incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] RE: SVN and bringing the total end-to-end OOo project under Configuration Management
Date Tue, 30 Aug 2011 18:52:33 GMT
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Raphael Bircher <> wrote:
> Hi Rob
> So you want to split the community into a official apache and a inofficial
> extendet community? That will happend if you will fellow strictly the apache
> way. Then we will have the Development here and the rest outthere. If this
> is good or bad, I don't know. But if it's like that, we should start to
> organize te inofficial Community.

Are there some aspects of the Apache Way that the OOo community does not like?

    * collaborative software development

    * commercial-friendly standard license

    * consistently high quality software

    * respectful, honest, technical-based interaction

    * faithful implementation of standards

    * security as a mandatory feature [1]

I'd be interested in hearing why these aspects of the Apache Way are
unacceptable.  Maybe it would help if you explained what you think are
the core beliefs of the OOo community and where they are in conflict
with the above.




> Greetings Raphael
> Am 30.08.11 01:55, schrieb Rob Weir:
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>> <>  wrote:
>>> Rob, I completely disagree with embracing everything under ALv2 and
>>> exclusive Apache Way custodianship.  I don't consider that a goal.  I don't
>>> see how that serves the extended community at all.
>> I'm not talking about converting existing contributions to ALv2.
>> Obviously we cannot do that.  I'm talking about future contributions.
>> We'll have a community wiki, yes of course.  We have one now.  We've
>> had it since we first started.  We'll have a user list, certainly.
>> But core project functions, such as development,  translation,
>> documentation, user support, etc., should be integrated into the
>> project, the Apache project.  These are core project responsibilities.
>>  Every other Apache project does this.  I have not heard a cogent
>> argument why this should not be true of us.
>> The thing to let sink in is that this is an Apache project, with an
>> Apache project community, with an Apache license.   We only delay the
>> inevitable if we continue talking like there will be an independent
>> entity, using Apache servers and trademarks, but electing licenses
>> other than ALv2 and using a decision making process and meritocracy
>> independent of the Apache project and the Apache Way.
>> We need to start talking about how we integrate and welcome the
>> community into the project, not just integrate websites.  We need to
>> start explaining the benefits of signing the iCLA and the benefits of
>> the Apache Way.  If we fail to do this, then we fail as a PPMC, and
>> ultimately as a project.
>>> I accept that is not your position.
>>> As far as I know, the position you express is not a commonly held view,
>>> though whatever view is commonly held is not all that clear.
>> I'm arguing the logic of my position.  You were doing the same, but
>> now you've veered off to arguing mass opinion.
>>> Furthermore, I don't believe we have the right to appropriate all things
>>> at that are not explicit in the Oracle SGA.  It seems that is
>>> not part of the Apache Way.
>> That is not what I was proposing.
>>> So we need to be careful and respectful of what there is and what has
>>> gone before in taking custodianship of the domain name(s).  I think that
>>> means endeavoring to perpetuate those sites in a manner that changes only
>>> what we have to change to bridge to the Apache project.  What is not
>>> essential to the Apache project needs to be sustained in its operation for
>>> now and we can work out further arrangements as we go.
>> OOo also independently raised funds, organized events, gave permission
>> for trademark use, registered domain names, applied for Google Summer
>> of Code, collected money from conference sponsors, hosted commercial
>> extensions on their websites, put Oracle product advertisements in
>> their install programs, etc.  We're not going to continue all of these
>> things.  We cannot continue all of these things.  We're an Apache
>> project.  We need to start thinking like one.
>> There is absolutely no obligation to continue something OOo did merely
>> because OOo did it.
>> Apache is not the Internet Archive. We have no duty to curate and
>> preserve things just because they existed at OOo.  As you know,
>> LibreOffice did not just copy everything as-is from OOo.  Why should
>> we not have similar freedom of action?
>> Apache is not SourceForge.  Unlike OOo it does not work for us to
>> create nearly 200 independent "projects" beneath our podling that
>> maintain their own websites, their own wikis, their own code
>> repositories and their own releases.  If there is a project that we
>> neglect to migrate, because we don't appreciate its value, then there
>> is nothing that prevents volunteers who worked on that project from
>> applying to become their own incubation project, or from setting up
