Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:57 AM, David Nalley  wrote:
> ...My guess is, based on Daniels estimate, that
> first year is 13-30k - each year thereafter is 3-10k per year in costs..

Are these estimates sufficient for our infra team to give us their ok
to proceed with the NetBeans vote, or do you guys need more time?

I'm asking because

a) discussions about the current proposal are currently going into all
kinds of side tracks which are not really useful as far as informing
the NetBeans vote decision, IMO

and b) as it's the first time we do such an assessment for an incoming
podling, IMO we shouldn't make NetBeans wait more than strictly
needed, while we refine this costing thing internally.

So my suggestion is for infra (David or Greg) to give us their ok to
proceed with the vote if you guys agree, and sort out the (important)
budget details internally in parallel.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Ate Douma  wrote:
> ...It looks to me we are ready for voting on this proposal, as soon as the
> infra assessment and discussion around it has been settled as well

I agree with that, and now that the infra estimation is in (in another
thread on this list) we shouldn't have to wait too long for that.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

[Geertjan Wielenga]

>
> My guess is that the first 6 months is the most expensive as it
> involves a lot of time from infrastructure to migrate resources or
> figure out alternatives. My guess is, based on Daniels estimate, that
> first year is 13-30k - each year thereafter is 3-10k per year in costs
> (whether those be monetary, staff time, or in-kind)
> Any service that we stand up and migrate I assume is staying forever
> or only growing larger.


The preliminary NetBeans cost findings cover monetary costs only. Staff
time is not covered. I am not sure what "in-kind" means, though it is not
covered either. I can definitely imagine that indeed there will (and has
already been, e.g., in the drawing up of the preliminary cost findings) be
staff time costs, i.e., from Apache infra side, in moving NetBeans to
Apache.

The preliminary NetBeans cost findings have determined that of the existing
NetBeans services, the ones that carry a monetary burden for Apache are (1)
plugins.netbeans.org, which will not be going to Apache, (2)
statistics.netbeans.org, which will not be going to Apache, and (3) the
MacOS build machines. In fact, the cost findings clearly estimate that only
the MacOS build machines will be a cost factor for Apache.

Gj


Gj


On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:57 AM, David Nalley  wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Shane Curcuru 
> wrote:
> > Excellent cliff notes, and I'm really glad to see us surfacing the
> > issues - and costs - of incubating such a large podling.
> >
> > Question: do you have a rough forecast of how long this expense/extra
> > infra burden will last?  I.e. is this likely something we'll bear for
> > 3-4 years and then we'll have migrated everything to a better home, or
> > is this a long-term cost due to how big it all is?
> >
>
> My guess is that the first 6 months is the most expensive as it
> involves a lot of time from infrastructure to migrate resources or
> figure out alternatives. My guess is, based on Daniels estimate, that
> first year is 13-30k - each year thereafter is 3-10k per year in costs
> (whether those be monetary, staff time, or in-kind)
> Any service that we stand up and migrate I assume is staying forever
> or only growing larger.
>
> --David
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi,

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:
> ...The vote on this proposal is explicitly not tied to contact being
> made to everyone for inclusion on the initial contributors list...

I agree with that, I guess what Roman would like to see is a statement
that you guys have made reasonable efforts to build the list of
initial committers, by contacting people who were previously involved,
etc. - which I think you definitely have.

Roman, does that work for you?

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:


> > From my point of view, voting on the proposal should not happen until
> this
> > has been done, working on it now, approaching people to ask them to be
> > added to the list, and will be writing mails to NetBeans mailing lists.
>
> Thanks you! Sounds like we're on exactly the same page!



Not anymore -- our mentors have explicitly (and repeatedly) rejected this
approach. The vote on this proposal is explicitly not tied to contact being
made to everyone for inclusion on the initial contributors list. Though we
are -- and have been from even before the proposal was published --
contacting potential new individual contributors and adding them to the
initial contributors list, the purpose of the list is to show diversity of
individual contributors, nothing more and nothing less, and the purpose is
not to try to be as complete as possible. As stated earlier in this thread,
we're simply going to follow our mentors when there is a different in
emphasis and that's what we're going to be doing in this case.

