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, 13 Jan 2012 09:14:29 GMT
Got it - thanks Dave.

Ross

On 13 January 2012 03:00, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 12, 2012, at 6:18 PM, Ross Gardler <rgardler@opendirective.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12 January 2012 19:01, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Thanks Dave. Just so I'm absolutely clear does this change the
>> proposal other than the precise domain names allocated? I'm not sure
>> this distinction had been made before.
>>
>> Specifically is the SF proposal to take both the site and the service?
>
> They would be hosting the service domain at extensions.services.oo.o.
>
> The ASF hosts extensions.oo.o within www.oo.o/extensions/
>
> Your second mention of e.oo.o makes sense the others should use the services URL.
>
> Try the two urls to see what I mean
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> Ross
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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