>>>
>>>> There's beginning to be a considerable amount of content floating
>>>> around
>>>> that talks about LCF. If there is a possibility of a name change for
>>>> this project, I'd like to open the discussion as to whether we should
>>>> change the name, and if so, what to.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, the only other possibility I've heard mentioned so far is "Apache
>>>> Connectors Framework".
>>>
>>> I think this works well and abbreviates nicely to ACF (of course, I was
>>> the one who suggested it, so I'm biased). Note, there is no reason it
>>> can't be called the Lucene Connectors Framework, but that might
>>> pigeonhole it such that people think it only works with Lucene, which
>>> simply isn't true.
>>>
>>> I agree, we should do this change sooner rather than later, if it is
>>> going to be done.
>>>
>>> -Grant
>>
>> --------------------------
>> Grant Ingersoll
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/
>>
>> Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
>> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
>>
RE: Project status and name
Posted by ka...@nokia.com.
I don't think the name change is tied at all to the incubation status.
Are we ready to call a vote? After much consideration, +1 for ACF.
Karl
________________________________________
From: ext Jack Krupansky [jack.krupansky@lucidimagination.com]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 5:51 PM
To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Project status and name
Any "consensus" on the name change? I am okay with either name. ACF should
be fine. Presumably the nominal name change is contingent on its project
status as no longer incubating under Lucene?
-- Jack Krupansky
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Grant Ingersoll" <gs...@apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 5:19 PM
To: <co...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Project status and name
> I'd leave it open for another day or two.
>
> -Grant
>
> On Aug 10, 2010, at 2:16 PM, <ka...@nokia.com>
> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
>
>> Shall we call a vote on the name change? Or should we leave the floor
>> open for other proposals for a while?
>>
>> Karl
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ext Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:09 PM
>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Project status and name
>>
>>
>> On Aug 10, 2010, at 8:05 AM, <ka...@nokia.com>
>> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> Lucene Connectors Framework is currently an incubating subproject of
>>> Lucene. The PMC has indicated that it's not thrilled with the idea of
>>> LCF being a subproject,
>>
>> Minor clarification: The PMC hasn't said no at this point, but it also
>> hasn't been discussed. Given some of the recent restructuring, I was
>> merely speculating privately to Karl that it likely would not accept it,
>> but that is not anything official. Not that it needs to be decided now
>> anyway.
>>
>> FWIW, the Board isn't usually happy w/ PMC's that are umbrella projects,
>> with separate SVN, JIRA, etc. See the discussions in the archives
>> around Mahout, Nutch, Lucy and Tika. When LCF was brought into
>> incubation, there wasn't as much of a concern as there is now, so it is
>> not that LCF did anything wrong. Besides, LCF is really independent of
>> Lucene and useful w/o connecting to search and should have it's own
>> management anyway.
>>
>>> and that its status should change at some point in the future. Note
>>> that this status change would be theoretically independent of the
>>> project name, but potentially we'd consider changing the project name at
>>> that time as well.
>>>
>>> There's beginning to be a considerable amount of content floating around
>>> that talks about LCF. If there is a possibility of a name change for
>>> this project, I'd like to open the discussion as to whether we should
>>> change the name, and if so, what to.
>>>
>>> FWIW, the only other possibility I've heard mentioned so far is "Apache
>>> Connectors Framework".
>>
>> I think this works well and abbreviates nicely to ACF (of course, I was
>> the one who suggested it, so I'm biased). Note, there is no reason it
>> can't be called the Lucene Connectors Framework, but that might
>> pigeonhole it such that people think it only works with Lucene, which
>> simply isn't true.
>>
>> I agree, we should do this change sooner rather than later, if it is
>> going to be done.
>>
>> -Grant
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/
>
> Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
>
Re: Project status and name
Posted by Jack Krupansky <ja...@lucidimagination.com>.
Any "consensus" on the name change? I am okay with either name. ACF should
be fine. Presumably the nominal name change is contingent on its project
status as no longer incubating under Lucene?