Thanks,

Gj



On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Roman Shaposhnik 
wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>  wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Correct.  The whole point of Incubation at Apache is to show that the
> >> community can learn to self-govern by following Apache processes - and a
> >> key point of self-governance is responsibly adding new committers.
> >>
> >> In my experience, it's far better to just start incubation at this point
> >> rather than worrying about getting the *initial* list perfect.
> >
> >
> > The perspective on this point are clearly extremely divided when I read
> > through this thread. Some from Apache consider the initial committers
> list
> > extremely important and that that list should be extremely complete. (And
> > there's even a suggestion that people might fork NetBeans if they're not
> on
> > the initial committers list which, to me, sounds really odd.)
>
> Just to make sure that my argument is clearly stated let me make two points
> very, very explicitly:
>1. I would expect the folks bringing NetBeans to ASF Incubator to have
> had
> spent reasonable amount of time trying to contact anybody who may feel
> like
> their level of contributions to NetBeans (past or present) could
> qualify them
> to be on that list. Contacting doesn't mean they should be
> automatically added
> to that list, but rather:
>   1.1. made aware what is going to happen to NetBeans soon
>   1.2. given a chance to request being added to the list (like
> we already saw
>  somebody did on this very thread)
>
> 2. Precisely because #1 is super time consuming and can't be fool
> proof, we need
> to make sure that the expectation going in is that anybody who was
> missed as part
> of outreach described above will be given special considerations
> once the project
> enters incubation.
>
> That's it. In fact, I'd rather see #1 and #2 be made part of the
> proposal (you don't
> have to write a thesis -- just a few paragraph) before I will feel
> comfortable about
> casting my vote.
>
> > However, I will work more on the initial contributors list, regardless of
> > the confusion about it. I do think it will be good to have (1) as
> complete
> > a list as possible and (2) clear motivation about why people are on that
> > list, i.e., what they have done to get on that list in the first place.
> >
> > My aim is, in order to bring this part of the discussion to an end, to
> take
> > the strictest approach from all the different approaches apparent in this
> > discussion and make the list as complete and comprehensive as possible
> and
> > provide motivation for each person in the list. Can't do any harm and at
> > least some of the people in this discussion are explicitly asking for
> this.
> > From my point of view, voting on the proposal should not happen until
> this
> > has been done, working on it now, approaching people to ask them to be
> > added to the list, and will be writing mails to NetBeans mailing lists.
>
> Thanks you! Sounds like we're on exactly the same page!
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Alex Harui wrote:


> But if you are thinking 100 people, I'd try to get it down to 40-ish.


Seems like a very random number. In the case of NetBeans, that would mean
we'd have few others on the list than those from Oracle, which is not what
we want -- instead, we want to reflect the various communities (Oracle,
NetBeans Platform companies, NetBeans plugin developers, NetBeans Dream
Team members, etc) in our list and yes that's going to result in a number
larger than 40.

Gj


On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:52 AM, Alex Harui  wrote:

> IMO, the only things to consider for the initial committers list are:
>
> If you leave someone off the list:
> - it takes bit longer to get their next commit into the repo.
> - that person may be have hurt feelings as to why some other person is on
> the list.
> (so don't leave off the person who can quickly fix important security bugs)
>
> If you put someone on the list:
> - They may never contribute what they said they might contribute
> - More administrative work for the ASF secretary.
> - You clean up the deadwood at graduation.
>
> As Apache Flex entered the incubator, we had a 40 person initial committer
> list which was considered quite large at the time.  Only one person
> besides me is still active almost five years later.  About 12 never showed
> up because with the move to Apache their paid job role changed and they
> ran out of time to commit anything.  If I had to do it again, I would
> probably still have the same 40 people.  So what if there was deadwood.
> We cleaned some up at graduation, and then over 4 years after graduation,
> folks faded away and new folks came in.
>
> But if you are thinking 100 people, I'd try to get it down to 40-ish.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
>
> On 9/24/16, 11:59 PM, "John McDonnell"  wrote:
>
> >Hi All,
> >
> >
> >I am a netbeans user that has been following this thread since the
> >proposal was announced and I am a little fascinated with this whole
> >process, it seems rather interesting...
> >
> >Although this initial committer list seems to be a sticking point, but
> >from reading this page:
> >https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#committers I'm not
> >sure why it is...
> >
> >I have contributed defect fixes for JClouds in the past, and from what
> >I see on this project is that there's an GitHub repo that allows
> >people to contribute PR's, but theres also a ASF repo, which the
> >contributors actually merge in the PRs from GitHub into the "hidden"
> >ASF repo...   Is this how every ASF project runs? and is this how
> >Apache Netbeans would run?  Because if so, do you want to give a wide
> >list of committers initially?
> >
> >I would have thought it would make sense to keep the number to a group
> >of trusted people that Netbeans/GJ trust up front to commit PRs into
> >the main repo, and to make short term decisions.  Then if a
> >developer/contributor shows themselves to be a useful part of the
> >community then you can quickly vote to change their status...
> >
> >Anyways I'm going to go back to lurking in the background...
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >John
> >
> >
> >On 25 September 2016 at 07:40, Jochen Theodorou 
> wrote:
> >> On 24.09.2016 15:10, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou
> >>>
> >>> For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare
> >>> plattform
> 
>  and no IDE.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> No, that's not true at all. The NetBeans plugins are of various kinds.
> >>> There are plugins that are listed in the Plugin Manager by default,
> >>>these
> >>> are the standard functionalities of NetBeans IDE, i.e., these are all
> >>>from
> >>> the NetBeans source code and will be part of the Apache donation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ok, wrong knowledge on my side. From hat I have seen in the repository
> >>it
> >> should be fine then. I have also seen some possibly license critical
> >>stuff
> >> there, but that is for during incubation to sort out
> >>
> >>
> >> bye Jochen
> >>
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >John
> >
> >-
> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> >For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Alex Harui]

IMO, the only things to consider for the initial committers list are:

If you leave someone off the list:
- it takes bit longer to get their next commit into the repo.
- that person may be have hurt feelings as to why some other person is on
the list.
(so don't leave off the person who can quickly fix important security bugs)

If you put someone on the list:
- They may never contribute what they said they might contribute
- More administrative work for the ASF secretary.
- You clean up the deadwood at graduation.

