I think with the addition of two new committers we've made some progress in community growth. I think we'll have 3.0.3 out the door soon - are there any other items we think we need to address before looking to graduate?
~P    

IMHO, whatever brings more attention to the project, and I'm not sure
graduation is what this project needs right now. In the end it's just
semantics.

I'd focus those efforts on getting more work done and having more frequent
releases. Hence our proposition to sponsor dev, which still stands.

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> I think with the addition of two new committers we've made some progress
> in community growth. I think we'll have 3.0.3 out the door soon - are there
> any other items we think we need to address before looking to graduate?
> ~P

As a mentor, it's my job argue with Itamar a bit. It's not just
semantics. We don't incubate projects indefinitely. I think that you
all are good to go. The transition is not very much work. Please do
draft a resolution and conduct a vote in the community, and we can
then take it to the incubator PMC.

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO, whatever brings more attention to the project, and I'm not sure
> graduation is what this project needs right now. In the end it's just
> semantics.
>
> I'd focus those efforts on getting more work done and having more frequent
> releases. Hence our proposition to sponsor dev, which still stands.
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>>
>> I think with the addition of two new committers we've made some progress
>> in community growth. I think we'll have 3.0.3 out the door soon - are there
>> any other items we think we need to address before looking to graduate?
>> ~P

I've gone back and forth on whether I think we're ready for graduation or
not.  I had always felt like we weren't because the project isn't as active
as I'd like it to be.  However, I think I've been looking at it wrong.
 We've got a good enough process and we *have* made progress.  If anything,
graduating might add an urgency to the project when things get slow, since
we'd be an official project and more would be expected.  I don't think
anybody wants the project to end up like it did last time, before we gave
it a reboot.

I'm up for starting this process, but I don't want it to take any time away
from getting 3.0.3 released.
Thanks,
Christopher

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Benson Margulies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> As a mentor, it's my job argue with Itamar a bit. It's not just
> semantics. We don't incubate projects indefinitely. I think that you
> all are good to go. The transition is not very much work. Please do
> draft a resolution and conduct a vote in the community, and we can
> then take it to the incubator PMC.
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > IMHO, whatever brings more attention to the project, and I'm not sure
> > graduation is what this project needs right now. In the end it's just
> > semantics.
> >
> > I'd focus those efforts on getting more work done and having more
> frequent
> > releases. Hence our proposition to sponsor dev, which still stands.
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I think with the addition of two new committers we've made some progress
> >> in community growth. I think we'll have 3.0.3 out the door soon - are
> there
> >> any other items we think we need to address before looking to graduate?
> >> ~P
>

I'd say we're ready for graduation. Since I'm not really involved in
the coding effort at the moment, I'll work with Prescott on this
process.

The only reservation I have about graduation is losing or lessening
Stefan Bodewig's involvement. He's been really helpful. Can we keep
all of our mentors even if we graduate? :)

Thanks,
Troy
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Christopher Currens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've gone back and forth on whether I think we're ready for graduation or
> not.  I had always felt like we weren't because the project isn't as active
> as I'd like it to be.  However, I think I've been looking at it wrong.
>  We've got a good enough process and we *have* made progress.  If anything,
> graduating might add an urgency to the project when things get slow, since
> we'd be an official project and more would be expected.  I don't think
> anybody wants the project to end up like it did last time, before we gave
> it a reboot.
>
> I'm up for starting this process, but I don't want it to take any time away
> from getting 3.0.3 released.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Christopher
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Benson Margulies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> As a mentor, it's my job argue with Itamar a bit. It's not just
>> semantics. We don't incubate projects indefinitely. I think that you
>> all are good to go. The transition is not very much work. Please do
>> draft a resolution and conduct a vote in the community, and we can
>> then take it to the incubator PMC.
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > IMHO, whatever brings more attention to the project, and I'm not sure
>> > graduation is what this project needs right now. In the end it's just
>> > semantics.
>> >
>> > I'd focus those efforts on getting more work done and having more
>> frequent
>> > releases. Hence our proposition to sponsor dev, which still stands.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I think with the addition of two new committers we've made some progress
>> >> in community growth. I think we'll have 3.0.3 out the door soon - are
>> there
>> >> any other items we think we need to address before looking to graduate?
>> >> ~P
>>

I want to clarify that graduation is a somewhat gradual process, and
the early parts are not much work. You create a resolution for the
board that would establish your project. You conduct a community vote.
We conduct an IPMC vote. At the next board meeting, which could then
be as much as 30 days later, the board (hopefully) adopts the
resolution.