-- Jack Krupansky
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Grant Ingersoll" <gs...@apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 5:19 PM
To: <co...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Project status and name
> I'd leave it open for another day or two.
>
> -Grant
>
> On Aug 10, 2010, at 2:16 PM, <ka...@nokia.com>
> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
>
>> Shall we call a vote on the name change? Or should we leave the floor
>> open for other proposals for a while?
>>
>> Karl
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ext Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:09 PM
>> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Project status and name
>>
>>
>> On Aug 10, 2010, at 8:05 AM, <ka...@nokia.com>
>> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> Lucene Connectors Framework is currently an incubating subproject of
>>> Lucene. The PMC has indicated that it's not thrilled with the idea of
>>> LCF being a subproject,
>>
>> Minor clarification: The PMC hasn't said no at this point, but it also
>> hasn't been discussed. Given some of the recent restructuring, I was
>> merely speculating privately to Karl that it likely would not accept it,
>> but that is not anything official. Not that it needs to be decided now
>> anyway.
>>
>> FWIW, the Board isn't usually happy w/ PMC's that are umbrella projects,
>> with separate SVN, JIRA, etc. See the discussions in the archives
>> around Mahout, Nutch, Lucy and Tika. When LCF was brought into
>> incubation, there wasn't as much of a concern as there is now, so it is
>> not that LCF did anything wrong. Besides, LCF is really independent of
>> Lucene and useful w/o connecting to search and should have it's own
>> management anyway.
>>
>>> and that its status should change at some point in the future. Note
>>> that this status change would be theoretically independent of the
>>> project name, but potentially we'd consider changing the project name at
>>> that time as well.
>>>
>>> There's beginning to be a considerable amount of content floating around
>>> that talks about LCF. If there is a possibility of a name change for
>>> this project, I'd like to open the discussion as to whether we should
>>> change the name, and if so, what to.
>>>
>>> FWIW, the only other possibility I've heard mentioned so far is "Apache
>>> Connectors Framework".
>>
>> I think this works well and abbreviates nicely to ACF (of course, I was
>> the one who suggested it, so I'm biased). Note, there is no reason it
>> can't be called the Lucene Connectors Framework, but that might
>> pigeonhole it such that people think it only works with Lucene, which
>> simply isn't true.
>>
>> I agree, we should do this change sooner rather than later, if it is
>> going to be done.
>>
>> -Grant
>
> --------------------------
> Grant Ingersoll
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/
>
> Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
> http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
>
Re: Project status and name
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
I'd leave it open for another day or two.
-Grant
On Aug 10, 2010, at 2:16 PM, <ka...@nokia.com> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Shall we call a vote on the name change? Or should we leave the floor open for other proposals for a while?
>
> Karl
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:09 PM
> To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Project status and name
>
>
> On Aug 10, 2010, at 8:05 AM, <ka...@nokia.com> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Lucene Connectors Framework is currently an incubating subproject of Lucene. The PMC has indicated that it's not thrilled with the idea of LCF being a subproject,
>
> Minor clarification: The PMC hasn't said no at this point, but it also hasn't been discussed. Given some of the recent restructuring, I was merely speculating privately to Karl that it likely would not accept it, but that is not anything official. Not that it needs to be decided now anyway.
>
> FWIW, the Board isn't usually happy w/ PMC's that are umbrella projects, with separate SVN, JIRA, etc. See the discussions in the archives around Mahout, Nutch, Lucy and Tika. When LCF was brought into incubation, there wasn't as much of a concern as there is now, so it is not that LCF did anything wrong. Besides, LCF is really independent of Lucene and useful w/o connecting to search and should have it's own management anyway.
>
>> and that its status should change at some point in the future. Note that this status change would be theoretically independent of the project name, but potentially we'd consider changing the project name at that time as well.
>>
>> There's beginning to be a considerable amount of content floating around that talks about LCF. If there is a possibility of a name change for this project, I'd like to open the discussion as to whether we should change the name, and if so, what to.
>>
>> FWIW, the only other possibility I've heard mentioned so far is "Apache Connectors Framework".
