incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: Extensions hosting
Date Thu, 12 Jan 2012 19:01:41 GMT
Sorry to top post.

A distinction exists between extensions.oo.o and extensions.services.oo.o.

The first is part of the OOo-site and the second is the service.

Regards,
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 12, 2012, at 9:34 AM, Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:

> I'm attempting to summarise this thread and thus I'm top-posting on
> the orginal opening thread.
> 
> I will send the below text to the board for consideration. I'll
> feedback here after the next board meeting (18th) or sooner if
> possible.
> 
> Dear Board,
> 
> The Apache Open Office project needs to stabilise the hosting of their
> extensions.openoffice.org service. The code needs updating and
> bandwidth requirements need to be addressed.
> 
> Gav, on behalf of the infra team, has offered to move the server to
> ASF hardware and stabilise the code. Longer term Gav indicated that
> his desire was to turn the service into a meta-data hosting service
> whereby extensions could be discovered via extensions.openoffice.,org
> but hosted in third party locations.
> 
> This plan requires the hosting non-apache software (including closed
> source) on ASF hardware. This was approved by the board with
> responsibility for resolving the IP issues being delegated to the IPMC
> (http://s.apache.org/fO - members only link).
> 
> In the meantime Sourceforge have offered to help, initially through an
> approach to Rob Weir of the AOO project and then through myself. I
> took this proposal (via infra@ who requested the PPMC bring it to the
> boards attention) to the AOO dev project for discussion. The thread
> can be found at http://s.apache.org/sz6 (public) - the first post in
> that thread includes the proposal from Jeff Drobnick (President and
> CEO of Geeknet media, it also includes a number of clarifications from
> Roberto Gallopini of Geeknet. I've tried to summarise for you here.
> 
> After a long discussion the AOO podling has reached a consensus that
> the best way forward would be to accept the proposal from Sourceforge
> as a short term solution whilst working towards the meta-data site for
> the long term. The PPMC feels that moving the service to a non-ASF
> host now will minimise disruption for extensions developers and
> end-users who are unwilling or unable to conform to ASF policy in the
> long term. Similarly the PPMC feels there is a sufficiently large
> number of edge cases to make changes in policy more complex than is
> necessary since it is the PPMCs desire to provide an "approved" list
> of extensions which are expected to conform to existing ASF IP
> policies, whilst also enabling third parties to host their own
> extensions sites that users can choose to access via a meta-data
> service.
> 
> We have assurances from SF that they are not interested in locking the
> AOO project to their hosted services.  Members of the AOO PPMC will
> have shell access to the system and no attempt will be made by SF to
> own any of the IP involved.
> 
> SF reserve the right to serve advertising on the downloads site (and
> possibly on the extensions site, this needs to be clarified).
> Downloads would be served from the existing SF mirror network.
> 
> It is possible for AOO to point to an intermediate page giving users
> the option of visiting other extensions sites if required. That is
> extensions.openoffice.org could point to an ASF hosted web page
> listing multiple third party sites, one of which would be the SF
> hosted service. Consequently, if necessary it is possible for the PPMC
> to move hosting to a SF but not to point extensions.openoffice.org
> there.
> 
> It is hoped that later releases of AOO will include the ability to
> search for extensions via a meta-data service managed by the AOO
> project. At this point extensions.openoffice.org would return to ASF
> hardware. It is expected that the SF hosted extensions repository will
> continue to exist and will be one of the first repositories from which
> users will be able to download non-ASF extensions.
> 
> This proposal raises a few interesting policy questions. Therefore I
> would like to ask for guidance on how best to help the AOO project
> realise this objective. A few questions that come to mind are:
> 
> Will it be necessary to draw up an MoU with SF? If so what are the key
> points the board would like to see covered?
> 
> Will it be sufficient for the PPMC to work with SF to ensure the
> extensions site they provide respects the existing trademark policy?
> (bearing in mind that we will eventually be moving
> extensions.openoffice.org back to ASF hardware)
> 
> Would the board prefer it if extensions.openoffice.org were to
> redirection to foo.sourceforge.net? (either automatically or via an
> information page) If so would this change the answer to the MoU
> question above?
> 
> Will this simplify the AOO ability to address IP and fundraising
> concerns generated by non-ASF code and donations requests found on
> extensions.apache.org?
> 
> Does the board have any concerns about advertising appearing on
> extensions.openoffice.org? Would this concern be mitigated by refusing
> permission to serve advertising from extensions.openoffice.org but
> allowing it on the download pages on an sf.net domain?
> 
> If the board would like to discuss this at the next board meeting I
> will try and be on the call to answer an questions. In the meantime
> I'm here on this list.
> 
> Ross
> 
> On 3 January 2012 15:51, Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
>> As the community know Gav, in his role at infrastructure@ has
>> undertaken to stabilise and migrate the AOO extensions code to ASF
>> infrastructure. His work has been progressing and he remains committed
>> to completing this.
>> 
>> However, as some know Sourceforge made an offer to help via our
>> private list. At the time they did not want to discuss this topic in
>> public for a number of reasons. I've had a couple of chats with
>> Roberto Gallopini and Jeff Drobick in order to help them understand
>> why the ASF prefers to host all services for its projects. In response
>> SF have tailored their offer of support.
>> 
>> I relayed the outline of our conversations to the infrastructure team
>> who have asked me to have the AOO project provide some feedback, via a
>> board report, on what problems the AOO project forsee for the
>> extensions site and what options are available, if possible a
>> recommendation for an optimal solution should also be made. Note that
>> we can submit something out of cycle if we want, the next full report
>> is not due till March.
>> 
>> The reason infra@ have escalated to board@ is probably that we need to
>> figure out a long term solution for the AOO project and that solution
>> is heavily influenced by ASF policy. Any solution that we are
>> currently considering will have an impact on the AOO extensions site
>> and/or on ASF policy.
>> 
>> The current situation, as I understand it, is that the board have
>> given permission for the extensions site to be managed by infra during
>> incubation. The problem of distributing content under licences other
>> than Apache is not seen to be a problem during the incubation process.
>> Beyond incubation the board has delegated responsibility to the
>> Incubator PMC. I don't believe that particular discussion has been
>> started yet.
>> 
>> Gav tells us that he has been thinking about making the extensions
>> site an index site, thus allowing the extensions to be housed
>> elsewhere (apache-extras, sourceforge, google code, github, FooBar
>> corporation or wherever). This would neatly bypass the licence
>> problem. Open source extensions needing hosting could go to
>> apache-extras while commercially licensed extensions would need to
>> provide their own hosting.
>> 
>> An alternative is to work with a third party willing to help. I've
>> copied below the text of a mail outlining the SF proposal. You will
>> note that they are keen to ensure that we don't get locked into the SF
>> services. Nevertheless, one of the reasons the ASF hosts its own
>> services is to avoid exposing us to unmanageable risk.
>> 
>> I have no reason to believe SourceForge have anything other than good
>> intentions in making this offer. SF has been supporting open source
>> for a very long time. It is backed at the highest level (Jeff is
>> President and CEO) and I believe Roberto is known within the
>> OpenOffce.org community. However, many aspects of this will be outside
>> of the control of the AOO project, despite SFs real attempts to
>> mitigate our concerns relating to this.
>> 
>> Please note that the timescales Jeff outlines are unrealistic given
>> that we need to seek board input before being able to ensure the AOO
>> project makes the right decision.  SF want to move quickly, but I
>> don't think we need to be rushed into making a decision.
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> --- COPIED PROPOSAL ---
>> 
>> 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 OpenOffice.org 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 http://opendirective.com
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com

Mime
View raw message