incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gavin McDonald" <>
Subject RE: Extensions hosting
Date Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:41:25 GMT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir []
> Sent: Thursday, 5 January 2012 4:32 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Extensions hosting
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Ross Gardler <>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Once you've digested and debated the offer from Sourceforge the
> > community needs to come up with a couple of paragraphs indicating a
> > desired route forwards and reasons for it. I will try and attend the
> > appropriate board meeting in order to answer any questions that arise.
> >
> Maybe I'm the only dolt here, but one reason it is hard for me to make a
> recommendation on a "desired route forward" is that I only have SF's
> proposal in front of me.  I don't have any proposal from Infra on what they
> would like to do.  Or did I miss it?

Yes you missed it, read the archives.

> I agree with you that the proposed time frame (in two weeks) is too fast for
> us to react.  But I do think that we need a very solid and capable extension
> and template repository before we release AOO 3.4.
> I anticipate heavy traffic at that time. Since we're pushing for a Q1 release of
> 3.4, that means we will need to move quickly on stabilizing these services.
> It would be great to better understand where we might be with an Infra
> effort in this same time frame.
> Also, as I understand it, even with a short term stabilization effort from Infra,
> we're still out-of-policy for graduation, and we'd need to
> move to another solution after that.   It sounds like the federated
> approach where host only an index might work.  I think I understand what
> that effort would entail.  Technically it can be clean and elegant, but it does
> have a high coordination cost, dealing with all of the extension and templates
> authors.
> On the other hand, an external host, like SF, could get us the stability we
> need, as well as deal with the OSS license compatibility policy issues. We
> resolve it all at once.
> I wonder whether one blended solution might be:
> 1) Accept SF's offer for the short term stability improvement and getting in
> policy with the copyleft extensions.
> 2) In parallel work with Apache Infra, volunteers from this project, and from
> SF (and maybe LibreOffice?), on an Apache Labs project to build a simple
> open source template/extensions management server.
> Maybe we can start from the existing server? (What license is it?) Extend
> that to give the kind of loose coupling and federation we want.
>  When that is ready, the SF will be well positioned to host one of the first
> servers of its kind.  But we'll also be making this software available to anyone
> to set up their own repository.

You are missing the point (well some of it.) Part of the reason for the templates
and extensions being moved off ours servers for distribution was to reduce the
heavy load demanded of it at OSUOSL. Our bandwidth is not finate and if we can
reduce this by having template and extension owners self-host, all the better
and is one reason why I intended to go with the suggested metadata approach.


> -Rob
> > Please be imaginative in your planning for the future. The optimal
> > solution might be some combination of ASF and SF offerings.
> >
> > Note Roberto Gallopini has joined this list and is ready to make any
> > clarifications necessary. I've also made Gav aware of this post so
> > that he can answer any questions we have about what infra@ are able to
> > do.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ross
> >
> >
> > I'm glad we had a chance to talk last week - exciting times for Open
> > Office as the product and community transition into the ASF.
> >
> > For over a decade, SourceForge has been committed to advancing the
> > open source software community.  We host over 300,000 projects and are
> > visited by over 40 MM users per month for free, secure, and fast
> > downloads of open source software.  Trusted and reliable download
> > delivery is an important part of our service, with over 4 million
> > downloads per day and 2 PB from our mirror network each month.  We are
> > committed to helping OSS projects scale and grow.
> >
> > Based on our discussions, we understand there are a few things you are
> > solving for as part of the Open Office Incubation effort:
> > Supporting a diverse licensing terms for Open Office extensions, that
> > may not all comply with the Apache OSS policy; Stabilizing your Drupal
> > OO Extensions site and ensuring high availability and download
> > bandwidth without cost Expanding both the developer base who will move
> > into working on the Apache framework as well as adoption of the Open
> > Office product and extensions.
> > We think we can help and that there would be mutual benefit.  To that
> > end, we propose the following for your consideration:
> >
> > 1.) Stabilize the your OO Extensions Drupal instance by moving the it
> > and all services to SourceForge.  Our Site Operations team will do teh
> > work and oversee the operations for you as we do other services.  To
> > your community the directory will look the same and extension and
> > template files will move to SourceForge's globally-distributed
> > download mirror network where we can ensure reliable, scalable
> > delivery.  Drupal will be hosted on our project web service, serving
> > your existing domain via a VHOST.  Standard infrastructure
> > (monitoring, backups, etc.) and service levels (99.9% availability
> > target) apply.
> >
> > These SourceForge services will be provided gratis, and without
> > lock-in -- you are open to change your mind later.  We anticipate this
> > migration would involve a week of planning and preparation, followed
> > by a week of migration and pre/post-migration communications.  We're
> > prepared to commence this work the next week if provided your approval
> > and support.
> >
> > 2.) Once stabilized, we will work with you on a timeline to evaluate
> > and execute a migration from Drupal 5 to Drupal 7.
> >
> > Allowing us to host the Extensions community will solve the license
> > challenges - or at least give you time to work through a longer term
> > solution.  We would also be able to cross promote the software titles
> > to the development community as well - so perhaps expand not only your
> > user base but developers.
> >
> > Roberto (our Sr. Director of Business Development) has been involved
> > in the community for many years -- he will continue to
> > be your point-of-contact.  If we secure the go-ahead this week, we
> > will start on Tuesday next week and expect to be complete by 1/15 with
> > step 1.  I have asked our head of Site Ops to oversee the
> > implementation and he'll partner up with your technical folks to
> > ensure the hosting transition goes well.
> >
> > Our motivation here is quite simple, it is all part of our mission to
> > help Open Source Software initiatives succeed.  To that end,
> > SourceForge and Geeknet Media are able to fund these services and make
> > them free to the community through advertising largely on the download
> > and directory pages.  So there won't ever be a charge back to your
> > community and we are able to reinvest in R&D on our developer tools as
> > well.
> >
> > We look forward to hearing back from you this week if possible.  Feel
> > free to forward this on to whomever you would like in terms of getting
> > to an aligned decision.
> >
> > I wish you a happy new year!
> >
> > --
> > Thank you,
> > Jeff
> >
> > --- End of copied text ---
> > --
> > Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> > Programme Leader (Open Development)
> > OpenDirective

View raw message