As Sam indicated, there was a lot of hush-and-rush about all this, with little communicated and much assumed. It appears that now things are more well known and the matters are being addressed. But for the record, yes, there was the impression and (mis)understanding that "moving" to GH was indeed what was desired and "demanded".
My post was in direct response to Sebastien's query, as was hopefully indicated by including that paragraph in my post. > On Mar 19, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > >> >>> On Mar 19, 2016, at 2:12 PM, sebgoa <run...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Personally I have always thought that this is a very serious issue and >> trend in open source projects and that ASF (and the board in particular) >> should try to proactively address. What is the future of ASF in a GitHub >> world ? Can an ASF project live outside of ASF infra, especially in a Cloud >> world ? Sadly I never saw any clear proactivity from the board. >>> >> >> I can answer this by asking you one question: What value, if >> any, do you see the ASF providing to Cloudstack? >> >> I will avoid the very Mom-like retort: "If all your friends were >> going to jump off a roof, would you too?" :) :) >> >> Real Open Source collaboration, and community, is more than >> just developer workflow. Hopefully, one day people will >> remember that... The ASF, however, will never forget it. >> >> Meanwhile, I still boggle at people who paint Microsoft as >> (still) enemies of Open Source, yet bend over backwards to >> portray Github as true, passionate open source liberators. >> People passionate about open source are seriously pushing >> that projects be hosted on a single-vendor, closed-source, >> proprietary environment. If that vendor's name was "Microsoft" >> or "Oracle" people would be loosing their sh*t; because it's >> called "Github" well, that's OK then. >> >> Kinds of reminds me, as a libertarian, as those people who >> are willing to give up some (real) rights and liberties >> for some (perceived) additional security. >> >> I'm not saying that GH isn't useful, but it's not the holy >> grail, nor is it a workflow and platform that we should >> be encouraging the next-gen of developers to swallow hook, >> line and sinker. > > > Jim, you sound like someone gave you the impression that they didn't want > the wip-us repo to be the primary source of cloudstack code any more. I > wonder who and how? I do not care if IBM, Oracle or Microsoft would host > mirrors or clones or forks or whatever. On the contrary, it would be an > honour. I am also very pleased to be able to have a fork on github. Besides > all that, how would you plea that the Apache foundation isn't trying to > bind 'em all with a single repository like all the commercial governments, > as well? As a libertarian I don't trust 'not for profit' any more then any > other business objective. The writing above is yet another sound from the > board that makes me believe there is discontent and I don't understand. > > > -- > > > Daan
