cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guillaume Nodet <>
Subject Re: [CONF] Apache CXF > Commercial CXF Offerings
Date Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:28:07 GMT
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 18:18, Hadrian Zbarcea <> wrote:
> Looks like more clarification is in order. I am not a CXF committer.
> My role in the Apache Camel project has no relevance here. Here I
> speak as an Apache member. One of the duties of Apache members is
> to provide oversight to other projects which, experience taught us,
> is a useful and necessary thing.
> The fact that you have the right to express your opinion and position
> is undeniable. Hey, as a cxf-pmc member you also get a binding vote
> in the project. You are also expected to be familiar with the
> 'apache way' and policies.
> What I believe Dan clarified in a previous mail (I hoped) is that
> there are some aspects on which your statement that "the community has
> not decided on its position and that is the only position that ultimately matters"
> is misguided. Things related to branding, trademarks and how they
> are used are not up to the PMC and these topics are even more sensitive
> lately for reasons Dan alluded to.
> So what you're saying about policing is that: "it is one of the
> responsibilities of being a committer". I totally agree with that,
> yet in this particular instance Dan is the one fulfilling the
> committer responsibility of reverting your change. Using your
> reasoning, on would have expected you to fix a change of a
> contributor who's expected to know less about the 'apache way'
> then you, not to create the problem in the first place.
> It's not about consensus, it's about knowing what's right and wrong.
> Non committers on the list showed that it's not hard to make the
> distinction. Now, I know you personally, I've worked with you for
> a number of years, I respect your talents, I know you're a smart and
> honest guy. That's what makes this quite sad. I find it hard to
> believe that your actions were not influenced by external factors.
> I hope I am wrong.
> If you look at the history of this event, what happened is that you
> made changes to the site (not only CXF). On the Camel site I decided
> to write you in private and settle it that way. Dan on the other hand
> decided to just update the page. Moments later Benson saw the change
> and tactfully requested this to stop and then others pitched in.
> There is no need to play games and hide behind lack of community
> consensus, or let's write yet another policy. The guidelines are clear.
> When in doubt ask your PMC chair.

Can we just keep things to straight facts ? Looking at the recent
commit logs, I can't see Eric having done any modification to the web
site on that area.
The only thing I see is Dan moved a part of the "Support" web page to
the "Commercial CXF offerings" one.   AFAIK, Eric is not involved in

> Things happen. We can learn from them and move on.
> Cheers,
> Hadrian
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Eric Johnson wrote:
>> Hadrian,
>> We discussed a specific instance in private. I was happy to accept
>> your guidelines given your position as PMC Chair of Apache Camel and
>> will abide by them. As the existence of this thread evidences, the
>> boundaries of what is acceptable for companies to place on a project
>> site is not clear for the CXF community and they are seeking to form a
>> clear position. This is particularly important now that multiple
>> companies with marketing departments are offering commercial products
>> based on CXF.
>> While you may disagree with my position about the appropriateness of
>> the content allowed to be placed on Apache projects from commercial
>> entities, my position is still a valid one that deserves to be aired.
>> I understand your position and think it is also a valid position.
>> However, the community has not decided on its position and that is the
>> only position that ultimately matters.
>> As for having to police the wiki, it is not the reason for becoming a
>> commiter. However, it is one of the responsibilities of being a
>> commiter. If there was an agreed upon consensus for what is
>> appropriate then self-policing is possible. However, without that
>> consensus everyone is right.
>> Eric
>> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Hadrian Zbarcea <> wrote:
>>> Eric, I am still trying to decide if you are serious or just fooling around.
>>> I thought we clarified this in private. Public is fine too. Comments inline.
>>> If I come across as upset, I am!
>>> Hadrian
>>> On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:14 AM, Eric Johnson wrote:
>>>> I agree with Dan and Glenn. Commercial support makes CXF stronger and
>>>> provides a way for active committers (and some inactive one as well)
>>>> to earn a living while doing what they love doing.
>>> Good so far.
