I wish someone would just say what needs to be said and be done with it. That is, the project requires maintenance and leadership and no one wants to take on that responsibility. Andrew is unwilling to continue (essentially) alone, and who could blame him for it? He's asked several people over the last few years to commit to fixing one issue or another - including myself - and (like myself) most of those he's asked have simply not had the time or desire to contribute at that level. We all have excuses, including, "my day job is already a full time effort" (whose job is not a full time effort these days?)
I love open source - and I hate it. It requires passion and effort in a world that's too busy to allow anyone that kind of time and energy. I, myself, am the sole remaining contributor to and maintainer of an open source project - OpenSLP - and even though the code base is found in every printer firmware in the world, and installed, by default, on many Linux distributions, not one of these many consumers is interested in contributing to it. I have plenty of requests (for me) to make modifications and fix bugs, but very few patch offerings. I'll admit, the project has languished over the years because I'm tired of being a sole proprietorship in a service designed to be run by a community. Let's get our heads straight about this - if we don't want to give, then we can't expect to get in this arena. We've had plenty of emails from other project contributors indicating that they'd have to fork if jclouds move to the attic. Well, if you have to fork, then you'd have to maintain. Why not help maintain it over here instead of over there? I'm guessing it's because you're hoping it won't come to that. John On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 7:16 AM Rich Bowen <rbo...@apache.org> wrote: > Thank you for providing this additional context, and for your patience > with an outsider swooping in with solutions. :) > > I'll go read that thread and correct my misconceptions. It seems a great > shame to have to either fork or reboot a project, when one is there, but I > am glad to hear that you're already investigating options. > > --Rich > > On 2023/02/13 14:01:11 Ignasi Barrera wrote: > > FWIW, this is the complete discussion: > > https://lists.apache.org/thread/w61gzk2ohjtshbwcb5gy6wb2htv7fo0x > > > > It was actually cross-posted to the Brooklyn dev list [1] and some of > > the PMC members there expressed their opinion. > > > > We are, however, somehow blocked by inaction and I honestly don't know > > what would be the best way to move forward: > > > > On one hand, we'd love to have jclouds around and avoid moving it to the > attic. > > On the other hand, though, we feel we must be responsible to the > > community and properly set expectations and reflect the project > > reality, retiring it if there is no real energy/time to continue it. > > This thread is several months old now, and nothing has changed. We did > > several calls to action with concrete requests for help, but no > > further engagement happened. > > > > I know we all have the best intentions here when willing to keep > > jclouds alive, but after several failed requests for help to those > > that want to keep the project alive, and several months of waiting and > > going in circles... > > Are we doing the right thing for the community by changing the current > > jclouds project PMC with another inactive PMC? (And if anyone thinks > > the new PMC wouldn't be inactive... why has no one taken any action in > > all these months?). > > > > > > > > > > My 0.02$ > > > > I. > > > > > > > > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/6o20d0w1f1xroyo4vv33hlvyb1lk4ndd > > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 2:54 PM Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > Il giorno lun 13 feb 2023 alle ore 14:33 Rich Bowen > > > <rbo...@apache.org> ha scritto: > > > > > > > > Please talk with the Brooklyn folks before taking this step. In > their February board report they indicate that jclouds is one of their main > dependencies, and if you move to the attic, they would be compelled to > either find an alternative or reboot (or fork) the project. This indicates, > at least to me, that there are people in that project have both the > expertise and incentive to keep this project alive. As such, it would be > wise to reach out to them, and see whether any of them can augment the > project to keep it alive, or possibly some other solution. But please don't > take this step without at least speaking to them. Thanks. > > > > > > I would also add that Apache Pulsar is using JClouds and we (Pulsar > > > PMC) would be needed to fork or to move to the Brooklyn fork in case > > > that the projects moves there > > > > > > Enrico > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2023/01/29 08:07:48 Andrew Gaul wrote: > > > > > Retiring the project to the attic is not my preferred outcome but I > > > > > think accurately captures the current state of affairs. Let's run > a > > > > > final release then we can proceed with a formal discussion and > vote. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 08:44:27AM +0100, Jean-Baptiste Onofré > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Geoff, > > > > > > > > > > > > To Geoff and others, happy new year :) > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I agree: it seems the bandwidth is limited. