incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Andrew Rist <andrew.r...@oracle.com>
Subject Re: Extensions hosting
Date Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:07:24 GMT
+1

    - short-medium term stabilise the extensions code and hosting
    - long term move to a federated approach

I think this is indeed the growing consensus.  I support moving forward 
with SF in negotiating an approach that conforms to the boundaries you 
describe below and lead us in this direction.

Andrew


On 1/6/2012 4:38 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 6 January 2012 11:52, Ross Gardler<rgardler@opendirective.com>  wrote:
>> On 6 January 2012 09:32, Andrea Pescetti<pescetti@apache.org>  wrote:
>>> On 04/01/2012 Roberto Galoppini wrote:
>>>> 2012/1/4 J├╝rgen Schmidt:
>> ...
>>
>>> Sounds good. The stabilization phase can be done anywhere, but as Rob wrote
>>> if we cannot keep the current repository as part of the project anyway, it
>>> makes sense to do it as part of a larger effort.
>> Can we please put a stop to this meme. Nobody has said that it *can't*
>> be kept as part of the project. I have no idea why this keeps getting
>> repeated. There are issues to be addressed, but nobody has said we
>> can't address them. That's what this thread is about, creating a
>> proposal for the board to consider and give us an indication as to
>> whether it would be acceptable or not.
> Furthermore, please remember that to allow a single third party to
> host a required service for an Apache project is also against ASF
> policy. In fact it is quite possibly against the law (I'm no lawyer so
> this is speculation).
>
> The ASF is a charity, as such we cannot do anything that benefits one
> organisation more than another. Allowing SF to host the *only*
> extensions site would mean that only SF could make a profit from doing
> so and thus the ASF would be benefiting SF more than anyone else. We
> can't slam one organisation (TOO, for example) whilst actively
> supporting another.
>
> So far this thread has made it clear (at least to me) that there are
> two phases to this:
>
> - short-medium term stabilise the extensions code and hosting
> - long term move to a federated approach
>
> Stabilisation needs to happen before the 3.3 release
> Federation can't happen before the 3.4 release and may not happen until later
>
> Rob has suggested we consider accepting the SF offer and asking infra
> to help with the longer term goal of federation (which was originally
> suggested by Gav).
>
> In this proposal I would like to require that SF  open source their
> work on stabilising the platform (which is their intention, as I
> understand it). The federation code would be managed here in the
> foundation.
>
> This means that the ASF remains in control of the "level playing
> field" since we control the point of entry to the federated platform.
> Others can start up catalogue sites if they want by using the existing
> Drupal code or by building something else that plugs into the
> federation site, which could simply be an FTP site and an meta-data
> file.
>
> The downside of this plan is that we lose control over the existing
> extensions platform, although we can take it back for internal hosting
> at any point since it is open source.
>
> On the other hand if the ASF maintains the Drupal extensions platform
> we cannot distribute it since it is GPL. We could put it on
> apache-extras, but that is no different to it being in SF without the
> SF offered resources.
>
> However, infra is not proposing, as I understand it, to distribute the
> platform. The infra proposal is for the ASF to host a federation
> platform and for individuals to provide a download location for their
> extensions (which could be their own website, SF, Google Code or
> whatever they want).
>
> There is very little difference, in my opinion, between these two
> proposals. The only significant different that I can see is who does
> the work in the short term. Am I missing something?
>
> The middle ground is to have SF do the stabilisation and for the ASF
> to accelerate the move to a federated site. In my opinion (and it is
> only my opinion), this model risks slowing down graduation since the
> federation site would need to be active in order to ensure a level
> playing field for all.
>
>  From my point of view the decision hinges on how high up the priority
> list does the AOO community have a federated extensions site? If it's
> high and there will be plenty of work on the federation code then the
> "middle ground" option is a good one. If it is not high then we need
> to get feedback from the board as to whether my concerns about level
> playing fields are valid or not. We also need feedback from the IPMC
> (since legal@ has delegated to them) on whether we can resolve the IP
> issues relating to distributing non-apache licensed code via an ASF
> hosted extensions site (my personal opinion is that this will not be a
> significant problem as long as branding is managed correctly).
>
> Is this a fair (high level) summary of the position so far? If so
> which is the preferred route for AOO?
>
> Ross


Mime
View raw message