>>>> Letting companies put up some marketing blurb on the support page
>>>> and/or on a dedicated Commercial Offering page does not hurt as long
>>>> as it is clearly marked as commercial.
>>> Wrong. On your company site you can write what you want, on the ASF site, not
so. Regardless of how you mark it.
>>>> As for allowing marketing statements that are more truthy than true, I
>>>> don't think it is a big deal.Who really cares if FuseSource, Talend,
>>>> and MuleSource all claim to have the most active committers or PMC
>>>> members. It doesn't make their offering any better or take away from
>>>> the strength of the CXF community. Besides we can police statements
>>>> like that and remove them if we so choose - as long as it is done
>>>> consistently.
>>> But it is a big deal. Write whatever you want on the fusesource site and link
back to the apache project if you want to.
>>> Adding a link back from the apache site to your site and mention that you offer
support or whatever other service, that's fine.
>>> You have the "Commercial CXF Offerings" page for that. Ads, marketing statements
are not fine.
>>> You can also add links back to your blog, fine too.
>>> I agree that it doesn't make company offering any better or any worse, but that
has nothing to do with the apache project, make your statements on your site, but not on the
apache site just because it has more traffic, or whatever the reason.
>>> There are companies who offer free licenses to commercial products for apache
committers and what they appreciate in return (don't make it a condition) is a link back on
a Thanks page. Just because one is entrusted to edit the wiki doesn't mean one can abuse.
>>> Policing statements? Is that the reason you wanted to become a proud apache committer,
to police the wiki?
>>> We expect self policing. When things are not clear, we clarify them.
>>>> Since there are now at least three decent size companies offering
>>>> commercial products based on CXF we should work out a policy about
>>>> where companies can put links back to their sites and list their
>>>> offerings. It would make it easier for companies to know what the line
>>>> is so they can avoid crossing it.
>>> I think that's pretty clear already.
>>>> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Glen Mazza <> wrote:
>>>>> OK, fine, providing they can link to such horn tooting pages from the
>>>>> support site.  Open source supporting companies hire marketing reps
and I
>>>>> have no problem with them enticing users into getting commercial support.
>>>>>  It's good for the community.  CXF cannot survive on arrogant inactive
>>>>> committers alone.
>>>>> Glen
>>>>> On 02.02.2011 22:28, Jeff Genender wrote:
>>>>>> -1... what is reputable?  Who decides who is "reputable"?  Am I
>>>>>> Apache is not about tooting your own horn.  Go back to your respective
>>>>>> company and have them purchase press releases and advertise on their
>>>>>>  Apache is not a locale for horn tooting.
>>>>>> Jeff
>>>>>> On Feb 2, 2011, at 7:23 PM, Glen Mazza wrote:
>>>>>>> Unless it is blatant lies (i.e., non-reputable companies), I
say let the
>>>>>>> companies do a little bit of advertising on the Support page,
even if they
>>>>>>> contradict each other or embellish a bit.  We want users to
choose support,
>>>>>>> because it results in more hired people working on the projects.
 Let the
>>>>>>> support page be the "toot your own horn" page and instead enforce
>>>>>>> non-advertising throughout the rest of the manual, where everything
>>>>>>> need to be strictly factual.
>>>>>>> Keeping a loose leash on the Support page also helps minimize
>>>>>>> between teams.
>>>>>>> In Manhattan there might be 300 places to buy pizza, about 75
of which
>>>>>>> claim to be "New York's Best Pizza!"  That's just advertising,
it doesn't
>>>>>>> need to be taken seriously.
>>>>>>> Glen
>>>>>>> On 02.02.2011 20:50, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>>>>>>>> Someone is paying attention... cool.  :-)
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday 02 February 2011 8:27:38 pm Benson Margulies
>>>>>>>>> Do we need to have these dueling claims for who employs
how many
>>>>>>>>> committers / PMC members? Could we persuade both Talend
and FUSE to
>>>>>>>>> just say 'committers, get your red hot committers!'
