incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Extensions hosting
Date Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:06:11 GMT
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Dave Fisher <> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2012, at 10:23 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Dave Fisher <> wrote:
>>> On Jan 6, 2012, at 9:56 AM, 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 <>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Ross Gardler
>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6 January 2012 15:03, Rob Weir <>
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not saying you *will* be allowed to host
them, I'm saying you
>>>>>>>>>>> *may* be allowed to. Similarly, I'm asking you,
and others, to stop
>>>>>>>>>>> saying you *won't* be able to host them.
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Lets continue to focus on what the AOO *wants* not what
some of us
>>>>>>>>> perceive is *allowed*. Once we know what is wanted we
can explore what
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> with Apache products, using Apache trademarks.  In other
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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
Member of The Apache Software Foundation and as a current VP of the foundation I 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?
>>> I'm reading this thread. The message is that ASF policy is flexible to a certain
extent. It is not like a corporation's policy which is likely to be bureaucratically inflexible.
Rob, would you please try to get used to that ;-)
>> It is very easy Dave, to dismiss someone who works for a large
>> corporation by suggesting that they are bureaucratic and inflexible
>> and otherwise have a defective thinking process.  This slur is a form
>> of personal attack and I suggest you (and others) drop it.
> I was not dismissing your comments. I base my comments about corporations from experience.
I've worked for small companies most of my career where JFDI was the normal course. We were
purchased by a publicly held corporation and there is all kinds of extra administrative actions
to take. A lot of talk for what is sometimes a one liner. Corporations have different responsibilities
than Individuals, like SOX compliance.
>> No one has questioned whether or not we can appeal to the IPMC or the
>> ASF Board and change policy.  This is obviously possible.  But it
>> obviously requires time, effort and has an uncertain outcome.  So
>> let's not say it is impossible.  But let's also not say it is the only
>> path, or even the easiest path.
> We probably ought to do think about it, even if looks hard, but it might be easier than
you think.
>>> The proposal is now somewhat buried in this long thread.
>>> There are issues to decide.
>>> (1) What is the AOO vision of extensions, templates in the longer term (or even
AOO 3.4)?
>>> (2) How do we get Extensions and Templates stable?
>>> (3) How do we disconnect E and T from using Oracle infrastructure for userids
and passwords?
> Don't we need to agree on the ideal (1) and then work back from that? You posted your
view of (1) earlier and that seemed inflexible to me.

I'm puzzled by that remark.  What exactly do you think my view of (1)
is, and in what way do you think it is inflexible?

I thought it was very flexible.  In fact it could work even if we had
a single repository hosted by Infra.

In any case, I do not believe that the short term solution requires we
first agree on the long term solution.  What we have now is unstable.
If the problem were merely that the server was unplugged surely no
sane person would suggest that we cannot plug it in again until we had
a long term solution.  Would you?  Similarly, if the server is
unstable for lack of CPUs or lack of maintenance, then surely one
could accept an offer to stabilize it without prejudice to the long
term solution.

> But I'm already spending too much time on Apache this morning.
> Regards,
> Dave
>>>>> At the very least, I know the boundaries of my knowledge and I know who
to ask once I know what to ask. Hence this thread.
>>> Thank you!
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>>>> Ross

View raw message