>> their own independent project.
>> The default action is that nothing happens unless sufficient
>> volunteers step forward to migrate a service and then integrate it
>> into the Apache project.  This means integrating it not only at the
>> Infrastructure level, but also as a component of an Apache project,
>> under the Apache Way and with the reality that a project exists as an
>> entity within a larger non-profit corporation, etc.  That is the
>> default.
>>> The only alternative I can imagine is if some other party steps up to
>>> operate and Apache provides them the use of the domain name
>>> under some suitable arrangement.  That would also be a decent Plan B if we
>>> fail to graduate from incubation.
>> There are certainly some who are hoping for this.  But the hard part
>> of having a successful alternative service is not the trademark or the
>> domain.  The hard part is providing the technical
>> infrastructure, expertise and volunteers.
>> Look at  They get tons of traffic though they
>> are independent of the OOo and get no advantage from the URL or any
>> official relationship to the project.
>> Look also at LibreOffice for a similar case.  They've made significant
>> progress, without any use of OOo trademarks, logos or domain names.
>> Look also at ODFAuthors for another example.
>> If someone wanted to host an OOo wiki, or community website, or
>> documentation site, or extensions site, or whatever, they can JFDI.
>> Lack of the domain name did not prevented the above
>> projects from setting up successful websites.  Why should it prevent
>> someone today?
>> In any case, if someone really thinks they need to use the trademark,
>> logo or domain name then there is always the ability to submit a
>> proposal to the PPMC.  They could also make their own incubation
>> proposal to Apache.  Since Apache, not this project, owns the
>> trademark, logo and domain name, Apache could then mediate access to
>> these assets among the Apache projects that request them.  That is
>> also an option we might have at graduation, to move in to multiple new
>> projects.
>>> I agree that using a private SVN for the non-developer community stuff is
>>> not ideal and would not be permissible if it was all Apache.  I'm not wedded
>>> to that.  What I found valuable is that it doesn't create any undesirable
>>> contamination of what will be clean Apache project SVN with material that is
>>> not so pure.
>>> Another way to look at it is a web-site/-service version of an Apache
>>> Extra, visible to the world on a non-Apache domain name.
>>>  - Dennis
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Rob Weir []
>>> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 14:33
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] RE: SVN and bringing the total end-to-end OOo
>>> project under Configuration Management
>>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
>>> <>  wrote:
>>>> I've been mulling this over and I am wondering about another way to look
>>>> at the problem, building on Eike's suggestion too.
>>>> This is not a proposal.  It is too high-level and not concrete enough
>>>> with a viable roadmap.  We need to see if we can find a consensus in
>>>> principle and then see what kind of roadmap would have
>>>> continue in operation.  The goal is as  little disruption as necessary
>>>> achieve rehosting and sustained operation on behalf of the extended
>>>> community and also create an effective firewall between the Apache project
>>>> and non-Apache community efforts such as the NLC activities.
>>> "As little disruption as necessary"  and "sustained operation" are
>>> opposing desires.  I think we should seeking to optimize the project
>>> as an Apache project, not merely transport everything as-is.
>>> Another point is that, regardless of the legacy of the project, Apache
>>> 2.0 license is not antithetical to community contributions.  We should
>>> be requiring it everywhere, for all contributions.  If we wanted to be
>>> true to the past, then we'd require copyright assignment to Oracle,
>>> right?  Obviously, moving from that to ALv2 is a big step forward.  So
>>> the goal should be to integrate the community into the Apache project,
>>> not try to create firewalls to prevent effective collaboration.  A
>>> common license is the best way to encourage effective collaboration.
>>>>  - Dennis
>>>> I think the community material should not be underneath any of the
>>>> existing subtrees (not site, not
>>>> trunk, etc.).
>>>> My suggestion is that we use one or more new subtrees.  An easy way
>>>> would be to have a single subtree ooo/community with site, wiki, and forums
>>>> under it.  Or they could be higher-level.
>>>> I also think we should consider placing one or more of those on a
>>>> private SVN tree.  The private repo would only visible to committers at
>>>> level (although it probably means that commit messages go to ooo-private
>>>> rather than ooo-commits).  WE ALREADY HAVE A PRIVATE SVN repo that could
>>>> expanded for this.  [I'm not sure this makes sense for backups but there
>>>> be other artifacts that would belong under SVN for the forums and wiki.]
