|Niall Pemberton||Mar 2, 2006 3:10 am|
|Henri Yandell||Mar 2, 2006 7:46 am|
|Rahul Akolkar||Mar 2, 2006 9:06 am|
|Rahul Akolkar||Mar 2, 2006 9:09 am|
|James Carman||Mar 2, 2006 9:11 am|
|Henri Yandell||Mar 2, 2006 9:13 am|
|Henri Yandell||Mar 2, 2006 9:14 am|
|James Carman||Mar 2, 2006 9:16 am|
|Martin Cooper||Mar 2, 2006 9:35 am|
|Martin Cooper||Mar 2, 2006 9:40 am|
|Craig McClanahan||Mar 2, 2006 10:06 am|
|Stephen Colebourne||Mar 2, 2006 11:14 am|
|Simon Kitching||Mar 2, 2006 11:26 am|
|robert burrell donkin||Mar 2, 2006 2:13 pm|
|Rahul Akolkar||Mar 2, 2006 2:49 pm|
|Rahul Akolkar||Mar 2, 2006 2:53 pm|
|Rahul Akolkar||Mar 2, 2006 3:02 pm|
|Simon Kitching||Mar 2, 2006 4:51 pm|
|Simon Kitching||Mar 2, 2006 5:03 pm|
|Noel J. Bergman||Mar 2, 2006 5:16 pm|
|Henri Yandell||Mar 2, 2006 5:26 pm|
|Sandy McArthur||Mar 2, 2006 5:54 pm|
|James Carman||Mar 2, 2006 6:08 pm|
|Rahul Akolkar||Mar 2, 2006 6:38 pm|
|Rahul Akolkar||Mar 2, 2006 6:45 pm|
|Rahul Akolkar||Mar 2, 2006 6:49 pm|
|Martin Cooper||Mar 2, 2006 6:50 pm|
|Subject:||Re: [feedparser] News / Status|
|From:||Simon Kitching (skit...@apache.org)|
|Date:||Mar 2, 2006 11:26:57 am|
On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 10:06 -0800, Craig McClanahan wrote:
On 3/2/06, Niall Pemberton <nial...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
For anyone interested, I came across the following regarding Kevin Burton and Feedparser
Seems a shame that bureaucracy has put him off working within the ASF.
My perception is that Kevin was never able to attract enough developers to feedparser to get binding votes (or even get it accepted into Commons Propert, which is a prerequisite). It is not likely to have anything to do with the technical aspects of the release process :-).
That's definitely a problem a few projects have encountered. I think that's not a flaw with commons though; it's just an indicator that a new project with only a small developer base really doesn't belong here. To me, commons is about stable and reliable software not necessarily cutting edge or experimental. Our procedures ensure that releases are good quality but as a result do impose a significant burden (all the RC cycles, votes, etc).
We should probably be more careful about what projects are accepted into commons. Existing successful code factored out of another project because people want to use it in multiple projects -- fine. That's the original basis for commons. Brand new code with small developer communities could perhaps be better developed elsewhere but using the Apache license so it can become a commons component later if desirable.
The real problem to me is where a popular commons component becomes more "stable" and thus community dwindles to the point where there aren't enough votes to continue maintenance releases. Logging is marginal as is Digester; lots of users but not many developers.