docs: transition project status to active

[ColinEberhardt]

@brooklynrob @mcleo-d

As per my email in Jan to the DT PMC (below), we got a couple of +1 votes, are you happy to transition to active?

I'd like to seek approval from the Data Technologies PMC to transition the state of DataHelix to 'activated', with reference to the new Project Lifecycle:

https://finosfoundation.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/FINOS/pages/1158053892/RFC+Revised+Project+Lifecycle

With respect to the checklist ...

Development Process - we are using semantic versioning, CI, releasing automatically via semantic release
Build & Release - this is fully automated and documented. Builds are shared via GitHub.
Security - WhiteSource has been integrated via ODP
Documentation - we have end user docs, developer docs and a website
Community - we have 44 contributors
Project Team - we are represented on the PMC
License - Apache 2.0
Trademark - no issues
Progress - we have a public roadmap and have releases that track, we also have meeting minutes
Versioning - we use semantic versioning
Roadmap - published
FINOS Support - we are self-sufficient
Usefulness - we've had a lot of interest in using the project
Status Badging - we'll do this!
Compliance - licence text is applied
Community Inquiries - all issues are responded to in a timely fashion
Meeting Hygiene - our minutes are on FINO wiki
Transparency - as per above

[mindthegab]

Thanks @ColinEberhardt - creating a checklist here to make sure I have all the requirements properly ticked off of the Activation page:

Quality and Security

• Development Process: We are using semantic versioning, CI, releasing automatically via semantic release
• Build & Release: this is fully automated and documented. Builds are shared via GitHub
• Security: WhiteSource has been integrated via ODP
• Documentation: we have end user docs, developer docs and a website

Diversity and Viability

• Community: you say "we have 44 contributors" which is great. @ColinEberhardt Could you point to one that is not a ScottLogic employee, so we tick the box fo "2+ independent organizations"?
• Project Team: we are represented on the PMC (and anyway the PMC is gone now)
• License: All Apache 2.0
• Trademark: No trademark issues

Roadmap and Resources

• Progress: we have a public roadmap and have releases that track, we also have meeting minutes
• Versioning: @ColinEberhardt I see you announce a recent release on your blog? Not a blocker, but maybe you can commit to do a further blog or at least announce@ email post activation and for future major/minor new releases?
• Roadmap: published
• FINOS Support: project is self-sustained, as I can confirm :)

Growth and Adoption

• Usefulness: you say "we've had a lot of interest in using the project". While I fully agree, would you be able to share some referenceable details there given the requirement says "demonstrably"? For example I see download stats are somewhat growing, but I wonder if you had any further qualitative pointer. Also, I see you deploy to Maven Central. Given the groupId is still "com.scottlogic.datahelix.generator", I can't check myself download stats. So can you provide those and be open to move the next release to groupId "org.finos.datahelix.generator"? (you can use relocation to preserve backward compatibility /cc @maoo )
• _Status Badging: great :)

Hygiene & Operations

• Compliance: licence text is applied
• Community Inquiries: all issues are responded to in a timely fashion
• Meeting Hygiene: our minutes are on FINO wiki
• [X} Transparency : as per above (and I'd add that issues are properly openly tracked in github https://github.com/finos/datahelix/issues)

So all in all, only a couple of open items - if you can provide details @ColinEberhardt we should be able to move quickly.

[ColinEberhardt]

Thanks for the feedback Gab - in response ...

Community: you say "we have 44 contributors" which is great. @ColinEberhardt Could you point to one that is not a ScottLogic employee, so we tick the box fo "2+ independent organizations"?

Tricky - I'm not familiar with everyones GitHub handle, although it may all be SL employees at the moment.

Versioning: @ColinEberhardt I see you announce a recent release on your blog? Not a blocker, but maybe you can commit to do a further blog or at least announce@ email post activation and for future major/minor new releases?

Absolutely - we've also committed to do a FINOS webinar on Data Helix.

Usefulness: While I fully agree, would you be able to share some referenceable details here

@andrewcarrblue - can you please help with that one?

Given the groupId is still "com.scottlogic.datahelix.generator", I can't check myself download stats. So can you provide those and be open to move the next release to groupId "org.finos.datahelix.generator"? (you can use relocation to preserve backward compatibility /cc @maoo )

raised an issue here #1676

Notice, we might not be able to meet every single requirement fully, but hopefully it is close enough?

[mindthegab]

Perfect thanks.

I've checked the Versioning aspect as done. Re Usefulness I'll wait for input from @andrewcarrblue on Usefulness.

I agree this checklist is more of a guideline than a strict set of black/white requirements, but for Community I think it's particularly important to show at least one more organization (other than FINOS) contributing, even if just one commit or a patch, before proceeding with Activation. In my mind that is actually the most important item on the checklist. Out of the many parties you mention "expressed interest", can we identify one potential candidate for contribution and maybe strategize on how FINOS can help making that happen?

We're getting there, so thanks for working through this process with us.

[maoo]

From a technical standpoint, everything LGTM .

As Gab noticed, I would suggest to plan a packaging name change - across the codebase - from com.scottlogic to org.finos , but I'm not sure if this will have any impact on customisations, plugins, or any other external dependencies to datahelix. @ColinEberhardt @sl-slaing , wdyt?

[mindthegab]

Want to make sure I don't drop the ball here / it's not blocked on us.

I think having additional contributors and, potentially, the package name are the key items open left.

[mindthegab]

hey @ColinEberhardt - checking on this one - still a goal of the maintainers to activate this project?

Let us know how we can help.