openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: Extensions hosting
Date Fri, 13 Jan 2012 03:00:20 GMT

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 12, 2012, at 6:18 PM, Ross Gardler <> wrote:

> On 12 January 2012 19:01, Dave Fisher <> wrote:
>> Sorry to top post.
>> A distinction exists between extensions.oo.o and
>> 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

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


> Ross
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Jan 12, 2012, at 9:34 AM, Ross Gardler <> 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
>>> 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
>>> ( - 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 (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
>>> 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
>>> 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 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
>>> back to ASF hardware)
>>> Would the board prefer it if were to
>>> redirection to (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
>>> Does the board have any concerns about advertising appearing on
>>> Would this concern be mitigated by refusing
>>> permission to serve advertising from but
>>> allowing it on the download pages on an 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 <> 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
>>>> 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 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
>>> --
>>> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
>>> Programme Leader (Open Development)
>>> OpenDirective
> -- 
> Ross Gardler (@rgardler)
> Programme Leader (Open Development)
> OpenDirective

View raw message