*Then* you have actual work to do to move your code and web site and such.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Troy Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd say we're ready for graduation. Since I'm not really involved in
> the coding effort at the moment, I'll work with Prescott on this
> process.
>
> The only reservation I have about graduation is losing or lessening
> Stefan Bodewig's involvement. He's been really helpful. Can we keep
> all of our mentors even if we graduate? :)
>
> Thanks,
> Troy
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Christopher Currens
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've gone back and forth on whether I think we're ready for graduation or
>> not.  I had always felt like we weren't because the project isn't as active
>> as I'd like it to be.  However, I think I've been looking at it wrong.
>>  We've got a good enough process and we *have* made progress.  If anything,
>> graduating might add an urgency to the project when things get slow, since
>> we'd be an official project and more would be expected.  I don't think
>> anybody wants the project to end up like it did last time, before we gave
>> it a reboot.
>>
>> I'm up for starting this process, but I don't want it to take any time away
>> from getting 3.0.3 released.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Christopher
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Benson Margulies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>>
>>> As a mentor, it's my job argue with Itamar a bit. It's not just
>>> semantics. We don't incubate projects indefinitely. I think that you
>>> all are good to go. The transition is not very much work. Please do
>>> draft a resolution and conduct a vote in the community, and we can
>>> then take it to the incubator PMC.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Itamar Syn-Hershko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > IMHO, whatever brings more attention to the project, and I'm not sure
>>> > graduation is what this project needs right now. In the end it's just
>>> > semantics.
>>> >
>>> > I'd focus those efforts on getting more work done and having more
>>> frequent
>>> > releases. Hence our proposition to sponsor dev, which still stands.
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> I think with the addition of two new committers we've made some progress
>>> >> in community growth. I think we'll have 3.0.3 out the door soon - are
>>> there
>>> >> any other items we think we need to address before looking to graduate?
>>> >> ~P
>>>

On 2012-06-14, Christopher Currens wrote:

> I've gone back and forth on whether I think we're ready for graduation or
> not.  I had always felt like we weren't because the project isn't as active
> as I'd like it to be.  However, I think I've been looking at it wrong.
>  We've got a good enough process and we *have* made progress.

Absolutely, and I think you are ready to graduate as well.

As a response to Itamar: Lucene.Net could get more exposure by becoming
a top level project.  In particular you could craft a press release
together with the ASF's PR folks to celebrate the re-birth.

The sponsoring offer is a great thing, IMHO.

> I'm up for starting this process, but I don't want it to take any time
> away from getting 3.0.3 released.

Understood.  OTOH if you'd graduate first then 3.0.3 would be an
official Apache release and didn't have to wear the "incubating" tag.
Your call.

If you want to do the 3.0.3 release first, I don't think that will be
much of delay as it seems to be around the corner anyway.

Stefan

On 2012-06-14, Troy Howard wrote:

> The only reservation I have about graduation is losing or lessening
> Stefan Bodewig's involvement. He's been really helpful. Can we keep
> all of our mentors even if we graduate? :)

Thanks.

There is no rule that forces ex-mentors to unsubscribe from the
ex-podling's mailing lists. 8-)

I won't have any binding votes by not being on the PMC, but you can be
sure I'll stick around for a while.

Stefan

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2012-06-14, Troy Howard wrote:
>
>> The only reservation I have about graduation is losing or lessening
>> Stefan Bodewig's involvement. He's been really helpful. Can we keep
>> all of our mentors even if we graduate? :)
>
> Thanks.
>
> There is no rule that forces ex-mentors to unsubscribe from the
> ex-podling's mailing lists. 8-)
>
> I won't have any binding votes by not being on the PMC, but you can be
> sure I'll stick around for a while.
>
> Stefan

Stefan,

Of late, there has been a tendency for podlings without ASF members to
adopt one of the mentors onto the PMC to provide more continuity. I've
ended up on several that way. I'm at capacity for this job, so I'd
propose that you do it for this project.

The next step after that is to nominate the PMC chair for membership,
and then one can make a graceful exit to Emeritus status :-)

--benson

+1 for releasing after graduation, then

With some careful PR and our sponsorship offer, we can get the project
flying

There's still some work to do anyway

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 2012-06-14, Christopher Currens wrote:
>
> > I've gone back and forth on whether I think we're ready for graduation or
> > not.  I had always felt like we weren't because the project isn't as
> active
> > as I'd like it to be.  However, I think I've been looking at it wrong.
> >  We've got a good enough process and we *have* made progress.
>
> Absolutely, and I think you are ready to graduate as well.
>
> As a response to Itamar: Lucene.Net could get more exposure by becoming
> a top level project.  In particular you could craft a press release
> together with the ASF's PR folks to celebrate the re-birth.
>
> The sponsoring offer is a great thing, IMHO.
>
> > I'm up for starting this process, but I don't want it to take any time
> > away from getting 3.0.3 released.
>
> Understood.  OTOH if you'd graduate first then 3.0.3 would be an
> official Apache release and didn't have to wear the "incubating" tag.
> Your call.
>
> If you want to do the 3.0.3 release first, I don't think that will be
> much of delay as it seems to be around the corner anyway.
>
> Stefan
>
>