>>>>>>>> I'm in the process of cleaning things up a bit.   I've been
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> various people on the trademark committee as well as others
and one
>>>>>>>> "concern"
>>>>>>>> that has been expressed with some projects is project sites
being used
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> marketing vehicles for specific commercial offerings and
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> guideline I got was:
>>>>>>>> --------------------
>>>>>>>> PMCs can choose to have "these companies support our product"
pages if
>>>>>>>> they want.  But they have to be factual, non-advertisements;
should be
>>>>>>>> in specific places on the project's site; and must not be
>>>>>>>> (i.e. any other reputable company needs to be able to request
to add
>>>>>>>> links as well).
>>>>>>>> --------------------
>>>>>>>> Step one was just to copy the information and localize it
all to a
>>>>>>>> specific
>>>>>>>> page.     Step two is the "factual, non-advertisement"
>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 8:23 PM,<>
>>>>>>>>>> Commercial CXF Offerings
>>>>>>>>>> Page added by Daniel Kulp
>>>>>>>>>> Commercial CXF Offerings
>>>>>>>>>> Apache CXF is a widely used project. As such several
companies have
>>>>>>>>>> build
>>>>>>>>>> products and services around CXF. This page is dedicated
to providing
>>>>>>>>>> descriptions of those offerings. Companies are definitely
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> update this page directly or send a mail to the CXF
PMC with a
>>>>>>>>>> description of your offerings and we can update the
page. The products
>>>>>>>>>> and services listed on this page are provided for
information use only
>>>>>>>>>> to our users. The CXF PMC does not endorse or recommend
any of the
>>>>>>>>>> products or services on this page.
>>>>>>>>>> FuseSource
>>>>>>>>>> FuseSource offers enterprise subscriptions that include
>>>>>>>>>> Developer and Production Support on ActiveMQ, Camel,
CXF and
>>>>>>>>>> ServiceMix
>>>>>>>>>> - including Training, Consulting&   Mentoring.
They also employ most
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> the core committers on the projects to ensure you
get the best
>>>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>>>> answers to all your support needs and your bugs fixed
>>>>>>>>>> MuleSoft
>>>>>>>>>> MuleSoft provides support for Apache CXF as a part
of its Mule
>>>>>>>>>> enterprise
>>>>>>>>>> subscription offering. Mule is a popular open source
ESB and
>>>>>>>>>> integration
>>>>>>>>>> platform, with support for SOAP web services, as
well as REST, JMS,
>>>>>>>>>> File
>>>>>>>>>> and over 100+ additional transports.
>>>>>>>>>> Sosnoski Software Associates Ltd
>>>>>>>>>> Sosnoski Software Associates Ltd provides training
and support for
>>>>>>>>>> CXF,
>>>>>>>>>> along with training and support for web services
security and SOA
>>>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>>>> on CXF.
>>>>>>>>>> Talend
>>>>>>>>>> Talend provides enterprise level services and support
for Apache CXF
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> their Talend Service Factory product which is a repackaging
of CXF
>>>>>>>>>> including a full, pre-configured OSGi runtime container.
Talend also
>>>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>>>> a package of examples that demonstrate many of CXF's
advanced features
>>>>>>>>>> including JAX-RS use cases, OSGi deployments, Security,
etc... Talend
>>>>>>>>>> also employs the leading CXF committers that are
experts in all areas
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> CXF including JAX-RS, JAX-WS, WS-Security, etc...
to make sure any
>>>>>>>>>> bugs
>>>>>>>>>> and issues can be resolved quickly and accurately.
>>>>>>>>>> Change Notification Preferences
>>>>>>>>>> View Online | Add Comment
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Glen Mazza
>>>>>>> Software Engineer, Talend (
>>>>>>> blog:
>>>>> --
>>>>> Glen Mazza
>>>>> Software Engineer, Talend (
>>>>> blog:
>>>> --
>>>> Principle Technical Writer
>>>> Phone (781) 280-4174
>>>> Skype finnmccumial
>>>> E-Mail
>>>> Blog
>> --
>> Principle Technical Writer
>> Phone (781) 280-4174
>> Skype finnmccumial
>> E-Mail
>> Blog

Guillaume Nodet
Open Source SOA

View raw message