incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>
Subject Re: Extensions hosting
Date Fri, 06 Jan 2012 12:38:29 GMT
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