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I think it makes sense to move jclouds into attic; and let > other > > > > > > projects find an alternative (forking part of jclouds, finding a > brand > > > > > > new alternative, ...). > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 6:28 PM Geoff Macartney < > geom...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It appears that we don't have the collective bandwidth to add > new active > > > > > > > contributors to the project, so, sadly, moving jclouds to the > attic does > > > > > > > seem to be the right thing to do. It will be up to each > downstream project > > > > > > > to figure out what it wants to do in consequence. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Belated Happy New Year to all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > Geoff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 29 Dec 2022 at 05:38, Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > j...@nanthrax.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry to have been quiet, I'm "half off" for festive time ;) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm still interested in helping maintain jclouds from a > community > > > > > > > > standpoint. However, clearly, the current committers/PMC > members don't > > > > > > > > want to be involved anymore. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As most of the volunteers are not jclouds PMC members (I > think I'm the > > > > > > > > only one), you have to accept the decision from PMC members. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I see only three options for the projects using jclouds: > > > > > > > > 1. current PMC members accept to extend/expand the committer > list (and > > > > > > > > PMC) to have new people volunteer to maintain jclouds, so > projects can > > > > > > > > still use jclouds. I don't want to be pushy in this > direction. It's > > > > > > > > important to have the long time PMC members, if they want to > move > > > > > > > > jclouds in the attic, it's fair and we have to accept that. > > > > > > > > 2. replace jclouds with something else. That's probably the > preferred > > > > > > > > approach, replacing jclouds directly with cloud providers > APIs. > > > > > > > > 3. fork jclouds (or part of jclouds) in other projects (the > part > > > > > > > > actually used in the project). For instance, we can imagine > having > > > > > > > > code from jclouds moved/forked in brooklyn. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My prefered option is probably 2, according to the > discussion in this > > > > > > > > thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Happy new year to all, > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > JB > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 9:11 PM Geoff Macartney < > geom...@apache.org> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hope you had a restful Christmas break. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew, thanks very much for these details, that is > helpful to scope the > > > > > > > > > effort required to maintain jclouds. Of course what takes > 10 hours for > > > > > > > > > Andrew, with his familiarity with jclouds, will take > perhaps > > > > > > > > significantly > > > > > > > > > longer for those of us who are not yet familiar, even > after an initial > > > > > > > > > period of learning. You'll each have your own estimations > I'm sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So - two questions to everyone who has expressed an > interest in this > > > > > > > > > discussion (have I missed anyone?): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alex, Andrey, Enrico, Francois, JB, Juan, Iuliana, and > anyone else for > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > matter who hasn't yet spoken up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Who among us feels strongly enough about their need for > jclouds to > > > > > > > > > continue business as usual that they want to volunteer to > commit to the > > > > > > > > > time it will take to learn it and then maintain it going > forward > > > > > > > > (becoming > > > > > > > > > a committer)? This would not only include releases, as > Andrew outlined, > > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > > also security fixes, and maintenance as dependencies age > (e.g. that gson > > > > > > > > > problem). It seems to me we need *at least* two volunteers > for jclouds to > > > > > > > > > continue; three would be better. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Or do you agree with Andrew that avoiding the attic > doesn't need to be > > > > > > > > > the goal? That everything has a natural lifetime and maybe > the attic is > > > > > > > > now > > > > > > > > > the right course for jclouds? Perhaps you feel your effort > would be > > > > > > > > better > > > > > > > > > directed toward adapting your own code to a world without > jclouds. E.g. > > > > > > > > > from a Brooklyn point of view maybe the time is near for > replacing > > > > > > > > > JCloudLocation with provider specific locations, or a new > abstraction. > > > > > > > > Who > > > > > > > > > knows, that might even remove a slew of dependencies and > assist us moving > > > > > > > > > on from Java 8. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Concretely: if you want to volunteer to commit to > maintaining jclouds, > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > I ask you please to reply to this email to say so. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards to all, and wishing you a Happy New Year. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Geoff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 25 Dec 2022 at 01:12, Andrew Gaul <g...