Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6CF237698 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:26:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 28724 invoked by uid 500); 13 Dec 2011 17:26:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 28680 invoked by uid 500); 13 Dec 2011 17:26:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 28670 invoked by uid 99); 13 Dec 2011 17:26:41 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:26:41 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rgardler@opendirective.com designates 209.85.161.47 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.161.47] (HELO mail-fx0-f47.google.com) (209.85.161.47) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:26:31 +0000 Received: by faaa20 with SMTP id a20so421743faa.6 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:26:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=opendirective.com; s=opendirective; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rwDzv8j1xrK/ffu7dAmCd8ZnvVX+r/13K7Vk1N9Hr6Q=; b=OKAKzzxICXA8rXCcx3rOmHrNIN9C/y8FxEceDR8QSHu7gYpdknyau7RD3A/eemV1IA jh+MtKkfXcERF3Q1WWczZniTQ7Bu35N1X6oh/NqyjSB0SC2rulJYugq7a1EtSoGI81yL +NQB/Bs7YCCcM6lVKFopQ8kjNHeZKB31V0sC0= Received: by 10.180.102.74 with SMTP id fm10mr16486594wib.26.1323797171227; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:26:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.73.65 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:25:50 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: [86.153.90.198] In-Reply-To: <00368217-AC58-4F03-B602-1628D91DFF40@gmail.com> References: <3CCA43B4-0B85-41B2-A7FD-5412B5FA12F0@gmail.com> <00368217-AC58-4F03-B602-1628D91DFF40@gmail.com> From: Ross Gardler Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:25:50 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Off topic To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 13 December 2011 16:16, Louis Su=E1rez-Potts wrote: > Further points. > > OOo differed from Mozilla, for instance, but resembled Eclipse in that we= accepted funds for development work. At a conference hosted by financial f= irms where I represented OOo and there were representatives of Eclipse and = Moz., Mike M. and I made similar points: That OOo can be used as a vehicle = for alerting developers and other contributors of paid opportunities to con= tribute code. > Who would be paying? Regardless of the answer to this my immediate (gut) reaction is that it is not really appropriate. If the ASF doesn't pay for development. If some third party is paying then I predict this would end in tears. I will try and explain. Short term, drive by contributions are not what make a project sustainable. They are useful and we welcome anyone willing to offer them, but it will not make the project sustainable in and of itself. What we need is the largest possible number of financially viable organisations to sprout up around the Apache OO code. We then want to get out of their way and let them make money and pay developers in any way they see fit. > I'd be in favour of re-doing that, but stress that code contributed must = comply with the prevailing license, though I'd also have no problem with du= al licensing. > Firstly, we care about building a community not about getting the code out of people. By focussing on the community we build collaborative development efforts. We don't compel people to licence their code to us, we make it worth their while to do so. That is the ecosystem Apache project strive to build. Secondly, there is no way to enforce contribution in the way you suggest. I see unnecessary conflict ahead. > This and others are actually viable business models, and we showed as muc= h with OOo's long tenure. The issue that we had to deal with was that the o= wning companies pretty much clipped our wings and prevented us from becomin= g what we could. > Historically that may or may not be true. From where I stand as a complete newcomer I see the results of the OOo "long tenure" as far from a glowing success. We have a significant fork, burned out relationships and a really unhealthy dose of mistrust as a result. All this seems to be attributable to what you call "the issue that we had to deal with". The Apache process removes that issue. It focuses on creating a level playing field. If you truly believe that matching people to money in this way is a sensible approach I suggest you set up whatever legal structure you want to make it happen and prove me wrong (I speak only as myself, not for the PPMC). Others who don't have as much time for, or confidence in, such efforts might just want to set up a "contractors for hire" page and make potential paymasters aware of it. Paymasters may also want to know that there is a foundation wide jobs@apache.org list for recruitment purposes across all Apache projects. Ross