incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: Extensions hosting
Date Fri, 06 Jan 2012 18:53:39 GMT

If I were actively arguing against the SF proposal I would never have
brought it here in the first place, I don't intend to waste your time, let
alone my own.

My job as a mentor is to help the PPMC understand the ASF. It is not to
have an opinion on the future of AOO, beyond reaching graduation.
Therefore, when I see incorrect statements in support of *any* position
affecting graduation I will call them out. Calling out a factual incorrect
statement in isolation should not be construed as support for one proposal
or another.

If someone claimed the policy of no external services couldn't be changed
I'd be correcting that view as well.  For some reason nobody is reciting
that policy like it is written in stone. Perhaps other were id be bring
accused of a preference the other way.

Naturally, I do have an opinion on what is best. I will give that opinion
if directly asked for it here or elsewhere (I already stated it on the
infrastructure list). However,  please don't assume you can infer this
preference from my desire to have a full debate that considers all options.
Furthermore, my preference should be irrelevant, given I'm not a committer

More below

Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Jan 6, 2012 5:56 PM, "Rob Weir" <> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Ross Gardler
> <> wrote:
> > On 6 January 2012 16:31, Rob Weir <> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Ross Gardler
> >> <> wrote:
> >>> On 6 January 2012 15:49, Rob Weir <> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Ross Gardler
> >>>> <> wrote:
> >>>>> On 6 January 2012 15:03, Rob Weir <> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm not saying you *will* be allowed to host them, I'm saying
> >>>>>>> *may* be allowed to. Similarly, I'm asking you, and others,
> >>>>>>> saying you *won't* be able to host them.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Lets continue to focus on what the AOO *wants* not what some of
> >>>>> perceive is *allowed*. Once we know what is wanted we can explore
> >>>>> is possible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> OK.  So if we want to host the extensions site, as is, and have it
> >>>> conform to some revised ASF policy, then we would need to be able to
> >>>> do things like:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) Host GPL extensions on Apache servers, using websites associated
> >>>> with Apache products, using Apache trademarks.  In other words,
> >>>> without the distance the Board has encouraged the use of
> >>>> for in the past.
> >>>
> >>> That is not a correct summary of the ASFs position. We do not
> >>> *develop* software that is under any licence other than ALv2 (go to
> >>> apache-extras). As far as I understand it the extensions site does not
> >>> provide development support.
> >>>
> >>> We do not distribute incompatibly licensed code that might restrict
> >>> the rights of our downstream users to *modify* the source of our
> >>> projects. Since none of the extensions will be bundled with AOO
> >>> releases this is not relevant.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You seem to be saying that anything not forbidden may be allowed.
> >
> > No, I'm saying that as a mentor of the AOO podling, as a long standing
> > of The Apache Software Foundation and as a current VP of the foundation
> > believe that I have a pretty good feel for why things are the way they
are. This
> > allows me to, with reasonable confidence, guess at what would be
allowed and
> > what would not.
> >
> As always, thanks Ross for your mentor's wise words of advise.  But I
> personally am having difficulties determining sometimes whether you
> are merely giving mentorly advice versus actively advocating, like a
> PMC member, for one particular outcome over another.   If your intent
> really is to argue against the SF proposal (which is how it looks to
> me) then maybe we can just get a clean, unadorned argument for that
> position, one with fewer hats.  So far I've seen no one else but you
> argue that position, so it would be good for the overall discussion to
> hear it, from you personally.  I think that would be allowed,  right?

As noted above I will give my opinion when asked, but this should not be
seem as an endorsement. My position as a mentor is advisory only, I will
probably be gone soon after, if not before, the project graduates.

Prior to discussing this here I indicated to the infra team that I felt an
acceptance of the SF offer was sensible. However I also said I wanted the
AOO project to work towards the meta-data federation proposal in order to
solve the bandwidth problem.

Having discussed it here I'm concerned that the offer of infra to help in
this might appear to be an offer to solve the problem for you. I doubt that
is the intention, I imagine that they want to stabilise the situation then
help guide towards the federated service. I may be misrepresenting Gav

This is what prompted me to ask how high up in the priory list federation
is. As I explained when asking the question I was concerned that without
the federated solution we'd be favouring a single external organisation and
thus block graduation. In discussion you addressed this concern, I no
longer see it as a problem.

I'm summary, given the feedback so far, id suggest asking the board if it's
ok to work out the details of an MOU with SF. The main blocker I see is the
policy of no externally hosted services (the one no-one is reciting as
fixed and unavoidable and thus has not been discussed in detail).

However, I still want to see if anyone wants to raise concerns about this
now that, I hope, I've made it clear that an ASF provided solution is not
necessarily impossible long term, at least from a policy position.
On Jan 6, 2012 5:56 PM, "Rob Weir" <> wrote:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message