Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Looking for New Maintainers #114

Open
shiftkey opened this issue Jan 21, 2019 · 31 comments
Open

Looking for New Maintainers #114

shiftkey opened this issue Jan 21, 2019 · 31 comments
Labels
help wanted

Comments

@shiftkey
Copy link
Collaborator

With the passage of time the previous maintainers have moved on to other things, which is how I find myself again filling these shoes. I'm trying to avoid new responsibilities at the moment, and Scientist.NET is not something I am suited to be taking charge of:

  • I've not contributed to the project in any capacity
  • I'm not aware of this being used on any GitHub projects
  • I'm no longer doing C# development

And so I'm now looking out for others to take up ownership of the project. If I don't hear anything before February 4th, I plan to archive the repository to confirm it's dormancy.

This project has been rather quiet for a while in terms of issues and contributions, which is why I favour archiving currently. Here's a cursory glance at the 2018 activity:

  • two issues opened
  • three PRs merged
  • one open PR outstanding

The 2.0 release went out about 8 months ago, and here's the overall NuGet stats:

But if someone (preferably multiple people, to share the load) wants to step up but isn't quite sure I'm happy to provide guidance and mentoring whenever I have bandwidth, but I would love to get to a spot where we have people who know the project and want to actively work on it in charge.

The rough transition process I have in my head is:

  • identify interested contributors and figure out a proper transition process
  • transfer this repository to a different owner/location on GitHub - it doesn't make sense to have this under the GitHub organization when it's not actively used in GitHub's projects
  • identify other systems they need access to to continue publishing releases - CI systems, NuGet, etc

Feel free to ask any question you may have here, or you can email me - handle [at] this website - if you wish to talk privately.
@shiftkey shiftkey mentioned this issue Jan 21, 2019
Open
@shiftkey
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@vcsjones mentioned the .NET Foundation as a potential home for this project. I'd need to get familiar with the details about onboarding a project because there aren't really any processes currently 🤔🤔🤔🤔

@SteveDesmond-ca
Copy link

I agree that foundation ownership would be ideal, but if for whatever reason that doesn't seem like a good fit, I'm happy to help carry the torch going forward -- I don't have any direct contributions to date, just a happy user!

@shiftkey
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I don't have any direct contributions to date, just a happy user!

I'll quote some of the Twitter discussion I've had since I shared this link into here for reference:

Maybe. We don't want .NET Foundation to be a dumping ground for unmaintained projects, though - project applications include info about roadmap, maintainer team, etc.

— Jon Galloway (@jongalloway) January 21, 2019

One other point on the .NET Foundation: If people want to step forward to run it, but are concerned that they need help. .NET Foundation advisory council folks *will* provide guidance. As Jon said, we would want people to step up willing to lead.

— Bill Wagner (@BillWagner) January 21, 2019

That last quote from @BillWagner here is key:

As Jon said, we would want people to step up willing to lead.

It doesn't matter to me that you haven't contributed - someone who is passionate and knows the library well would be a great help to keep things moving! And I'm happy to help figure out what needs to be in place to apply to the Foundation.

Full disclosure: I'm a member of the Advisory Council that Bill mentioned in his tweet.

@BillWagner
Copy link

Full disclosure: I'm a member of the Advisory Council that Bill mentioned in his tweet.

I am also on the Advisory Council.

@haacked
Copy link
Contributor

haacked commented Jan 21, 2019

The fact that you're a happy user makes you qualified in my book. I ported Scientist to .NET in anticipation that it would benefit the .NET community and that I would have needs for it. But in practice, I never actually implemented it in any project. So I really relied on those who were actually using it for a lot of guidance and feedback.

If you're interested in committing to it and running it, you're probably a great candidate.

@haacked
Copy link
Contributor

haacked commented Jan 21, 2019

Since some folks asked on Twitter, here's what is entailed by being the repository maintainer. Overall, this library has a limited tight focus. That means there's isn't a huge amount of work to do. Typical work is just a few hours a month if that. What I would do is the following:

  1. Review and triage issues.
  2. Review Pull Requests and merge in the changes I felt were appropriate.
  3. Cut new releases on NuGet.
  4. Reap in and spend all the PROFIT! (aka $0)

In terms of the direction of the project and who should take it over, I have no skin in that game any longer. Here are my suggestions:

  1. Track the feature set of github/scientist (but in a manner idiomatic to .NET)
  2. Fix any bugs that come up.
  3. Consider the project mostly done and not make too many big changes. Mostly maintenance here and there.

Again, I'm no longer a GitHub employee so I don't set the direction. I'm not sure anyone is actively working on github/scientist either. My guess is that both of these projects are mostly "done."

@zoalasaurusrawr
Copy link

I’d happily throw my hat in the ring. I’ve recently adopted this at work and we love it. As an addon package to this repo, I’ve also begun working on multiple result publishers and visualization of results.

@shawnwildermuth
Copy link

I'm also happy to throw my hat in the ring (as a contributor or a owner). Let me know. I have time and interest.

@zoalasaurusrawr
Copy link

I'll add that no matter who gets it, I'm committing to contribute to this repo regardless. I just wanna see this live :)

@M-Zuber
Copy link
Contributor

M-Zuber commented Jan 22, 2019

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OGC.ae64c1edcfdef4691945222464d4fe58&pid=Api&rurl=https%3a%2f%2fmedia.giphy.com%2fmedia%2fKJ1phNNcxOog0%2fgiphy.gif&ehk=WiCZZfbWJ5Kb95Qy7y%2bUdA
I'd be honored to be part of a maintenance team as well

@paulbreen
Copy link
Contributor

I'll throw my hat into the ring as well.
We're using Scientist.net quite heavily in work.

