incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Struberg <strub...@yahoo.de.INVALID>
Subject Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Date Sun, 25 Sep 2016 18:26:51 GMT
+1

This is almsot a worst case calculation.
I too think that we will be able to cut down costs seriously as we do not need 10 servers
anymore. 

E.g. we can share the OSX box with OpenOffice, the GIT repo will get cut down and the traffic
is mostly offloaded to github.
We might be able to offload the plugins hosting to Maven.central and/or Bintray, etc

Of course there will still be resources which are needed, but I don't see them as show stopper.



I also think the initial committer discussion is resolved.

So what else do we need before starting a VOTE?
This thread has almost 200 replies, so there seems to be a huge interest...


LieGrue,
strub





> On Sunday, 25 September 2016, 19:03, Geertjan Wielenga <geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com>
wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> 
> 
>>  My only concern, if you go ahead with a vote before you get an ack, is
>>  that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs.
> 
> 
> I'd like to reiterate a point I have made earlier: the preliminary NetBeans
> cost findings are based on the current infrastructure of NetBeans in
> Oracle. In the context of Apache, a number of the services we had before we
> will (1) not need anymore or (2) not have supported by Apache anymore.
> 
> During incubation, we will work on moving the Oracle NetBeans
> infrastructure to the Apache NetBeans infrastructure. We are extremely
> interested in being part of Apache and have wanted this for many years
> already -- we are going to err on the side of compliance with the Apache
> Way over the structures we had before. Take a look again at the proposal
> and notice how many organizations are already involved -- multiple of those
> will be able to provide the services that Apache may not be able to provide.
> 
> We simply want to be an Apache project, we love Apache, we have supported
> so many Apache projects over the years (Maven, Ant, Groovy, and more) and
> want to support even more of them and simply be good citizens of the Apache
> community.
> 
> Gj
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Gruno <humbedooh@apache.org> 
> wrote:
> 
>>  On 09/25/2016 06:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>  > Hi Daniel,
>>  >
>>  > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno 
> <humbedooh@apache.org>
>>  wrote:
>>  >> ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and 
> the
>>  cliff
>>  >> notes are as follows...
>>  >
>>  > Thanks very much for this - it is useful and I think we should do that
>>  > for any "big" podling that comes in, from now on.
>>  >
>>  >> ...Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the 
> board
>>  for
>>  >> a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as 
> well as
>>  >> the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this 
> into
>>  >> the existing ASF infra....
>>  >
>>  > I don't think asking for budget is a task of the Incubator PMC, I 
> would
>>  suggest
>>  >
>>  > 1. Incubator PMC/infra estimates the cost of new podlings as you did
>>  > 2. Incubator PMC reports those numbers to ASF infra at regular
>>  > intervals, maybe just include them in their monthly reports
>>  > 3. Infra adds the numbers up and if needed asks for more budget based
>>  > on these podlings
>> 
>>  I think it very much _is_ the job of the IPMC to argue for increased
>>  spending, as any other project would if they required additional funds
>>  for specific requirements. The IPMC (or rather, a part of it) wants to
>>  add NetBeans as a podling, it should be up to the IPMC to argue the
>>  podling's case.
>> 
>>  Infra has already expressed concerns with the costs of the podling
>>  (remember VP Infra started this discussion), it's up to the IPMC to get
>>  an ack that this increased expenditure is okay. I'm not saying this
>>  needs to be voted on by the board (I honestly don't know/care how this
>>  is done), but it should be acked by operations that the added expense is
>>  okay.
>> 
>>  >
>>  > For now, considering that the numbers you indicate won't make a 
> big
>>  > dent in the current infra budget [1] and considering that it's the
>>  > first time we do such an analysis I suggest for the infra team to
>>  > accept decoupling the NetBeans acceptance vote from the details of
>>  > these numbers, and we'll sort out the corresponding budget later 
> at
>>  > the board / infra level.
>> 
>>  Infra doesn't decide which podlings the IPMC lets into the fold, but it
>>  may say "sorry, we're not going to offer you the services you 
> require"
>>  if there's no acknowledgement that an increased expense is okay.
>> 
>>  The IPMC is, for all I care, free to hold a vote, in which people may
>>  vote -1 if they don't think the budget is sound/warranted. Infra 
> doesn't
>>  have binding votes there :)
>> 
>>  My only concern, if you go ahead with a vote before you get an ack, is
>>  that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs.
>> 
>>  With regards,
>>  Daniel.
>> 
>>  >
>>  > -Bertrand
>>  >
>>  > [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/
>>  2015/board_minutes_2015_04_22.txt
>>  > for example
>>  >
>>  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>  > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>  >
>> 
>> 
>>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>  For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> 
>> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message