On 2012-06-15, Benson Margulies wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 2012-06-14, Troy Howard wrote:

>>> The only reservation I have about graduation is losing or lessening
>>> Stefan Bodewig's involvement. He's been really helpful. Can we keep
>>> all of our mentors even if we graduate? :)

>> I won't have any binding votes by not being on the PMC, but you can be
>> sure I'll stick around for a while.

> Of late, there has been a tendency for podlings without ASF members to
> adopt one of the mentors onto the PMC to provide more continuity. I've
> ended up on several that way. I'm at capacity for this job, so I'd
> propose that you do it for this project.

Sure, I'll be willing to join the PMC-to-be if the team thinks I'd be of
value.

Stefan

Stefan, I think you've more than proved your value.

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENENET/Graduation+-+Resolution+Template
> Stefan, I think you've more than proved your value.

+1
     

Thanks Prescott.

I noticed that we need to elect someone as Chair/VP for the project,
someone to be a representative for our collective PMC to the board.  Unless
I'm mistaken, the job entails the quarterly report to the board and
communication with the board when a new PMC member is added or the chair is
being changed.  Looking through the history of board reports we've done in
the incubator, I've noticed that Prescott has largely been the one to put
those together in a timely fashion.  Since Prescott has always been an
active member as well, I think he's an ideal candidate for the roll as VP
for Lucene.NET.  It doesn't seem much different from the role he's already
been involved in.  Any objections?

Thanks,
Christopher

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENENET/Graduation+-+Resolution+Template
> > Stefan, I think you've more than proved your value.
>
> +1
>

I concur.

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Christopher Currens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Prescott.
>
> I noticed that we need to elect someone as Chair/VP for the project,
> someone to be a representative for our collective PMC to the board.  Unless
> I'm mistaken, the job entails the quarterly report to the board and
> communication with the board when a new PMC member is added or the chair is
> being changed.  Looking through the history of board reports we've done in
> the incubator, I've noticed that Prescott has largely been the one to put
> those together in a timely fashion.  Since Prescott has always been an
> active member as well, I think he's an ideal candidate for the roll as VP
> for Lucene.NET.  It doesn't seem much different from the role he's already
> been involved in.  Any objections?
>
> Thanks,
> Christopher
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENENET/Graduation+-+Resolution+Template
>> > Stefan, I think you've more than proved your value.
>>
>> +1
>>

I thought we were going to force Stefan to do it ;) - or was that something else?

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Christopher Currens
Sent: 6/15/2012 1:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Lets talk graduation

Thanks Prescott.

I noticed that we need to elect someone as Chair/VP for the project,
someone to be a representative for our collective PMC to the board.  Unless
I'm mistaken, the job entails the quarterly report to the board and
communication with the board when a new PMC member is added or the chair is
being changed.  Looking through the history of board reports we've done in
the incubator, I've noticed that Prescott has largely been the one to put
those together in a timely fashion.  Since Prescott has always been an
active member as well, I think he's an ideal candidate for the roll as VP
for Lucene.NET.  It doesn't seem much different from the role he's already
been involved in.  Any objections?

Thanks,
Christopher

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENENET/Graduation+-+Resolution+Template
> > Stefan, I think you've more than proved your value.
>
> +1
>

Stephan is VP of EOL Compliance.

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought we were going to force Stefan to do it ;) - or was that something else?
>
> Sent from my Windows Phone
> ________________________________
> From: Christopher Currens
> Sent: 6/15/2012 1:45 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Lets talk graduation
>
> Thanks Prescott.
>
> I noticed that we need to elect someone as Chair/VP for the project,
> someone to be a representative for our collective PMC to the board.  Unless
> I'm mistaken, the job entails the quarterly report to the board and
> communication with the board when a new PMC member is added or the chair is
> being changed.  Looking through the history of board reports we've done in
> the incubator, I've noticed that Prescott has largely been the one to put
> those together in a timely fashion.  Since Prescott has always been an
> active member as well, I think he's an ideal candidate for the roll as VP
> for Lucene.NET.  It doesn't seem much different from the role he's already
> been involved in.  Any objections?
>
> Thanks,
> Christopher
>
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Prescott Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/LUCENENET/Graduation+-+Resolution+Template
>> > Stefan, I think you've more than proved your value.
>>
>> +1
>>