As Apache Flex entered the incubator, we had a 40 person initial committer
list which was considered quite large at the time.  Only one person
besides me is still active almost five years later.  About 12 never showed
up because with the move to Apache their paid job role changed and they
ran out of time to commit anything.  If I had to do it again, I would
probably still have the same 40 people.  So what if there was deadwood.
We cleaned some up at graduation, and then over 4 years after graduation,
folks faded away and new folks came in.

But if you are thinking 100 people, I'd try to get it down to 40-ish.

My 2 cents,
-Alex


On 9/24/16, 11:59 PM, "John McDonnell"  wrote:

>Hi All,
>
>
>I am a netbeans user that has been following this thread since the
>proposal was announced and I am a little fascinated with this whole
>process, it seems rather interesting...
>
>Although this initial committer list seems to be a sticking point, but
>from reading this page:
>https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#committers I'm not
>sure why it is...
>
>I have contributed defect fixes for JClouds in the past, and from what
>I see on this project is that there's an GitHub repo that allows
>people to contribute PR's, but theres also a ASF repo, which the
>contributors actually merge in the PRs from GitHub into the "hidden"
>ASF repo...   Is this how every ASF project runs? and is this how
>Apache Netbeans would run?  Because if so, do you want to give a wide
>list of committers initially?
>
>I would have thought it would make sense to keep the number to a group
>of trusted people that Netbeans/GJ trust up front to commit PRs into
>the main repo, and to make short term decisions.  Then if a
>developer/contributor shows themselves to be a useful part of the
>community then you can quickly vote to change their status...
>
>Anyways I'm going to go back to lurking in the background...
>
>Regards
>
>John
>
>
>On 25 September 2016 at 07:40, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:
>> On 24.09.2016 15:10, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou
>>>
>>> For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare
>>> plattform

 and no IDE.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, that's not true at all. The NetBeans plugins are of various kinds.
>>> There are plugins that are listed in the Plugin Manager by default,
>>>these
>>> are the standard functionalities of NetBeans IDE, i.e., these are all
>>>from
>>> the NetBeans source code and will be part of the Apache donation.
>>
>>
>>
>> ok, wrong knowledge on my side. From hat I have seen in the repository
>>it
>> should be fine then. I have also seen some possibly license critical
>>stuff
>> there, but that is for during incubation to sort out
>>
>>
>> bye Jochen
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>John
>
>-
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

[David Nalley]

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Shane Curcuru  wrote:
> Excellent cliff notes, and I'm really glad to see us surfacing the
> issues - and costs - of incubating such a large podling.
>
> Question: do you have a rough forecast of how long this expense/extra
> infra burden will last?  I.e. is this likely something we'll bear for
> 3-4 years and then we'll have migrated everything to a better home, or
> is this a long-term cost due to how big it all is?
>

My guess is that the first 6 months is the most expensive as it
involves a lot of time from infrastructure to migrate resources or
figure out alternatives. My guess is, based on Daniels estimate, that
first year is 13-30k - each year thereafter is 3-10k per year in costs
(whether those be monetary, staff time, or in-kind)
Any service that we stand up and migrate I assume is staying forever
or only growing larger.

--David

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

[toki]

Greg wrote:

>Second big example is SourceForge.net hosting the AOO binaries.

If you are going to cite AOo as an example, then
http://templates.services.openoffice.org/ provides an example of how
easily things spin out of control,
when third parties take primary responsibility for distribution of
artefacts related to an Apache Software Project.

jonathon



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

[Shane Curcuru]

Geertjan Wielenga wrote on 9/25/16 6:05 PM:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> 
> 
>> Having a third party run a service under an Apache brand requires working
>> with VP Brand.
> 
> 
> Indeed, this is something we're going to need to do. I.e., there will be
> existing NetBeans services that Apache will not be hosting. The clearest
> case of this will be plugins.netbeans.org. That is a service that one or
> more individual contributors will take on, making use of the infrastructure
> of an organization they work for.

These are all solvable questions, but the podling will need to work
closely with your mentors and others at the ASF to ensure they're done
in a way that still allows the future Apache NetBeans project to operate
fully independently of specific corporate influence.

  http://community.apache.org/projectIndependence.html

We don't need to go through the details on this discuss thread, but both
*who* will be hosting these specific services as well as *how* they're
portrayed to the world will be things the podling needs to track.