>>> This goes against transparency.  The only things that should be in our
>>> private SVN are confidential things, such as lists of committer email
>>> addresses, etc.
>>>> The reason for private SVN is to avoid public disclosure of community
>>>> material via anything other than the web site, the forums,
>>>> and the wiki themselves.  It defers having to deal with current content
>>>> is not sanitary with regard to Apache licensing, while continuing to have
>>>> that material available to the extended community under the conditions of
>>>> its original contribution.  It also assigns custodial responsibility to
>>>> authorized project committers, resolving a PPMC duty to the ASF.
>>> The only firewall we need are diligent committers.  Remember, there
>>> are many things out there in the wild, wild internet that we must not
>>> cavalierly check into the SVN source tree.   We rely on committers to
>>> be careful everywhere and always.
>>> And we don't want the community wiki,etc., to always be verboten to
>>> project use.  We want, over time, for there to be an increasing amount
>>> of ALv2 material that could be used in other contexts.  I think we do
>>> a disservice if we merely set up a situation where the community can
>>> continue to contribute material that is in a contaminated pool of
>>> variously and ambiguously licensed content.  We owe it to the
>>> community to bring some clarity to this problem.
>>>> Note that this means we should pursue the proposal of Kay Schenk (and, I
>>>> believe, Jean Hollis Weber earlier) to *then* migrate the community web
>>>> content to the community wiki.  One important benefit is removal of the
>>>> for Apache committers to maintain community material.  It is difficult for
>>>> the community to submit issues and patches against the private bits, so we
>>>> want to make those bits as few as possible.  This is also a way to retain
>>>> the NLC sites.  If there is any special custodial relationship needed there,
>>>> we can work that out without complicating the Apache development project
>>>> sites on the domain.  In particular, NLC material and public
>>>> Apache project materials would never be comingled.
>>>> Finally, private or not, the separate tree for the web parts is now
>>>> amenable for serving up as a different web site under the
>>>> domain.  Having the infrastructure and the repo be separated (better:
>>>> private) avoids confusion with Apache-licensed content and project releases
>>>> as well.
>>>> When the migration is completed, I suspect that the OOOUSER Wiki could
>>>> be merged over to the wiki (or not, since it seems to provide
>>>> an important development-side focus).
>>>> and the eventual
>>>> sites (though I prefer
>>>> would maintain the Apache project development face
>>>> and would provide the community face, with redirection
>>>> to developer-focused locations (such as for issue tracking,
>>>> etc.).
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Dave Fisher []
>>>> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 09:02
>>>> To:
>>>> Subject: Re: SVN and bringing the total end-to-end OOo project under
>>>> Configuration Management
>>>> On Aug 29, 2011, at 8:30 AM, Michael Stahl wrote:
>>>>> On 29.08.2011 16:40, Terry Ellison wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks for comments. Rob.  I was hoping to get your and others
>>>>>> thoughts
>>>>>> on this TLD structure issue:  Where do we plug the wiki, the forums,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> other website services into our svn hierarchy (where XXXX=the relevant
>>>>>> service):
>>>>>>    * incubator/ooo/site/trunk/XXXX
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>    * incubator/ooo/site/XXXX/trunk
>>>>>> or where?
>>>>>> There's no clear slot in our current TLD structure.  I've put my
>>>>>> responses on the rest below.
>>>>> i don't understand at all why "site" contains "trunk", does anybody
>>>>> really want to branch it?
>>>> In preparation for a release!
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dave
>>>>>> On 29/08/11 14:59, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>>>>> 2) Our customizations occur in a branch
>>>>>> Tried this before on projects.  It really doesn't work.  There
>>>>>> ~2,500 files of which we update about 20-30 with a single patch file.
>>>>>> If we do it the way you suggest, we would have a huge bulk of
>>>>>> revisions
>>>>>> every phpBB release.  It's a lot easier to keep the build script
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> patch file under CM and then we only have two files to update every
>>>>>> release.
>>>>> perhaps a patch tracking tool like "quilt" would be appropriate?
>>>>> it allows to have not just a single big patch but multiple patches,
>>>>> each
>>>>> one containing one "logical change".
>>>>> then the patches and quilt metadata can be put into SVN.
>>>>> (i have been using a versioned HG Mercurial Queue against the OOo repo,
>>>>> which is quite similar in approach...)
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> michael
> --
> My private Homepage:

View raw message