>> I still think you're putting the cart before the horse. I'm not sure I >> could name any specialpurpose component that has the two or three active >> contributors that I think would be necessary to sustain it. > It will become apparent when the team or person steps forward to maintain it.
If they won't contribute to it now then why would they suddenly jump at the chance to run it? It seems silly to me to go through the effort of setting up a sub-project then waiting a few months to pull it back down because no one cares. You seem to be running on the premise that some of these components have active contributors. I'd love to know which components these are. I'm not talking about a vaguely mentioned interest, I'm talking about actual action taken. There are hundreds of open source projects I'm interested in and roughly 1-2 I have time to contribute to. Particularly for security issues, the TLP PMC cannot simply ignore dormant sub-projects, we have to take action if a report comes in. Most of questions I asked were based on the premise that the given sub-project was dormant (sorry if I didn't make that clear), but you answered with the "sub-project will take care of it" so I guess it wasn't clear. If a sub-project is dormant (which I think is highly likely to be the outcome), then it falls back to the PMC to deal with monitoring, receiving contributions, determining suitability of prospective committers and dealing with security issues. Not to mention the set up and tear down of these failed experiments. Regards Scott On 10/11/2014, at 3:35 pm, Ron Wheeler <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> wrote: > A very excellent discussion of the issues by Scott has prompted me to > document my thoughts. > > Ron > > On 07/11/2014 5:24 PM, Scott Gray wrote: >> I still think you're putting the cart before the horse. I'm not sure I >> could name any specialpurpose component that has the two or three active >> contributors that I think would be necessary to sustain it. > It will become apparent when the team or person steps forward to maintain it. >> If you have only one or two and they go away then what happens to any new >> comers looking to contribute? > They will have to ask the leader of the sub-project. If the sub-project > community is completely unresponsive, they could propose to take over it. > >> Do we just make anyone who comes along a committer? > It is up to the sub-project to make that decision. Just the way Apache leaves > it up to OFBiz to decide who can commit. > The goal is to get these projects that have little or no current support, set > up in a way that they can find their own specialized community that does not > care to work on the framework. >> Does the TLP PMC need to monitor a whole bunch of new mailing lists and then >> support anyone who comes along in the hope they might be able to become >> committers? > Not unless you care to stay on top of details. This is one of the benefits of > sub-projects. > You can reduce the flow through each list and only subscribe to stuff you > really need to follow, so you are only getting stuff that you actually care > about. > The archives are always available if you want to look up things after the > fact. > > The sensible way to handle project management issues, is to set up an OFBiz > project mailing list that handles announcement or project news that does not > belong in the regular dev or user lists. > You can refer to the Apache project management pages for specific suggestions > about how Apache projects can handle this kind of activity. >> If a component had no active committers how long would it be before it broke >> completely because no one kept it updated? > Same as now. Soon. > Death of a module from natural causes ( no one caring) is not a bad thing. > It just would be much easier to know when a module had died. > Currently, the OFBiz community has a hard time knowing what has died and what > is still valued. > >> If a security vulnerability is found then who will deal with it? > > Same people who deal with it now if they actually care to keep working on the > sub-project. > New people who actually use the module would probably be very interested in > getting high priority issues fixed. > At least, you would know who "should" be fixing it. > Much better than the current state. > It would be up to the sub-project to establish its policies about support for > security (back-porting, supported versions), etc. > >> >> Without active committers the PMC would need to remain familiar with the >> code in order to receive contributions and determine their suitability for >> inclusion. Nothing would be different from now except that the component >> would be less visible to us, more easily forgotten and we'd have more >> infrastructure to deal with. > Why would the framework committers even care? > It is up to the sub-project to sort out their own code integrity issues. > They have the detailed knowledge and the subject matter expertise and the > motivation (they actually use it). > If the project dies, you don't have to do anything except post a note on the > sub-project web site announcing that it is no longer active and that the PMC > is looking