It needs to be clear that development decisions on the podling are done
by the individual committers doing the work on the podling.  We also
need to ensure that if any external provider decides to drop the
service, that we have some way to keep the committer community working
on the NetBeans code itself still moving forward.

>From how the various NetBeans folks are describing things, this will be
complicated, but we should definitely be able to figure it all out
during the incubation process.  I'm also expecting that it will take
work on the image side to show the world that Oracle truly is giving up
control to the community, but again, it certainly sounds like you've got
the right people here to make that happen.

- Shane

> 
> I.e., if Apache is not going to host one or more services currently hosted
> by Oracle, and if those services are needed by NetBeans, something will
> need to be done to resolve the situation, which will be that the service
> will be hosted by someone else. An individual contributor could host
> plugins.netbeans.org on their own private server, of course, though an
> organization volunteering this service is a more likely and stable
> scenario. I am sure other Apache projects have similar arrangements and
> this will not be new for Apache in any way.
> 
> Gj
...

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Roman Shaposhnik]

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 6:18 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
 wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>
>
>> Correct.  The whole point of Incubation at Apache is to show that the
>> community can learn to self-govern by following Apache processes - and a
>> key point of self-governance is responsibly adding new committers.
>>
>> In my experience, it's far better to just start incubation at this point
>> rather than worrying about getting the *initial* list perfect.
>
>
> The perspective on this point are clearly extremely divided when I read
> through this thread. Some from Apache consider the initial committers list
> extremely important and that that list should be extremely complete. (And
> there's even a suggestion that people might fork NetBeans if they're not on
> the initial committers list which, to me, sounds really odd.)

Just to make sure that my argument is clearly stated let me make two points
very, very explicitly:
   1. I would expect the folks bringing NetBeans to ASF Incubator to have had
spent reasonable amount of time trying to contact anybody who may feel like
their level of contributions to NetBeans (past or present) could
qualify them
to be on that list. Contacting doesn't mean they should be
automatically added
to that list, but rather:
  1.1. made aware what is going to happen to NetBeans soon
  1.2. given a chance to request being added to the list (like
we already saw
 somebody did on this very thread)

2. Precisely because #1 is super time consuming and can't be fool
proof, we need
to make sure that the expectation going in is that anybody who was
missed as part
of outreach described above will be given special considerations
once the project
enters incubation.

That's it. In fact, I'd rather see #1 and #2 be made part of the
proposal (you don't
have to write a thesis -- just a few paragraph) before I will feel
comfortable about
casting my vote.

> However, I will work more on the initial contributors list, regardless of
> the confusion about it. I do think it will be good to have (1) as complete
> a list as possible and (2) clear motivation about why people are on that
> list, i.e., what they have done to get on that list in the first place.
>
> My aim is, in order to bring this part of the discussion to an end, to take
> the strictest approach from all the different approaches apparent in this
> discussion and make the list as complete and comprehensive as possible and
> provide motivation for each person in the list. Can't do any harm and at
> least some of the people in this discussion are explicitly asking for this.
> From my point of view, voting on the proposal should not happen until this
> has been done, working on it now, approaching people to ask them to be
> added to the list, and will be writing mails to NetBeans mailing lists.

Thanks you! Sounds like we're on exactly the same page!

Thanks,
Roman.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

[Ate Douma]

On 2016-09-25 17:45, Ross Gardler wrote:

You seem to have taken my comment as an indication that I have concerns one
way or the other. That is not the case.



What I'm saying is that to make a
case for extra budget there needs to be solid justification that  a move to
ASF will help the community grow.


Ross, can you elaborate further on this?
Your statement is rather confusing and AFAIK such a justification has never
been put forward as a criteria for entering the ASF.

The fact that NetBeans might need extra budget clearly makes it different
than most other podlings, and as such it definitely requires extra attention.

If you mean: expected grow of more active committers and more diversity among
them, then that hardly looks like a problem to me.
If anything, that *is* one of the primary reasons to move to the ASF.

And while I agree with Geertjan that just looking at the Zeroturnaround
productivity report is not a proper nor realistic measurement, if anything
it shows there is still more than enough community using NetBeans today
that we should not have to worry about a lack of that at all.
I'd say on the contrary: it shows there is plenty to gain, and moving to
the ASF can (and IMO will) be a great help in that direction.



The ASF is not a magic bullet, there needs
to be a plan coming from the incoming project.

IMO the NetBeans proposal already provides the needed details for that plan.
Including sound reasoning why they (and I) think the move to the ASF will
benefit the project as well as the community.
Nor have I have seen one single argument to the contrary.

Regards, Ate


The costings here are more
than we usually get when a new podling is considered. This is a very good
start.

