incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Samuel Rojas <sro...@gusl.org.ve>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Accept OpenOffice.org for incubation
Date Tue, 14 Jun 2011 13:44:01 GMT
+1
El jun 13, 2011 2:28 p.m., "JLCastle" <lemoyne.castle@gmail.com> escribió:
> I see this is too late to count but I offer my thoughts anyway.
> It was already late before it lurked in an outbox for a while.
>
> [-1] (non-binding) Vote to reject the OpenOffice.org PROPOSAL
>
> I reject the proposal not the community or the project.
>
> I am still a bit of an open source newb and do not have a long history
> with either the code base, IP issues or the community.
> Please be free to correct or work around my misapprehensions.
> Please accept my remarks as offered in the spirit of contribution to the
> proposal's goal of continuing the creation, "as a community, [of] the
> leading international office suite".
>
> I am a TDF contributor but that is not the reason I reject the proposal
> as it stands.
> I am powerfully drawn to contribute to ASF and the OO project, despite
> my preference for an LGPL license. [1]
> I do not see the primary goals and interests of the Apache
> OpenOffice.org community and the TDF community as divergent.
> I believe that all open source branches of the OpenOffice family tree
> (linked by their still mostly common code base) will thrive best when
> they all thrive.
>
> The primary reasons I must reject this proposal (not the project!) come
> from my understanding of ASF and from a few years of maintenance
> development on a large old app:
>
> 1) The Rationale doesn't work for me at all:
> "Both Oracle and ASF agree that the OpenOffice.org development
> community, previously fragmented, would re-unite under ASF to ensure a
> stable and long term future for OpenOffice.org. "
> -1A) This sentence speaks for ASF. I have seen several emails where
> this is frowned upon within the Apache community, but I will assume the
> true Sponsor (the Incubator) can speak as ASF through the proposal (back
> to itself?). A bit convoluted for the Rationale. More to the point is
> TDF's first value: We commit ourselves to eliminate the digital divide
> in society by giving everyone access to office productivity tools free
> of charge to enable them to participate as full citizens in the 21st
> century. --
> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Next_Decade_Manifesto
> -1B) The 're-uniting a fragmented development community' meme is
> disingenuous or just plain wrong. The permissive nature of the Apache
> license is called pragmatic because it is intended to allow and
> encourage a variety of proprietary downstream development branches: this
> is a fragmentation of development effort, nu? Also, LibreOffice
> development with its maturing timed release schedule and replacement of
> OpenOffice in many Linux distros is neither a figment nor a fragment.
> -1C) The Rationale for the project might simply change 'agree' to
> 'intend' and 'would re-unite' to 'could re-unite' to break down the
> resemblance to the Borg's infamous 'assumed close' technique. [2]
>
> 2) The Meritocracy section is broken. "Apache was chosen specifically
> because Oracle as contributor, and IBM as Sponsor [...] want to
> encourage this style of development for the project." Leaving aside the
> veracity, what does "IBM as Sponsor" mean? The Incubator site says the
> Sponsor must be part of Apache - here the true Sponsor is the Apache
> Incubator. And I don't think 'IBM as Sponsor of ASF' works either.
> Open, democratic and transparent aren't about style - they are
> requirements for success and graduation.
>
> 3) The missings:
> 3A) Initial Goals section:
> It is sudden (tho' not surprising), a bit of a mess, all new and there
> is a lot to sort out.
> The Initial Goals could be a series of assertions of 'by when' critical
> aspects will get sorted out.
> -- Accessible, buildable repo: Unless it's just about to happen, this is
> initial goal 1.
> -- If the build system, code, artwork, etc have IP issues that make a
> dev repo unavailable then they become goal 0.
> -- Germ of Release Plan: Release what? when? OK, then: By when goals set
> = initial goal
> -- Idea of Core Team: how many FTers? From where? How many others to
> balance as community? Enough in #? Enough in coverage? How many
> community + non-sponsored developers to balance that into a community
> project? (by when have #s)
>
> 3B) There is other suggested content here --
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html -- that appears to be
> germane in this case of a large, established (OO has code older than
> Apache) project with a history checkered by 'management issues'.
>
> 3C) The Community section is missing translators, help/doc and only
> lists users and only infers the presence of national orgs with
> "supporter[sic], promoters, trainers, consultants, e.g., an extended
> ecosystem". In fact, the whole Community section reads like a business
> analysis: it speaks almost entirely about various releases. And as
> either a business analysis or community description it fails to mention
> the centralizing OOo brand.
>
> The flaws in Rationale, Meritocracy and Community with missing Initial
> Goals all add up to this stopper:
> -- The proposal doesn't just have hat problems, it looks like the
> case of The Wrong Trousers. [3]
>
> The proposal has existed a couple weeks and drawn out a nascent
> community of near 100 contributors. I understand that an incubation
> proposal is normally written by the [representatives of a] community
> seeking to enter incubation. While the project file delivery is sorted
> out and the infastructure is set-up there is time to set your course as
> a community. I can see the AOO community is eager to work on status and
> goals. Developing 'where we at' and 'where we going' will call out a
> rationale worthy of your community.
>
> I have been tremendously impressed by the skill and principles of the
> Apache community.
> The enthusiasm and experience of the community gathering around this
> project is inspiring.
> I would have voted for the proposal as is (X-P) with the addition of one
> initial goal to rewrite the proposal as a community.
> I apologize I did not get to figure much of this out for myself till the
> weekend.
> Projects are multiplying in my life like rabbits in summer, many besides
> AOO.
>
> There is a potential for AOO to come out of incubation in ~1/2 year as a
> TLP that promptly puts ~all of itself back into incubation as 8, 10 or
> even 20 subprojects [each app (or functional section? or both sets?),
> users, translators, build/release/package, qa, help/doc, site/wiki,
> etc.].
> I truly wish you well in this endeavor.
> It *IS* epic.
>
> Blessed Be!
> LeMoyne
>
> [1] If you wish to discuss 'the dread licensing issue' on this thread
> you are, of course, free to do so. Please change your subject line and
> please restrict your comments to relevant licenses that are held by The
> Dread Pirate Roberts, Judge Dredd or someone with dreadlocks.
> [2] It pains me to follow through on the analogy and see ASF cast in the
> role of Locutus.
> [3] A Wallace and Gromit movie by Nick Park. You don't want to wear the
> pants if they're The Wrong Trousers.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> JLCastle <lemoyne.castle@gmail.com>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>

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