for a new team. > > If anyone else from the PMC thought that this sub-project was important, they > would have joined the sub-project in the first place. > At least everyone would know that the module was no longer active. > >> You can look only at the best case scenarios because you won't have any >> responsibility to these sub-projects. The PMC however will still have the >> burden to do anything that the sub-project committers decide that they >> themselves no longer want to do. > Why? If the module is useless and no one cares, why would the PMC do anything > besides documenting the situation on the sub-project web page. > "This project is no longer maintained. The code is available 'as is'. The > last release of the module is know to work with version 13.07. OFBiz would be > pleased to hear of a team willing to continue working on this module." > > Stop thinking about it after that until an individual or a team shows up. > >> At what point will it be okay by you for us to kill it off? What is it >> that currently gives you confidence that it won't happen very quickly? > Yes, you can kill a project that no one is willing to work on or support. > At the moment it appears that several modules would have a hard time > surviving and should be killed. > From the discussion in this thread it appears that some are just tests that > failed. > > This is better than the current case, wherein users have no idea about what > is active and what is dead and the PMC has to do a survey of all users every > time a decision about a dormant project has to be made. > >> >> I think Jacopo's solution is the best to keep everyone happy (including the >> vocal minority) but IMO the best approach would be to remove the components >> from OFBiz altogether, set them up on github or similar, ensure those who >> want to take ownership have the required access and then advertise the >> existence of these special purpose components from the OFBiz website. The >> components are then free to stand or fall as they may. Should any actually >> survive and thrive, then a subproject would seem like a good idea. It's my >> opinion though that the vast majority of the components would go dormant and >> I don't think it makes a difference whether it's as a subproject or as an >> external project hosted elsewhere. > Removing them from Apache is a rather extreme approach that is likely to lead > to additional forking of the OFBiz project. > Apache has a well documented set of tools and processes for dealing with > modules or applications like this and there is no real value in inventing > some new process that is unlikely to be properly set up given the amount of > work being done in the supported bits of OFBiz. > > I don't see any point of worrying at all about modules that have no following. > We just need to be transparent about what is happening. > If they are supported, set up a sub-project that allows the interested > parties to work on them with as large a community as they can attract. > They would not have to get mixed in with the framework project that has a > different set of concerns and requirements for committing. > They might not be committers to the framework or core ERP > If the projects are not supported, leave them as is and state clearly on the > project web page that these modules are not supported. > If there is a history of people working on them, using them in production and > caring, it would be nice to document that, in case that someone finds them > useful. > > If they were tests that failed before being finished, perhaps moving them to > a section of "dead test" modules in the SCM would satisfy the desire not to > lose any code regardless of its uselessness as well as making it clear that > these modules are not functional and users should think that the name of the > module has anything to do with what it will actually do. > Mixing them in with modules that are actively maintained is not helpful. > > I hope that this helps. > > > Ron > > >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On 8/11/2014, at 9:21 am, Ron Wheeler <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> wrote: >> >>> Taher Alkhateeb raised some valid concerns. >>> >>> My take (also as a newcomer) is that there is a high barrier to entry for >>> people working on the framework and this makes it hard to get new people >>> into the OFBiz project. >>> By creating sub-projects that have a much smaller scope and do not have any >>> affect on the overall robustness of the system, we would allow new people >>> to take on tasks that have a much narrower scope and are more in-line >>> withtheir abilities and interests. >>> >>> It will also allow OFBiz to attract subject matter experts on certain areas >>> such as the BIRT language, data analysis, project management or >>> manufacturing who are not attracted to the framework development tasks. >>> >>> The current level of complexity forces the group to be a small band of >>> dedicated people who have the detailed technical understanding of the >>> framework and tools used to build and maintain it. >>> >>> There is nothing to prevent framework contributors from also joining >>> sub-projects where they have an