The data I refer to is only one data point. If you have data that contradicts
it then provide it in your request for funds (yes this has been discussed to
some extent across the main discuss thread, but it needs to be packaged up
nicely for VP Infra, Prez and finally Board to consider.

My one data point is
http://pages.zeroturnaround.com/RebelLabs-Developer-Productivity-Report-2016.html?utm_source=rebellabs_allreports_medium=rebellabs_campaign=rebellabs
(requires sign in). That reports shows a decline from 14% in 2012 to 10%
today. To be fair that has been steady since 2014.

The reason for my explicit request is that the foundation is currently
running at a significant deficit. That's not a problem since we have many
years of cash in the bank at the current deficit. However, we do need to plan
for the future. So any new budget requests need to be fully justified. That's
all I'm asking for. A "just because" is not sufficient. Like you and others
have said there needs to be evidence to back up claims, simply adopting the
apache way does not mean that NetBeans will be successful as an Apache
project. If my data (limited to the above single data point) is
inaccurate/invalid/not representative then you should have no problem
providing evidence to the contrary when you ask for this budget.

One final note, back in Jan 2015 the board approved a limited experiment with
directed sponsorship to help alleviate issues like this. Maybe this would be
useful to the NetBeans community. See presidents report here:
http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2015/board_minutes_2015_01_21.txt

 Ross


-Original Message- From: m...@wadechandler.com
[mailto:m...@wadechandler.com] On Behalf Of Wade Chandler Sent: Saturday,
September 24, 2016 8:04 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re:
Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans
Incubator Proposal)

First, I think we need to see the data you are referring to. Anecdotally
the NB community seems to be growing. We are certainly competing with more
projects such as VS Code and others in recent years. However, given
reviews over the past many years of Java IDEs, NB has consistently been in
the top 3. IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate is not an open source project by the way,
so I suggest any comparisons to it, especially in the context of an
organization such as Apache, is not relevant. Money being one thing, and
everything else another, including OSS versus sort of OSS, I think it a
fair question, but I hope not a subjective and biased one.

Has moving to Apache ever reversed trends which you are referring? For
instance, does Apache champion it's own model over others? Why should a
project move to the Apache way? Us in the NB community have pushed Oracle
to move to a more open and community focused model for years. This sounded
like it was about to happen, and many were excited to hear Apache, but I
don't know what goal post this is, and if realistic, and if this email is
to be viewed negatively or not.

It doesn't seem oriented towards analyzing statements of cost to be applied
in support of other projects, or a way forward based on cost reduction or
code sharing given the initial estimate, but instead focuses on a seemingly
nebulous decline of NetBeans which 

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Greg Stein]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>...

> scenario. I am sure other Apache projects have similar arrangements and
> this will not be new for Apache in any way.
>

Yeup. The most obvious example being repo.maven.apache.org pointing to
Maven Central, hosted by SonaType (in conjunction with / permission of the
Apache Maven PMC).

Second big example is SourceForge.net hosting the AOO binaries.

Cheers,
-g

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:


> Having a third party run a service under an Apache brand requires working
> with VP Brand.


Indeed, this is something we're going to need to do. I.e., there will be
existing NetBeans services that Apache will not be hosting. The clearest
case of this will be plugins.netbeans.org. That is a service that one or
more individual contributors will take on, making use of the infrastructure
of an organization they work for.

I.e., if Apache is not going to host one or more services currently hosted
by Oracle, and if those services are needed by NetBeans, something will
need to be done to resolve the situation, which will be that the service
will be hosted by someone else. An individual contributor could host
plugins.netbeans.org on their own private server, of course, though an
organization volunteering this service is a more likely and stable
scenario. I am sure other Apache projects have similar arrangements and
this will not be new for Apache in any way.

Gj



On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Rich Bowen  wrote:

> On Sep 24, 2016 23:08, "Geertjan Wielenga"  com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, excellent work and many thanks for the time taken on this, Daniel.
> For
> > anyone reading this -- do note that these are preliminary findings based
> on
> > the current infrastructure of NetBeans, which is going to be very
> different
> > under Apache, e.g., plugins.netbeans.org looks like it will be hosted
> > somewhere else by one of the companies involved in Apache NetBeans.
>
> A couple of reminders:
>
> Individuals, not companies, are involved in Apache projects.
>
> Having a third party run a service under an Apache brand requires working
> with VP Brand.
>
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Ted Dunning 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a
> coop
> > > request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus) and
> > > incubator (who cause the problem).
> > >
> > > Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.
> > >
> > > I will work with the board to determine the best form.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi folks,
> > > >
> > > > I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans
> infrastructure,
> > > it's
> > > > ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the
> > > cliff
> > > > notes are as follows:
> > > >
> > > > - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> > > > - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> > > > - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year,
> > > depending
> > > >   on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how
> close we
> > > >   come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are
> working
> > > > with
> > > >   is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in
> > > case.
> > > > - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web
> site,
> > > CI,
> > > >   new build machines) and the project (services, plugins,
> > > statistics),
> > > >   which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra
> > > time
> > > >   spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial
> > > phase.
> > > >
> > > > Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal
> giving
> > > the
> > > > go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people
> willing to
> > > > host this.
> > > >
> > > > Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers
> offering
> > > > their
> > > > assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case
> > > from
> > > > the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine
> costs
> > > > may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the
> board
> > > > for
> > > > a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as
> well
> > > as
> > > > the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this
> into
> > > > the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and
> > > utilize
> > > > the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in
> the
> > > > coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
> > > > approving NetBeans as a new podling.
> > > >
> > > > With regards,
> > > > Daniel.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > > For additional 

