cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rafael Weingärtner <rafaelweingart...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ
Date Thu, 29 Jun 2017 19:27:33 GMT
ACS is an Apache project, not a foundation per se; donation goes to Apache.
I know that there is some discussion/work to create a way for donating
things (not just money) to projects, but I do not know how that is going.

I do not think we need to create other foundation and move away from Apache
(because that is what this move would look like....)

But still, I wonder, even if we had a CloudStack foundation, would that
make organizations that rely on it to donate/contribute more actively? Is
that the real problem?



On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Marty Godsey <marty@gonsource.com> wrote:

> Alex,
>
> I agree.. The only "good" way that we will get more adoption is to treat
> it like an Enterprise product. But that would require investment.
> Investment with money, not just time.
>
> As an example, I use pfSense alot in my projects. If I put in a pfSense
> router, I take 2-5% (depends on scope) of the GDM and donate to the pfSense
> project. I do this because pfSense makes me a lot of money and I want it to
> get better.. The only way it will get better is by supporting it. And even
> if I was a coder, "supporting" it with code only goes so far.
>
> And as mentioned, we create a CloudStack Foundation that is a 501C corp so
> it's a non-profit and tax deductible for people donating.
>
> So the next question is who would we speak with to get this ball rolling
> or even a discussion started?
>
> Regards,
> Marty Godsey
> Principal Engineer
> nSource Solutions, LLC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Hitchins [mailto:alex@alexhitchins.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 1:49 PM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ
>
> If it isn't being treated as a product it will be very impossible to
> market it as enterprise ready.
>
> I know we all know this.
>
> Similar sized projects under the Apache banner must have the same issue,
> what is the best way to gather experience of these projects? See how they
> handle these growing pains.
>
> A cloudstack foundation entity funded by companies earning from cloudstack
> seems a good way forward.
>
> Another tuppence, this is getting expensive.
>
>
>
> > On 29 Jun 2017, at 18:18, Ron Wheeler <rwheeler@artifact-software.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I understand that it is a volunteer organization.
> > I do not know how many (if any) of the committers and PMC members are
> funded by their organizations (allowed or ordered to work on Cloudstack
> during company time) which is often the way that Apache projects get
> staffed.
> >
> > Clearly it is hard to tell someone who is being funded by a company to
> fix a problem or who is working on their own time, to do or not do
> something.
> >
> > On the other hand, the PMC has to  build a community culture that is
> good for the project.
> > That means describing a vision, planning and enforcing a roadmap, and
> maintaining a focused project "marketing" effort.
> >
> > There is a lot of extremely talented individuals working on Cloudstack
> and it appears to have a very strong and valuable code-base.
> >
> > To me the key question is about the PMC and the core committers' ability
> to make Cloudstack a "product" that can compete for market share and
> acceptance.
> >
> > Is Cloudstack at a point in its development where it should be treated
> like a product?
> > - sufficient functionality to compete
> > - sufficient user base to be a competitor in the market
> > - production reliability and stability
> > - business model for supporting companies to justify their continued
> > support
> >
> > This may not require more effort but requires different policies and
> different activities.
> >
> > There has to be someone or a PMC  that can say "No".
> > - This change can not be included in this release because it will delay
> the release.
> > - This change adds an unacceptable level of complexity
> > - This bug fix will have to wait for the next release because it is too
> late to test it and fix the docs.
> > - This fix breaks the docs
> > - The release can not be made until this doc is updated.
> >
> > Does the core group want to make it a competitive product or is it
> sufficient for the interested players to continue in its current form?
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 29/06/2017 9:42 AM, Will Stevens wrote:
> >> I personally don't know how Jira solves any of this, but assuming it
> >> does, fine...
> >>
> >> The bigger problem which you have raised is that CloudStack has zero
> >> funding. So we can't hire a project manager, or a release manager or
> >> someone whose job it is to maintain documentation. I have been trying
> >> to find a way to, at the very least, fund a full time release manager
> >> who can focus 100% on the project. As the release manager for 4.9, I
> >> know it is a full time job. I did my best, but it is a ton of work
> >> and is hard to stay on top of.
> >>
> >> Everyone contributing to CloudStack is donating their time. They
> >> can't make a living off supporting ACS, so every one is doing their
> >> best with the little time they can take away from their day job or
> their family life.
> >>
> >> Yes, having clear guidelines and sticking to them helps, but without
> >> a solid CI infrastructure backing the project and improved testing
> >> and automation, we will always struggles with release schedules and
> such.
> >>
> >> I have been involved in this project long enough to know that all the
> >> problems you point out exist, but they are also not easily solved.
> >> Obviously we have to work with the initiatives we have and take small
> >> steps towards improvement, but we also have to be realistic with our
> >> expectations because we are counting on people's generosity to move
> them forward.
> >>
> >> Simplifying moving parts and streamlining the process will lead to
> >> more contribution because there is less barriers to entry. This one
> >> reason why I struggle to see the value in Jira as it is used today. I