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 03:25:04PM +0000, Geoff > Macartney wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Can we try to get some data on what amount of effort > is required > > > > > > > > here? > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew, Ignasi, here are some questions for you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we want to at least keep Jclouds going, without > necessarily doing > > > > > > > > much > > > > > > > > > > > fresh feature development on it: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. What do you think is a desirable *minimum* number > of active > > > > > > > > > > contributors > > > > > > > > > > > to the project (doing releases, dependency updates, > security fixes, > > > > > > > > > > > occasional important bug fixes)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apache projects need a quorum of 3 committers to make a > release which > > > > > > > > > > jclouds will soon lack. Mechanically, a single > motivated person could > > > > > > > > > > keep pushing releases with a few drive-by +1s. But > practically, the > > > > > > > > > > jclouds blobstore and compute scope is large enough that > two people > > > > > > > > > > should maintain the project with some domain expertise. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. How much work is that likely to involve? (Approx > time commitment). > > > > > > > > > > Let's > > > > > > > > > > > separate out how much effort it is to build, test and > publish a > > > > > > > > release > > > > > > > > > > > from other stuff which is going to be more ad-hoc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I estimate that I spend 10 hours per release: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * triaging blobstore issues (~1 hour) > > > > > > > > > > * reviewing/pushing forward outstanding PRs (~2 hours) > > > > > > > > > > * running integration tests (~1 hour) > > > > > > > > > > * dealing with jclouds tech debt and breakages (0-10 > hours?) > > > > > > > > > > * Apache process and overhead (~1 hour) > > > > > > > > > > * fixes that help my project or look easy (? hours) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3. How much access to cloud providers/infrastructure > is required to > > > > > > > > test > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > release? How expensive is it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have access to all the major blobstore providers and > run integration > > > > > > > > > > tests for them. I estimate this costs me less than $1 > but running > > > > > > > > > > compute tests may cost more. Note that there are flaky > and broken > > > > > > > > tests > > > > > > > > > > which require some judgment call so I only look at the > diff between > > > > > > > > > > releases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4. How much work would it be for new contributors to > learn the > > > > > > > > codebase > > > > > > > > > > > well enough to contribute effectively? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jclouds is a big project that uses a custom annotation > mechanism > > > > > > > > > > (RestAnnotationProcessor) and extensively (excessively?) > uses Guice > > > > > > > > > > which makes it hard for many people (including me!) to > understand. We > > > > > > > > > > could debate the merits of the technical approach but > socially this > > > > > > > > > > makes it hard to attract contributors. I also think > that the technical > > > > > > > > > > debt that jclouds has accrued generally makes it less > pleasant to work > > > > > > > > > > on than simpler or newer projects. I don't think this > answers your > > > > > > > > > > question but Ignasi and I now work outside the Java and > cloud > > > > > > > > ecosystems > > > > > > > > > > and are not in a good position to explain/rediscover how > this all > > > > > > > > works. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think if we know better how much it will take, we > can each more > > > > > > > > easily > > > > > > > > > > > ask ourselves, "could I do this"? If enough of us say > "yes", we may > > > > > > > > avoid > > > > > > > > > > > the attic yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't know that avoiding the attic should be the > goal. If there are > > > > > > > > > > motivated people that want to continue jclouds then > please do so. But > > > > > > > > > > currently no one is doing any work towards this end. > jclouds continues > > > > > > > > > > to accrue technical debt (e.g., gson 2.9.0 > incompatibility) and there > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > no one left to do this work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it would be good for a new contributor to step > back and compare > > > > > > > > > > against similar multi-cloud projects like libcloud to > evaluate what > > > > > > > > > > jclouds does well and what it does not. I suspect that > reimplementing > > > > > > > > > > the REST APIs is not a good choice in 2022 and instead > jclouds or a > > > > > > > > > > similar library should reuse the vendor SDKs and focus > only on > > > > > > > > > > multi-cloud portability. And simplify the project so > users can become > > > > > > > > > > contributors more easily. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Andrew Gaul > > > > > > > > > > http://gaul.org/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Andrew Gaul > > > > > http://gaul.org/ > > > > > > > >