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Rich Bowen]

On Sep 24, 2016 23:08, "Geertjan Wielenga" 
wrote:
>
> Yes, excellent work and many thanks for the time taken on this, Daniel.
For
> anyone reading this -- do note that these are preliminary findings based
on
> the current infrastructure of NetBeans, which is going to be very
different
> under Apache, e.g., plugins.netbeans.org looks like it will be hosted
> somewhere else by one of the companies involved in Apache NetBeans.

A couple of reminders:

Individuals, not companies, are involved in Apache projects.

Having a third party run a service under an Apache brand requires working
with VP Brand.

>
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Ted Dunning 
wrote:
>
> > Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a
coop
> > request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus) and
> > incubator (who cause the problem).
> >
> > Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.
> >
> > I will work with the board to determine the best form.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno"  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure,
> > it's
> > > ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the
> > cliff
> > > notes are as follows:
> > >
> > > - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> > > - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> > > - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year,
> > depending
> > >   on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how
close we
> > >   come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are
working
> > > with
> > >   is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in
> > case.
> > > - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web
site,
> > CI,
> > >   new build machines) and the project (services, plugins,
> > statistics),
> > >   which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra
> > time
> > >   spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial
> > phase.
> > >
> > > Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal
giving
> > the
> > > go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people
willing to
> > > host this.
> > >
> > > Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering
> > > their
> > > assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case
> > from
> > > the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine
costs
> > > may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.
> > >
> > > Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the
board
> > > for
> > > a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as
well
> > as
> > > the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this
into
> > > the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and
> > utilize
> > > the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in
the
> > > coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
> > > approving NetBeans as a new podling.
> > >
> > > With regards,
> > > Daniel.
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Emmanuel Lécharny]

Le 25/09/16 à 05:22, Geertjan Wielenga a écrit :
> It really is impossible for us to follow all the (in many cases
> contradictory) advice we have been given re the initial contributors list.

And this is the reason you have mentors and a champion. Follow their
advices, you'll be fine (because if someone say that mentors are wrong,
and if mentors are wrong, then mentors will correct their message to you).


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Ross Gardler]

I never said comparative use.
---
Twitter: @rgardler


From: Bertrand Delacretaz 
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 1:47:38 PM
To: Incubator General
Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans 
Incubator Proposal)

Le 25 sept. 2016 18:50, "Geertjan Wielenga" <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> a écrit :

>... In all fairness, it's simply impossible to prove the comparative usage
of
> one development tool over another.
>
> I'm also concerned that this is a discussion point at all in this
context

So am I. The ASF exists to provide a space for our projects to exist, not
to compete against others.

Bertrand

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Wade Chandler]

On Sep 24, 2016 9:51 AM, "Emilian Bold"  wrote:
> > Which brings us to another question:
> > If the commits just referenced a bugzilla ticket, do we also like to
> > migrate the bugzilla content over?
> > Or at least keep it browsable somewhere?
> >
>
> I would want to keep as much of the context/history as possible. Bugzilla
> issues have a lot of important discussions.

Yes, the reality is all the current and ongoing work is in BZ. Some have
patches attached to them at any point in time. Then anything we have found
in the IDE or platform and expected either Oracle or a community member to
fix at some point are there. So, I would say quite important information
there.

Thanks

Wade

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Rich Bowen]

On Sep 25, 2016 01:18, "Justin Mclean"  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> >  E.g., no forums in Apache, for example.
>
> A mailing list can be mirrored to a nibble forum if it helps [1] I know
of several projects who do that.

The asf has a service - lists.apache.org -which does exactly this.
Automatically. For every project.  Running an additional service for this
is unnecessary extra work/expense.

>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://n4.nabble.com/archive-your-mailing-list.html
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Craig Russell]

Hi Geertjan,

You have already noticed that at Apache we don’t all speak with one voice. Even 
those who have literally been here for years may appear to disagree on the 
details, while I expect most agree on the broad strokes.

Kudos for taking all the advice and proposing a plan to move this proposal 
forward. 

I think your plan below makes sense and the proposal is in good shape once the 
admin details have been agreed.

Regards,

Craig

> On Sep 24, 2016, at 8:22 PM, Geertjan Wielenga 
>  wrote:
> 
> It really is impossible for us to follow all the (in many cases
> contradictory) advice we have been given re the initial contributors list.
> 
> Here's what I propose:
> 
> 1. We make the initial contributors list as detailed as we can, i.e., I
> have already started doing this, grouping individual contributors in
> specific categories and also indicating which ones have contributed in the
> past, in most cases the recent past, i.e., these are the ones with most
> direct skills who are likely to begin contributing as soon as possible.
> Yes, most of these are from Oracle, which makes sense since we're moving to
> Apache precisely in order to open up the governance model so that more can
> participate.
> 2. When in doubt, we will follow the advice of our mentors over the advice
> of those who are not our mentors.
> 3. We will show in the initial contributors list what each of the initial
> contributors is planning to contribute, as concretely as possible, to show
> that we have a list of contributors who really want to and are planning to
> contribute as soon as they're able to do so.
> 4. I don't believe anyone will fork NetBeans for not being on the initial
> contributors list nor do I believe that anyone will want to be on the
> initial contributors list as some kind of desire for status -- everyone on
> the list is known in one way or another in the community or has worked on
> NetBeans for years from within Oracle. These are all people who are
> committed to NetBeans and to its future in Apache.
> 5. At the end of incubation, we will go through the list very thoroughly.
> Anyone who has not contributed will be contacted to confirm that they'd
> like to be removed from the list before we become a TPL. I see no problems
> in that regard, I'm sure people who don't end up committing will have no
> problem being removed from the list at that stage and being voted in again
> if/when they change their mind later.
> 
> Hope the above works for everyone and thanks everyone for all the energy
> everyone is putting into this process.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Geertjan
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Shane Curcuru 
> wrote:
> 
>> toki wrote on 9/24/16 8:04 PM:
>>> On 22/09/2016 05:18, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
 had a non-trivial amount of commits to then Sun NetBeans between
>> 2002-2008. He then drifted away from the
 project but would be interested, potentially, re-engaging.
>>> 
>>> Is it possible to create a "master list' of everybody who has
>>> contributed, when they contributed, and roughly how much they
>> contributed?
>>> 
>>> If so, then:
>>> * send everybody on that list an ICLA to fill out and return;
>>> * Include that list as an appendix to the Incubation Paperwork. Call it
>>> _Individuals who, on request will be considered to be part of the
>>> Initial Committer List_, once the appropriate paperwork has been signed
>>> and submitted;
>>> * The _Initial Committer List_ consists of people who have signed and
>>> submitted the appropriate paperwork, and requested to be on the list;
>> 
>> My advice is to leave the initial committer list as-is, and then wait to
>> see who actually shows up to do work on the project during the
>> incubation process.
>> 
>> Part of what the IPMC looks for during incubation is can the podling
>> community self-govern, a large part of which is voting in new committers
>> in an appropriate fashion.
>> 
>> Separately, when a podling is ready to graduate, and the IPMC votes to
>> recommend graduation to the board, the actual committer and PMC lists
>> for the top level project sometimes change versus the whole committer
>> list during incubation.  People who never show up to actually work on
>> the podling probably should not be left on the committer list for the
>> future top level project.
>> 
>> - Shane
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>> 
>> 

Craig L Russell
c...@apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Ate Douma]

On 2016-09-25 17:20, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Ate Douma wrote:



and not all committers are required to commit :-)



That is interesting. Can you explain more about that?


What I meant to say is that at the ASF we also value and honour merit based on
things other than just churning code.
So committers can be, and are, voted in because of other contributions like
help organizing events, helping other community members, contributing to
documentation, etc., in general supporting the project and community at large.

Technically, an ASF account and membership of a project requires the 'commit'
bit, hence be a committer.
But I do know committers who never committed anything significantly, even
have become ASF member without needing to. And that is perfectly fine.

So my point was and is: not everyone on the initial committer list for NetBeans,
nor in the future, should be required to have actually contributed code to be
recognized and trusted by the community, or to become a committer in the future.



Also, we have done a call for people who want to be added to the initial
contributors list and will be adding a few more -- these are all well known
and established people in the NetBeans community who it would make sense to
include right away, rather than having to vote them in later.

Sure, that is of course a good thing to do.

I just wanted to make sure nobody misunderstands the purpose of the list.
And that not being on that list says nothing about who will or will not be able
to join afterwards.

It looks to me we are ready for voting on this proposal, as soon as the infra
assessment and discussion around it has been settled as well.

Regards, Ate



Thanks,

Geertjan

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Ate Douma  wrote:


On 2016-09-25 12:15, Ate Douma wrote:


On 2016-09-25 05:22, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:


It really is impossible for us to follow all the (in many cases
contradictory) advice we have been given re the initial contributors
list.



Hi GeertJan,

I've gone through this whole thread again and IMO there really isn't so
much
contradictory advice :-)

The general advice really is, including from the NetBeans Champion and
other
mentors to not blow up the initial contributor list before the acceptance
of the project.