>
> I think this works well and abbreviates nicely to ACF (of course, I was the one who suggested it, so I'm biased). Note, there is no reason it can't be called the Lucene Connectors Framework, but that might pigeonhole it such that people think it only works with Lucene, which simply isn't true.
>
> I agree, we should do this change sooner rather than later, if it is going to be done.
>
> -Grant
--------------------------
Grant Ingersoll
http://www.lucidimagination.com/
Search the Lucene ecosystem docs using Solr/Lucene:
http://www.lucidimagination.com/search
RE: Project status and name
Posted by ka...@nokia.com.
Shall we call a vote on the name change? Or should we leave the floor open for other proposals for a while?
Karl
-----Original Message-----
From: ext Grant Ingersoll [mailto:gsingers@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:09 PM
To: connectors-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Project status and name
On Aug 10, 2010, at 8:05 AM, <ka...@nokia.com> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Lucene Connectors Framework is currently an incubating subproject of Lucene. The PMC has indicated that it's not thrilled with the idea of LCF being a subproject,
Minor clarification: The PMC hasn't said no at this point, but it also hasn't been discussed. Given some of the recent restructuring, I was merely speculating privately to Karl that it likely would not accept it, but that is not anything official. Not that it needs to be decided now anyway.
FWIW, the Board isn't usually happy w/ PMC's that are umbrella projects, with separate SVN, JIRA, etc. See the discussions in the archives around Mahout, Nutch, Lucy and Tika. When LCF was brought into incubation, there wasn't as much of a concern as there is now, so it is not that LCF did anything wrong. Besides, LCF is really independent of Lucene and useful w/o connecting to search and should have it's own management anyway.
> and that its status should change at some point in the future. Note that this status change would be theoretically independent of the project name, but potentially we'd consider changing the project name at that time as well.
>
> There's beginning to be a considerable amount of content floating around that talks about LCF. If there is a possibility of a name change for this project, I'd like to open the discussion as to whether we should change the name, and if so, what to.
>
> FWIW, the only other possibility I've heard mentioned so far is "Apache Connectors Framework".
I think this works well and abbreviates nicely to ACF (of course, I was the one who suggested it, so I'm biased). Note, there is no reason it can't be called the Lucene Connectors Framework, but that might pigeonhole it such that people think it only works with Lucene, which simply isn't true.
I agree, we should do this change sooner rather than later, if it is going to be done.
-Grant
Re: Project status and name
Posted by Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>.
On Aug 10, 2010, at 8:05 AM, <ka...@nokia.com> <ka...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Lucene Connectors Framework is currently an incubating subproject of Lucene. The PMC has indicated that it's not thrilled with the idea of LCF being a subproject,
Minor clarification: The PMC hasn't said no at this point, but it also hasn't been discussed. Given some of the recent restructuring, I was merely speculating privately to Karl that it likely would not accept it, but that is not anything official. Not that it needs to be decided now anyway.
FWIW, the Board isn't usually happy w/ PMC's that are umbrella projects, with separate SVN, JIRA, etc. See the discussions in the archives around Mahout, Nutch, Lucy and Tika. When LCF was brought into incubation, there wasn't as much of a concern as there is now, so it is not that LCF did anything wrong. Besides, LCF is really independent of Lucene and useful w/o connecting to search and should have it's own management anyway.
> and that its status should change at some point in the future. Note that this status change would be theoretically independent of the project name, but potentially we'd consider changing the project name at that time as well.
>
> There's beginning to be a considerable amount of content floating around that talks about LCF. If there is a possibility of a name change for this project, I'd like to open the discussion as to whether we should change the name, and if so, what to.
>
> FWIW, the only other possibility I've heard mentioned so far is "Apache Connectors Framework".
I think this works well and abbreviates nicely to ACF (of course, I was the one who suggested it, so I'm biased). Note, there is no reason it can't be called the Lucene Connectors Framework, but that might pigeonhole it such that people think it only works with Lucene, which simply isn't true.
I agree, we should do this change sooner rather than later, if it is going to be done.
-Grant