@hutchcodes
Copy link

I hadn't heard of Scientist.net until yesterday and I'll never refactor a critical path without, and I'm also happy to throw my hat in the ring. Mostly I'm just glad to see that this won't be left unmaintained.

@jongalloway
Copy link

This is looking good for a list of maintainers, great to see the response. @shiftkey, if you want to go ahead with .NET Foundation application, next steps are:

  1. Get the new maintainers added to a GitHub maintainers team for this project
  2. Get me the new project questionnaire, doesn't have to be perfectly filled out, check with me if you've got questions.
  3. Part of the application requires getting e-mail addresses from the top contributors so they can sign off, since there's no CLA on this repo. Looks like the top 3 contributors should cover it, and I think we know how to find @haacked...

@rogertinsley
Copy link

I would be interested in helping to maintain this project as it needs to live on. We're heavily investing with our refactoring projects, and we're promoting it in our local .net meetups.

@JoshHiles
Copy link
Contributor

I work at https://www.stockport.gov.uk/ and next month im going to showcase to the Dev team here about using and taking advantage of this wonderful package!

I've never maintained a package before but i would be more than willing to help!

@shiftkey
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Thanks for all the replies, it's great to see interest in keeping this going! Thanks to @haacked for the guidance about maintenance and thanks to @jongalloway for the information about the Foundation.

I got swamped this week with work so I didn't get a chance to follow up until now, but here are my next steps:

Paperwork

@jongalloway mentioned the "new project questionnaire" as well as getting email addresses from the top contributors. I'll chase those up asap.

Virtual Meetup

For the people who showed interest in maintaining Scientist.NET, I would like to organise a virtual hangout to catch up sometime during the first week of February. @zoeysaurusrex @shawnwildermuth @M-Zuber @paulbreen @hutchcodes @rogertinsley @JoshHiles please send an email to [handle] @ [this website] from your preferred contact email so I can invite you and I'll try and find a time slot (or two?) that works over the next week. By then I'll have more clarity about the next steps and getting new faces involved.

If anyone else would like to get involved, please email so can get involved with the meetup.

@shiftkey
Copy link
Collaborator Author

shiftkey commented Feb 7, 2019

For the people who showed interest in maintaining Scientist.NET, I would like to organise a virtual hangout to catch up sometime during the first week of February.

I've been swamped with work and life stuff over the last couple of weeks and this hasn't quite happened. Next week is the goal to have this hangout - apologies for being quiet!

@shiftkey
Copy link
Collaborator Author

shiftkey commented Feb 15, 2019 •
edited
Loading

Status update:

  • I've finally gotten the email out about scheduling a virtual hangout (or two, because yay timezones) that I meant to send out to contributors - please check your emails. If you still want to get involved my email is [handle] @ [this website] dot com. @zoeysaurusrex I don't think I saw an email from you - meetings are at least a week away, so there's plenty of time yet.

  • I'm going to figure out and share here a tentative agenda of topics to cover, based on what we've discussed here.

@shiftkey
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Apologies for a quiet week again folks - cat herding is hard. I've settled on two meeting slots for interested maintainers who contacted me to drop in on:

I might do a follow up later next week for any stragglers, as I didn't get some replies from people. I'm going to circulate invite links to those who sent me their contact details, but if others would like to drop in please send me an email.

I also got approval from the Open Source team at GitHub to move this repository under the new organization https://github.com/scientistproject - those interested have already been invited to the new org. I plan to do this later today if I can get some free time.

Once that transition is done, I'll open up tasks to start tracking what other work needs to be done and co-ordinate with @haacked and @jongalloway about things.

@shiftkey
Copy link
Collaborator Author

If you're reading this, it means the transfer was successful 🎉

@shiftkey shiftkey mentioned this issue Feb 22, 2019
Open
@paulbreen
Copy link
Contributor

@shiftkey how can we get permissions to merge?

@shiftkey
Copy link
Collaborator Author

shiftkey commented Apr 3, 2019

@paulbreen I didn't grant that sooner? Oops, my bad. That should be rectified now.

@AndreasHassing AndreasHassing mentioned this issue Apr 15, 2021
Open
@marblekirby
Copy link

Is this library still being maintained? I would be up for reviving it. The latest version has >200k total downloads.

I would be up for taking over and begin maintaining it, but I won't get involved if no one is merging PRs

@JoshHiles
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @marblekirby!
I was thinking of reviving this myself the other day and will start to look at what we can do to get this back up and running again!

@paulbreen
Copy link
Contributor

paulbreen commented Jul 21, 2021 via email

@marblekirby
Copy link

marblekirby commented Jul 21, 2021 •
edited
Loading

I am up for helping with moving this to .net core/.net 5

@paulbreen
Copy link
Contributor

paulbreen commented Jul 21, 2021 via email

@JoshHiles
Copy link
Contributor

I’m assuming it would be an new github repo and we leave the current one as is for fixes etc?

I think leaving this repo as is, im about to open a PR for feature/core-rewrite with a fresh .NET 6 sln and we can take it from there?
I'll jot down what im proposing in the PR & if you have a look at https://github.com/scientistproject/Scientist.net/projects/1 i will make note of proposals over there

@marblekirby
Copy link

I agree, a fresh slate for .net 6

@marblekirby
Copy link

Let's move this conversation to the new issue?

@JoshHiles
Copy link
Contributor

JoshHiles commented Jul 21, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Let's move this conversation to the new issue?

Issue opened
#135

there is also a gitter as well https://gitter.im/scientistproject/community however i get a 429 "too many requests" 🤷

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
help wanted
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests