GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
37 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Chris Berardi-2

On Feb 20, 2015, at 10:54 PM, Hisham <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, the concrete proposal boiled down to this:

* We create an organization in GitHub (essentially a group account,
like http://github.com/keplerproject ) which will host some projects

* The criteria for hosting them in this org will be simple: it will
host modules being maintained by two or more maintainers. This way,
people can join, leave and the project keeps its continuity, without
people having to figure out which fork in GitHub is the maintained
one.

* If maintainers leave the project to the point that there's a single
remaining maintainer, the remaining one can ask for volunteers to join
in lua-l, and if no one comes up, the project is moved out of the org
and into the sole maintainer's account.

* This way, instead of a subjective selection of modules (some
maintained and some abandoned) like in Kepler, looking at the projects
in the org you'll have at least the guarantee that (a) they are not
abandoned, (b) there are at least two people who use/like/maintain
this project. (So it is to an extent a metric of curation, but a
concrete one.)

If I'm misrepresenting anything that was discussed in the BoF, please
do correct me! It's been weeks!

There are probably other practical details to decide (For example, how
long does it take until a project is abandoned? My suggestion is to do
a yearly review to check if maintainers are still involved/reachable.)

A couple other things that come to mind are:

  * Should be be a distinction between the current maintainers/leaders and 
    those that are other contributors?
  * Should this distinction be democratic (e.g., current maintainers/leaders 
    voted from and by the current contributors)?
  * What mechanism will be in place to allow an interested person to become
    involved in a particular project?
  * Should the yearly review include reviewing how the project is attracting
    and incorporating new contributors to it? I think this is important to
    maintain and sustain a project.


And then we get to Pierre's questions:

1) How do you want to call this organization?

As I told Justin over lunch after the BoF meeting, this is probably
the hardest question. :) luateam is obviously taken by the Lua Team,
luausers was suggested in the BoF might be confusing with the
lua-users.org wiki... luacommunity? I like the sound of it.

Other potential names:
  * Luaverse
  * Lunaverse
  * CLAN (Comprehensive Lua Archive Network - to steal an idea from Perl and other groups)

Chris Berardi

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Dirk Laurie-2
2015-02-24 1:06 GMT+02:00 Chris Berardi <[hidden email]>:


>   * CLAN (Comprehensive Lua Archive Network - to steal an idea from Perl and
> other groups)

This has a great ring to it.

Disclaimer: I have a Scottish `rep("great-",5).."grandfather")`.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Pierre Chapuis
> 2015-02-24 1:06 GMT+02:00 Chris Berardi <[hidden email]>:
>
>
>>   * CLAN (Comprehensive Lua Archive Network - to steal an idea from Perl
>> and
>> other groups)
>
> This has a great ring to it.
>
> Disclaimer: I have a Scottish `rep("great-",5).."grandfather")`.

I like the pun as well, but it would be confusing.
CPAN is more similar to LuaRocks than to this.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

steve donovan
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Pierre Chapuis <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I like the pun as well, but it would be confusing.
> CPAN is more similar to LuaRocks than to this.

Well, LuaRocks is a delivery channel, not a module support
organization.  So it's still a cool name, I think.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Hisham


On Feb 24, 2015 5:08 AM, "steve donovan" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Pierre Chapuis <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I like the pun as well, but it would be confusing.
> > CPAN is more similar to LuaRocks than to this.
>
> Well, LuaRocks is a delivery channel, not a module support
> organization.  So it's still a cool name, I think.

CPAN (and CTAN before it and CRAN after it) are module repositories and delivery channels. Perl's package manager _is_ called CPAN. I'm with Pierre on this one, I'd much rather avoid the confusion.

-- Hisham

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Rodrigo Azevedo


rocks field



2015-02-24 10:26 GMT-03:00 Hisham <[hidden email]>:


On Feb 24, 2015 5:08 AM, "steve donovan" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Pierre Chapuis <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I like the pun as well, but it would be confusing.
> > CPAN is more similar to LuaRocks than to this.
>
> Well, LuaRocks is a delivery channel, not a module support
> organization.  So it's still a cool name, I think.

CPAN (and CTAN before it and CRAN after it) are module repositories and delivery channels. Perl's package manager _is_ called CPAN. I'm with Pierre on this one, I'd much rather avoid the confusion.

-- Hisham




--
Rodrigo Azevedo Moreira da Silva
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Etiene Dalcol
Lua rover? :)

I was just thinking about mars rover and also - Rover: noun 1. a person who roves; wanderer. - it looks cool for modules seeking maintainers. 


2015-02-24 15:54 GMT+01:00 Rodrigo Azevedo <[hidden email]>:


rocks field



2015-02-24 10:26 GMT-03:00 Hisham <[hidden email]>:


On Feb 24, 2015 5:08 AM, "steve donovan" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Pierre Chapuis <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I like the pun as well, but it would be confusing.
> > CPAN is more similar to LuaRocks than to this.
>
> Well, LuaRocks is a delivery channel, not a module support
> organization.  So it's still a cool name, I think.

CPAN (and CTAN before it and CRAN after it) are module repositories and delivery channels. Perl's package manager _is_ called CPAN. I'm with Pierre on this one, I'd much rather avoid the confusion.

-- Hisham




--
Rodrigo Azevedo Moreira da Silva

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Paul E. Merrell, J.D.
In reply to this post by Rodrigo Azevedo
No system of classification is complete without a Miscellany category,
so "Lua Miscellany" or "Lua Stuff"?

Best regards to all,

Paul

--
[Notice not included in the above original message:  The U.S. National
Security Agency neither confirms nor denies that it intercepted this
message.]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Hisham
In reply to this post by Chris Berardi-2
On 23 February 2015 at 20:06, Chris Berardi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> There are probably other practical details to decide (For example, how
>> long does it take until a project is abandoned? My suggestion is to do
>> a yearly review to check if maintainers are still involved/reachable.)
>
> A couple other things that come to mind are:

Great points raised, thank you!

>   * Should be be a distinction between the current maintainers/leaders and
>     those that are other contributors?
>   * Should this distinction be democratic (e.g., current maintainers/leaders
>     voted from and by the current contributors)?
>   * What mechanism will be in place to allow an interested person to become
>     involved in a particular project?

I think all of that is up to the project. This would be just a common
place for projects, without any particular restrictions/guidelines on
how the project is managed.

I don't know if was evident to those looking from the outside, but
Kepler (back in the original funded project) had some strict
guidelines applied to projects released under its banner: (a) they
were all portable, running at least on Linux, Windows and Mac; (b)
they were all documented, and each release had matching documentation
updates; (c) they all ran on the latest Lua version, many retaining
compatibility with Lua 5.0 and 5.1; (d) they were all designed to work
well with each other. These are all great features to have, but this
is all outside of the scope of what at least I am bringing up on this
thread.

>   * Should the yearly review include reviewing how the project is attracting
>     and incorporating new contributors to it? I think this is important to
>     maintain and sustain a project.

In the same vein, I'd say no. In the end this is a form of subjective
curation and therefore outside of the scope (at least I'm not
intending to do it; lua-toolbox.com, hopefully integrated with
luarocks.org in the future, is a better approach IMO). Yes, attracting
and incorporating new contributors is useful to maintain and sustain a
project (though not essential: Lua itself has held its own pretty well
for 20+ years relying on the same three people), but this is not
Kepler in a sense that Kepler was an umbrella organization
"recommending" a set of projects (least of all in combination).

I liked the idea of reusing the Kepler name when we were discussing
making it the "batteries" project for the next LuaForWindows, but for
this thing we're talking here, I'm pretty much convinced it doesn't
make sense. And that's also why I was recommending an understated name
such as luacommunity — all of us are already members of the "Lua
community" (meaning all "community projects" (i.e. not individual
projects) are welcome) and the name does not imply anything else about
the projects other than that (while all the other cool names suggested
would raise questions on "What XYZ actually is"). Perhaps an even
blander name such as luacommunityprojects or luauserprojects, just to
make clear that the repos are not centrally coordinated as part of an
over-arching project.

An alternative, of course, is to simply ditch the whole idea and move
any projects people are interested in maintaining collectively into
their own GitHub orgs, such as http://github.com/luasocket/luasocket,
and be done with it. What exactly do we gain from having a common org?
The only ones I really see now is: (a) promoting a culture of
collective maintainership; (b) more visibility to new projects due to
being next to well-known ones in the same repo (with (a) of course
being the important one).

-- Hisham

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Leo Romanoff
In reply to this post by Paul E. Merrell, J.D.
What about "Luniversum" or "Luniverse"?

-Leo

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Victor Bombi
In reply to this post by Hisham


>An alternative, of course, is to simply ditch the whole idea and move
>any projects people are interested in maintaining collectively into
>their own GitHub orgs, such as http://github.com/luasocket/luasocket,
>and be done with it. What exactly do we gain from having a common org?
>The only ones I really see now is: (a) promoting a culture of
>collective maintainership; (b) more visibility to new projects due to
>being next to well-known ones in the same repo (with (a) of course
>being the important one).

The most important IMHO would be an specification for building with cmake
for example with standarized paths for luamodules, c_modules and lua51-52-53
modules
This doesnt need an organization but a consensus on how do that in a simple
and standard way

victor


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Robert Virding-2
In reply to this post by Leo Romanoff
The Loonieverse? :-)


On 24 February 2015 at 17:20, Leo Romanoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
What about "Luniversum" or "Luniverse"?

-Leo


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

François Perrad
In reply to this post by Etiene Dalcol
2015-02-24 16:30 GMT+01:00 Etiene Dalcol <[hidden email]>:
> Lua rover? :)
>

They were russian and named Lunokhod (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_programme).

François

> I was just thinking about mars rover and also - Rover: noun 1. a person who
> roves; wanderer. - it looks cool for modules seeking maintainers.
>
>
> 2015-02-24 15:54 GMT+01:00 Rodrigo Azevedo <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>
>>
>> rocks field
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-02-24 10:26 GMT-03:00 Hisham <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 24, 2015 5:08 AM, "steve donovan" <[hidden email]>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Pierre Chapuis <[hidden email]>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > I like the pun as well, but it would be confusing.
>>> > > CPAN is more similar to LuaRocks than to this.
>>> >
>>> > Well, LuaRocks is a delivery channel, not a module support
>>> > organization.  So it's still a cool name, I think.
>>>
>>> CPAN (and CTAN before it and CRAN after it) are module repositories and
>>> delivery channels. Perl's package manager _is_ called CPAN. I'm with Pierre
>>> on this one, I'd much rather avoid the confusion.
>>>
>>> -- Hisham
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Rodrigo Azevedo Moreira da Silva
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Sean Conner
In reply to this post by Robert Virding-2
It was thus said that the Great Robert Virding once stated:
> The Loonieverse? :-)

 The Lua Bikeshed.  Paint it lunar grey.  

  -spc (http://bikeshed.com/)


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Chris Berardi-2
In reply to this post by Rodrigo Azevedo
On Tuesday, February 24, 2015, Rodrigo Azevedo <[hidden email]> wrote:


rocks field


--
Rodrigo Azevedo Moreira da Silva

Or 'Quarry'. 

-- Chris Berardi
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Martin Felis-2
In reply to this post by Sean Conner
LuaHub?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GitHub organization discussed at FOSDEM

Jeff Pohlmeyer
12