interest. >>> >>> It would also provide a level of transparency about what is getting >>> supported. >>> If no one is active in the BIRT sub-project, at least you know that it is >>> not supported. >>> At the moment, you have no idea about the interest in supporting BIRT. >>> If you need it and it is not supported, currently you do not have anyone to >>> talk to except the framework mailing list. >>> If it had its own sub-project, you would have a leader and a list of people >>> who once had an interest in it. >>> If no one was interested in your BIRT issue, you could always hire someone >>> to work on the bits that you needed fixed. >>> If BIRT is completely orphaned,you could take over leadership of the BIRT >>> sub-project and get it back going. >>> >>> I think that the project management and SCRUM projects could probably put >>> together sub-projects. >>> >>> You would have to do a bit of work to get a BIRT group growing. >>> However, it looks like a good candidate for a separate project since BIRT >>> is a completely different programming language and a lot of the skills have >>> to do with business analysis, usability and data analysis rather than Java >>> coding. >>> You might find that a BIRT sub-project attracts a number of people who >>> would not be interested in supporting the framework. >>> >>> Sub-project will also reduce the amount of traffic on the dev list and >>> allow people to focus on what they think matters to them. >>> They also allow other people to take on leadership roles in these areas >>> which reduces the burden on the current core contributors. >>> >>> Sub-projects are a key part of many Apache projects, so I believe that they >>> must serve a useful purpose. >>> I think that this project is really in need of a way to grow the community >>> without diluting the quality and I see sub-projects as a way to keep the >>> focus within Apache OFBiz rather than fork the parts into outside open >>> source projects which is the current direction. >>> >>> Ron >>> >>> >>> On 07/11/2014 2:08 PM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: >>>> Hi Everyone, >>>> >>>> I do not have a long history with the OFBiz project to understand its >>>> history, but from the last few years I noticed the following: >>>> >>>> - The system is huge >>>> - Documentation is wanting >>>> - The community is suffering from low number of experienced developers >>>> >>>> For example, I use and want to support the BIRT reporting component. Yet >>>> there are very few committed developers experienced and comfortable enough >>>> in maintaining it and upgrading with new releases. So, I would imagine >>>> taking it out as an almost sure death sentence given the already low >>>> resources. >>>> >>>> With all due respect, talking about sub-projects and plans and resources >>>> and commit access and all of that stuff does not make sense when you >>>> barely have enough experienced people maintaining the code. I see only a >>>> few names over and over who are doing the "real" heavy work. >>>> >>>> So for my 2 cents, I still strongly encourage the initial suggestion by >>>> Jacopo. I think other suggestions would probably kill any less heavily >>>> maintained components. >>>> >>>> Taher Alkhateeb >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> >>>> From: "Ron Wheeler" <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> >>>> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org >>>> Sent: Friday, 7 November, 2014 9:29:05 PM >>>> Subject: Re: How to use ProjectMgr in 13.07 >>>> >>>> I was trying to find some Apache docs about what is involved. >>>> Separating the SCM controls so that the sub-projects can have their own >>>> committers is an important task. >>>> Any idea about what else is required? >>>> >>>> In any case, it would be the people who want to support the sub-project >>>> to do the paperwork. >>>> >>>> There is clearly nothing to stop a fork of any part of OFBiz but there >>>> is some advantage to keeping OZBiz in one piece. >>>> The most important thing is that it allows the sub-project to use the >>>> OFBiz name and Apache branding in its "marketing" material and >>>> documentation. >>>> It also builds the pool of potential contributors and committers for the >>>> core. >>>> >>>> >>>> Ron >>>> >>>> On 07/11/2014 11:44 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>> I am fine with the idea of encouraging the growth of an ecosystem of >>>>> *projects* about OFBiz (not necessarily all within the ASF) but I >>>>> disagree that they should be *sub-projects* of OFBiz, mostly because >>>>> sub-projects just add complexity within the OFBiz community (with more >>>>> paperwork required). >>>>> >>>>> Jacopo >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 7, 2014, at 5:32 PM, Adrian Crum >>>>> <adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I agree with a separate community approach, for these reasons: >>>>>> >>>>>> The special purpose components started out as little demonstrations of >>>>>> how OFBiz can be extended to role-specific applications. Since then, >>>>>> some of those components have expanded into full-featured applications - >>>>>> so the overhead of maintaining them has increased beyond what we >>>>>> expected initially. >>>>>> >>>>>> Some special purpose components were included as the result of a >>>>>> community discussion and effort, but others were simply "dumped" into >>>>>> the repository without any discussion or community participation - and >>>>>> as a result they receive little support. >>>>>> >>>>>> Some special purpose components were created and initially supported by >>>>>> community members who are not around any more. >>>>>> >>>>>> As a result of all of these things, the special purpose components are >>>>>> not well maintained. >>>>>> >>>>>> From my perspective, if anyone believes a component needs more attention >>>>>> and would like to develop it further, then they should spin it off to a >>>>>> separate project. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, instead of having a conversation about how the OFBiz community can >>>>>> better support the Project Manager component, maybe we should have a >>>>>> conversation about how to spin it off to a separate community. >>>>>> >>>>>> Opentaps started off that way. Initially, it was OFBiz plus additional >>>>>> components: Financials, CRM, and Warehousing. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the OFBiz community would benefit if we stopped trying to be all >>>>>> things to all people, and instead focus on providing a sound and >>>>>> flexible data model - combined with robust, reliable services. Special >>>>>> purpose applications, and even presentation layer details can be left to >>>>>> other communities. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adrian Crum >>>>>> Sandglass Software >>>>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11/7/2014 4:02 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>>>>> I may be beating a dead horse but what Jacopo is proposing and the >>>>>>> concern that Jacques raised about resources would seem to fit very well >>>>>>> into a sub-project structure. >>>>>>> Split these modules out of the main line into their own OFBiz >>>>>>> sub-projects where they could attract their own resources (committers >>>>>>> even) and would be responsible for delivering modules that worked with >>>>>>> the various OFBiz cores that exist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let the sub-projects worry about their own relationship to OFBiz >>>>>>> releases and release branches. >>>>>>> They might just support the released 13.07.xx version, if that is what >>>>>>> the sub-project's user community can support or they might maintain 2 >>>>>>> versions 13.07 and a 14.xx. that works with a recent version of the >>>>>>> trunk. >>>>>>> In any case, it would no longer be a problem for the OFBiz core >>>>>>> developers and they could release just the OFBiz components that are >>>>>>> officially part of the core. >>>>>>> Clearly good communication between the core project and the sub-project >>>>>>> about release plans would help everyone but the core group would be >>>>>>> basically free to release the core as they want and the sub-projects >>>>>>> would have to communicate to their uses communities what impact this >>>>>>> would have on the users of the modules. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If a sub-project needs a change to the core to implement some feature, >>>>>>> they would have to file an enhancement JIRA issue and convince someone >>>>>>> to add it (unless they are a committer on the core). >>>>>>> If two sub-projects had a compatibility issue, they would at least know >>>>>>> who to talk to get a solution. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ron >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 07/11/2014 7:04 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2014, at 12:36 PM, Jacques Le Roux >>>>>>>> <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This will no longer work for some components (scrum for instance) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I believe we could be reintroduce some specialpurpose component in >>>>>>>>> next release, >>>>>>>> There is a difference between including them in a release branch and >>>>>>>> including them in the releases: I would be more inclined to include >>>>>>>> (all of them) in the release branches but exclude them from the >>>>>>>> releases; this would simplify the work required to keep them in synch >>>>>>>> and would also help end users to integrate them. >>>>>>>> However the specialpurpose components should be disabled in order to >>>>>>>> avoid the users to get a default ootb release/branch with enabled >>>>>>>> special purpose functionalities that may override the more general >>>>>>>> purpose ones offered by the core applications. >>>>>>>> We should still consider the idea of providing separate products for >>>>>>>> the specialpurpose components (and having them in the branch would >>>>>>>> help this process). >>>>>>>> If the idea I am proposing here (include the specialpurpose components >>>>>>>> in the branch but not in the releases) we could re-add them (as >>>>>>>> disabled) also to the 13.07 branch but exclude them from all the >>>>>>>> releases (13.07.02 etc...): this will protect all the stabilization >>>>>>>> work we did on the branch (and also from some licensing issues that >>>>>>>> may affects some of the artifacts in some of the specialpurpose >>>>>>>> components) . >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> as long as they are backed by some efforts, come to mind >>>>>>>>> project manager (Pierre Smits?) >>>>>>>>> scrum (Hans?) >>>>>>>>> examples and ext (at least me) >>>>>>>>> myportal (French people use portals, not sure for myportal?) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Other components? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> IRRW Jacopo said he was not against a new discussion on this subject >>>>>>>>> (I could not find his message), what do you think? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le 21/10/2014 09:06, gil portenseigne a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> I've never used svn external property, just discovering. That sounds >>>>>>>>>> usefull and i'll try it out ! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the advice ! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Gil >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 20/10/2014 19:08, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I use svn external in the stable demo, already explained that in >>>>>>>>>>> the MLs: see >>>>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/tools/demo-backup/branch13.7-demo.patch?view=markup >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You can use the same to keep in sync, only consider projectmgr in >>>>>>>>>>> your case. Since there is no projectmgr in R13.07 the risk of >>>>>>>>>>> gettins conflicts or build issue is extremely low >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Le 20/10/2014 17:28, gil portenseigne a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jacopo, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ok then, i will have to re-synchronize new trunk devs each time >>>>>>>>>>>> i'll feel it necessary. My fear is about incompatibility between >>>>>>>>>>>> 13.07 and trunk technologies, but that won't happen soon, or i >>>>>>>>>>>> might backport the evolution into my local environment. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That will do the job ! >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gil >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 20/10/2014 16:36, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Gil, >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest to check it out from the trunk to the hot-deploy >>>>>>>>>>>>> folder of 13.07: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> cd hot-deploy >>>>>>>>>>>>> svn co >>>>>>>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/projectmgr >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 20, 2014, at 4:11 PM, gil portenseigne >>>>>>>>>>>>> <gil.portensei...@nereide.fr> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to relaunch the debate around including the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> projectMgmt component into the 13.07 release, but i have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> question : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the best way to import the projectMgr component in my >>>>>>>>>>>>>> local 13.07 checkout environment, to start using it in a real >>>>>>>>>>>>>> project and to contribute on upgrading it for trunk and/or the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 13.07 release ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trunk technical evolution might be a problem if a want to stick >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to 13.07 release with projectMgmt features. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should I use trunk instead ? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gil >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <siteon0.jpg> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gil Portenseigne >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consultant ERP OFBiz >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Société Néréide >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3b Les isles >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 37270 Veretz >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tel : 09 74 53 46 09, puis 1, poste 61 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mob : 06 82 740 444 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.nereide.fr >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> <Mail Attachment.jpeg> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Gil Portenseigne >>>>>>>>>> Consultant ERP OFBiz >>>>>>>>>> Société Néréide >>>>>>>>>> 3b Les isles >>>>>>>>>> 37270 Veretz >>>>>>>>>> Tel : 09 74 53 46 09, puis 1, poste 61 >>>>>>>>>> Mob : 06 82 740 444 >>>>>>>>>> www.nereide.fr >>> >>> -- >>> Ron Wheeler >>> President >>> Artifact Software Inc >>> email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com >>> skype: ronaldmwheeler >>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 >>> >> > > > -- > Ron Wheeler > President > Artifact Software Inc > email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com > skype: ronaldmwheeler > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