> >> personally don't understand what value it is giving us that the
> >> github PRs and Issues don't solve.
> >>
> >> I will remain open minded and will follow along with what people
> >> think is best, but I think it is worth understanding what we are
> >> trying to solve for and simplify our approach in solving it so we can
> >> get better systems in place.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jun 29, 2017 9:17 AM, "Ron Wheeler"
> >> <rwheeler@artifact-software.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> As a real outsider, IMHO Paul is right.
> >>>
> >>> At times it seems that Cloudstack is a coding hobby rather than a
> >>> project or a production quality product.
> >>>
> >>> Who decides what goes into a release? How does this affect the
> >>> release schedule?
> >>> Who is responsible for meeting the "published" roadmap (of which
> >>> there seem to be many) of releases?
> >>>
> >>> How is a system admin that is not part of the project supposed to
> >>> plan for upgrade windows?
> >>> How does one know when a feature, bug fix or release will be available?
> >>>
> >>> How does the PMC  manage function creep  in a release, maintain
> >>> quality and consistency, reject changes that hurt the overall vision
> >>> or add too much complexity?
> >>>
> >>> No one seems to care about documentation but if someone did, how
> >>> would they stop undocumented features or features that contradict
> >>> the documentation from being incorporated?
> >>> Who makes sure that the documentation is correct at the time of the
> >>> release?
> >>> Release notes are not much help for someone doing a new install or
> >>> evaluating Cloudstack.
> >>>
> >>> Without a JIRA entry, how does an end-user who encounters a problem
> >>> know that it has been fixed already in the next release?
> >>>
> >>> Without a JIRA entry, how does the community comment on a proposed
> >>> change before it gets coded?
> >>>
> >>> If changes are going to be accepted without a JIRA, is there a
> >>> definition of a minor fix that does not require a JIRA?
> >>> - does not change functionality?
> >>> - only affects an "edge case" or cleans up an exception that is not
> >>> properly handled?
> >>> - only improves code readability or future extensibility?
> >>> - does not affect documentation?
> >>>
> >>> Apache projects that are popular and enjoy wide support do have
> >>> strong management.
> >>>
> >>> There are other examples where great Apache software is failing to
> >>> get recognized because the PMC is not paying attention to the
> >>> product management side of things.
> >>> I use Apache Jackrabbit which is a quality product with a strong
> >>> technical team supporting it.
> >>> It has very little following because the documentation and marketing
> >>> collateral is very poor.
> >>> It gets by because the audience for it is largely software
> >>> developers who can read code and can test features to work out the
> functionality.
> >>> It would get a lot more attention if they paid attention to the
> >>> product management side of the project.
> >>>
> >>> Cloudstack needs to avoid this situation and unfortunately this
> >>> takes effort and some discipline.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Ron
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On 29/06/2017 8:03 AM, Will Stevens wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Why are we still using jira instead of the PRs for that
> >>>> communication? Can we not use issues in github now instead of jira
> >>>> if someone needs to open an issue but does not yet have code to
> >>>> contribute. If not, jira could still be used for that.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think duplicating data between jira and the PR is kind of
> >>>> pointless. I feel like the github PRs and the cide going in should
> >>>> be the source of truth, not a random third party tool.
> >>>>
> >>>> For the 4.9 release notes, i built a tool to generate the release
> >>>> notes from the PRs merged in that release. I think that is easier
> >>>> and more accurate than depending on jira since it does not track
> >>>> the actual code tree.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thats my 0.02$.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jun 29, 2017 5:25 AM, "Paul Angus" <paul.angus@shapeblue.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Such a view of CloudStack is what holds CloudStack back.
> >>>> It stops users/operators from having any chance of understanding
> >>>> what CloudStack does and how it does it.
> >>>> Code for code's sake is no use to anyone.
> >>>> Jira is about communication between developers and to everyone else.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Kind regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Paul Angus
> >>>>
> >>>> paul.angus@shapeblue.com
> >>>> www.shapeblue.com
> >>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com]
> >>>> Sent: 29 June 2017 10:14
> >>>> To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
> >>>> Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Paul Angus
> >>>> <paul.angus@shapeblue.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> + Release notes will be impossible to create without a proper Jira
> >>>>>
> >>>> history.
> >>>>
> >>>>> And no one will know what has gone into CloudStack.
> >>>>>
> >>>> No they are not mr Grumpy. they should be base on the code anyway,
> >>>> hence on git, not jira. I do not appose to the use of Jira but it
> >>>> is not required for good coding practices and as we are not and
> >>>> will not function as a corporation, jira is an extra for those that
> >>>> grave for it. not a requirement.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Daan
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>> Ron Wheeler
> >>> President
> >>> Artifact Software Inc
> >>> email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> >>> skype: ronaldmwheeler
> >>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > --
> > Ron Wheeler
> > President
> > Artifact Software Inc
> > email: rwheeler@artifact-software.com
> > skype: ronaldmwheeler
> > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
> >
>
>


-- 
Rafael Weingärtner

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message