+1 on Lothar's proposal. Paolo
On 09/01/2022 18:27, Lothar K. Becker wrote:
Hi Thorsten, Emiliano, all,thanks for the reminder Thorsten, as the discussion goes on in different areas of using this status of attic, my feedback is more on the procedural aspect of it.It says, Quote: " ... **snip** ## Atticization process That proposal will have to be voted on successfully by both the ESC and the Board of Directors. **snipp** ... **snipp** ## De-atticization procedure If the vote turns out affirmative, the implementation part will be handed over to Infra team, which can, based on common sense: **snipp** ... " End of QuoteBoth sentences imply that the ESC have in praxis a blocking veto, independent of the decision by a board, for both procedures. First of all let me ask, if this was intended and is a correct understanding or if I understood it wrong?So, in case I understood it right, then- in reflecting our Statutes and RoP and its construction of the foundation, that the "last" ruling body is the board in an appropriate case of conflict and if needed in supervision of the meritocratic organisation* -I would propose to add for a better understanding:"The last and ruling decision for the Atticization or De-atticization of a project in TDF is certainly by the board. If it is in contradiction to a preliminary vote of the ESC, it should be at least heard by the board for its arguments and it should be reflected from the board with an answer why the decision of the board is not following the ESC vote. "Or something like this. I am not sure if it is good to vote on it without clarification of this item in any case. What do you think?Best Lothar* beside some very seldom things where the MC or at last the membership comes into the game, but here we are upon normal activities inside the foundationAm 08.01.2022 um 17:50 schrieb Thorsten Behrens:Dear board, dear TDF members, all, this proposal has sparked interesting discussions, that we should continue. For the proposal at hand though, we've not received much if any actionable feedback. So I'd like to call for a vote soon, unless there's concrete input for edits. Let's give this two more days. All the best, Thorsten I wrote:Dear board, dear TDF members, all, as mentioned a few times during board calls, Emiliano and me have been drafting a proposal what to do with no-longer-active projects at TDF. Here's the draft we're both happy with: -%<------------------------------------------------------------------ ## Introduction It can happen, with a huge project like LibreOffice, that parts of the project worked on by the community will become obsolete or superseded by other projects. The following proposal will cope with the need to let the code (and/or other form of text related to the code) to be publicly available, while setting the correct expectations around its availability, suitability for a production environment, quality and security. ## What is the “attic”? The “attic” is a special area of TDF infrastructure where part of the code/documentation/translations can be parked, that is not anymore actively developed. This will help setting the correct expectations on its status of development, while not losing its fundamental trait of being open source (so its code must be publicly available). In the present proposal, the “attic” would be a single host inside TDF infrastructure, available in HTTP/HTTPS protocols, responding to a URI similar to: https://attic.documentfoundation.org ## Specificity of the “attic” This “attic” space will have, at minimum, the following characteristics: • It is supported by git – the well known CVS developed by Linus Torvalds initally and used to share the sources of the Linux kernel. Being supported by git will ease the forking of the code contained there; • Any repositories inside it will be made “read only”, so no “push” or “pull request” mechanisms will be available: this allows changes to the code to be shared as it was the last time it was “atticisized”; • Anonymous access to the repositories has to be made the default access method: we want the code present in the “attic” to be always available to everyone; • It should have a recognizable URL – or internet address, less technically: this allows for the code present to be clearly separated by other actively developed code; • A specific text explaining the nature of the code, its “de-atticization” requirements and how to get support on the code inside the repository to be present in the README of every repository. The text of these disclaimer, the de-atticization requirements will be discussed further on in the proposal. Regarding contacts to get support, the idea is to provide quick and ready information on who/where to ask for anything related to the code in the repository. The proposed implementation of this space is by using git-http-backend1. The proposal has already been evaluated by the Infra team and the overhead for maintaining such a solution will be “negligible”. ## Atticization process The Engineering Steering Committee (ESC) of TDF, the Board of Directors (BoD) or one or more of its Directors can propose the “atticization” of a part of the project. That proposal will have to be voted on successfully by both the ESC and the Board of Directors. The specific code proposed (mostly, entire git-based repositories) will be then effectively atticized by the Infra team. Other than moving the repository to the attic, these other changes will be needed: • Deactivation of specific -dev or -users mailing list; • No new binary releases will be provided (older releases will persist in download archive); • Changing eventual specific category on BugZilla to “Atticized repo – please do not use” (ed.: needs to be checked by Infra/QA/Ilmari); • Possibly disable Ask/Discourse pertaining categories (ed.: needs to be checked by Infra/Sophie). ## De-atticization A part of the project that is actually present inside the “attic” can be moved back into active development, whenever sufficient interest around the code emerges. ## De-atticization requirements A repository can be de-atticized when it reaches the following requirements: • A publicly available repository has to be present, collecting new modifications to the initial project. This repository needs to be based on the initial atticized repository; • The modified code has to be open source/free software under an OSI-approved license; • At least three different developers have committed changes to the forked repository, ideally not all of them affiliated to the same entity; • Every developer should have pushed 5-10 non-trivial commits over the span of at least three months; • The de-atticization proposal has to be supported by at least one member of The Document Foundation. ## De-atticization procedure The de-atticization has to be requested from either the ESC or the Board of Directors; the ESC will provide a technical clearance for the de-atticization, as well as any needed corrections to the project to comply to specific development customs of TDF community and to adhere to the conventions practiced at TDF. Once clearance has been granted, both ESC and BoD will vote on the de-atticization of the specific repo. If the vote turns out affirmative, the implementation part will be handed over to Infra team, which can, based on common sense: • Import the forked public repository; • Or move the repository from attic to gerrit altogether and apply the needed corrections. If needed, new mailing list, BugZilla and Ask/Discourse categories will be instantiated. ## Proposed text for the nature of the code The following text is proposed to be included in the README of any atticized repository: --- This repository contains FLOSS code that is not maintained and/or actively developed. The code provided here is *NOT READY FOR PRODUCTION*, as it lacks updated security auditing (and probably contains insecure code) and Quality Assurance. Releases are *NOT* anymore provided for this code. --- ## Proposed text for the un-atticization requirements The following text is proposed to be included in the README of any atticized repository: --- This repository might be moved to active development under TDF’s supervision through a specific procedure. Please check that your modifications match the following requirements (which needs to be all fulfilled): * modified code is present in a publicly available git repository * modified code is release with a free/open source license * at least 3 developers, ideally not from the same entity, modified the code * modifications efforts to the code are qualified as 5-10 non-trivial commits for each developer over a period of 3 months * modified code is actively advocated by at least a member of TDF If the requirements are fulfilled and you can guarantee to continue to develop on the modified code, please get in touch with TDF ESC and Board of Directors. Full procedure available at [Insert URL to a wiki page with the procedure here]. --- -%<-------------------------------------------------------------------- Lothar K. Becker, Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details:https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint mail:lot...@documentfoundation.org phone: +49 7202 9499 001 (c/o .riess applications gmbh)-- To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscr...@documentfoundation.org Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy
-- Paolo Vecchi - Deputy Member of the Board of Directors The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Legal details: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