The argument Roman Shaposhnik brought forward about a past case where he
had to
deal with a single individual who felt left out, IMO is/was just a single
case.
Relevant for sure, but AFAIK also very uncommon and more like a one-off
case.

The other, and very valid, point brought from Roman was that it should be
made
very clear what criteria was used to select the initial committer list.
Further down I'll provide *my view* on what that criteria is or should be.

But I'll start with disagreeing with the second part of his point, that
(quote):
  "IT MUST BE THE SAME for when somebody comes-a-knocking".

Disagreeing with this might seems odd and at odds with how the ASF works,
but I
think it does not, or at least, it will not.

For a project as large and with such a huge history as NetBeans, there is
no
way we (ASF) will be able to *judge* who is rightfully put on that list,
nor
who has been left out erroneously.

Meaning: a 'complete' initial committer list (for such a project) never
can be
put together proper.
Trying to do so, like by going through all the history and enumerating
all past
contributors, IMO is a bad idea and will make things worse and more
unclear,
even more 'unfair'.

And such a list will most certainly NOT be proper from an ASF POV, in the
sense
that we strive for a healthy and active committers and (P)PPMC list of
people
seriously engaged NOW. Project members who actually "do" stuff (doers
decide).

Past contributors who do want to re-engage again most certainly need to be
valued and be admitted to become committer, but IMO better do this *when*
they
come knocking (actively) than enlisting them upfront.

Having to 'prune' a huge, and likely too huge, list of initial committers
before NetBeans graduates to TLP is going to be far more 'painful' than
voting
in active contributors when they actively show up.
Which also is far more in line with "the Apache Way", more 'fair' so to
say.

Coming back to the maybe odd POV that the selection criteria for initial
commmitters list does not have to be the same as that for future
committers.
IMO it simply cannot be 'equal' for a project like NetBeans.

The primary role and responsibility for such initial committers is to get
the
project rolling and admit new committers base on *their* judgement.
So the most important, and IMO only crucial, criteria for selecting the
initial
committers list is that those people are trusted to "do this right".



And important for the community to realise: the IPMC and the assigned
mentors are there to help them to do this right!



They can and will vote in new committers as soon as they come knocking,
based
on their past contribution *and* their 

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

[John D. Ament]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 2:27 PM Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> +1
>
> This is almsot a worst case calculation.
> I too think that we will be able to cut down costs seriously as we do not
> need 10 servers anymore.
>
> E.g. we can share the OSX box with OpenOffice, the GIT repo will get cut
> down and the traffic is mostly offloaded to github.
>

Last I heard, the OS X box had been decommissioned.  There is no OS X
builds for AOO at this time.


> We might be able to offload the plugins hosting to Maven.central and/or
> Bintray, etc
>

Please check our notes vs what Geertjan has proposed.


>
> Of course there will still be resources which are needed, but I don't see
> them as show stopper.
>
>
> I also think the initial committer discussion is resolved.
>
> So what else do we need before starting a VOTE?
> This thread has almost 200 replies, so there seems to be a huge interest...
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sunday, 25 September 2016, 19:03, Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> >
> >
> >>  My only concern, if you go ahead with a vote before you get an ack, is
> >>  that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs.
> >
> >
> > I'd like to reiterate a point I have made earlier: the preliminary
> NetBeans
> > cost findings are based on the current infrastructure of NetBeans in
> > Oracle. In the context of Apache, a number of the services we had before
> we
> > will (1) not need anymore or (2) not have supported by Apache anymore.
> >
> > During incubation, we will work on moving the Oracle NetBeans
> > infrastructure to the Apache NetBeans infrastructure. We are extremely
> > interested in being part of Apache and have wanted this for many years
> > already -- we are going to err on the side of compliance with the Apache
> > Way over the structures we had before. Take a look again at the proposal
> > and notice how many organizations are already involved -- multiple of
> those
> > will be able to provide the services that Apache may not be able to
> provide.
> >
> > We simply want to be an Apache project, we love Apache, we have supported
> > so many Apache projects over the years (Maven, Ant, Groovy, and more) and
> > want to support even more of them and simply be good citizens of the
> Apache
> > community.
> >
> > Gj
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Gruno 
> > wrote:
> >
> >>  On 09/25/2016 06:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> >>  > Hi Daniel,
> >>  >
> >>  > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno
> > 
> >>  wrote:
> >>  >> ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and
> > the
> >>  cliff
> >>  >> notes are as follows...
> >>  >
> >>  > Thanks very much for this - it is useful and I think we should do
> that
> >>  > for any "big" podling that comes in, from now on.
> >>  >
> >>  >> ...Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the
> > board
> >>  for
> >>  >> a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as
> > well as
> >>  >> the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this
> > into
> >>  >> the existing ASF infra
> >>  >
> >>  > I don't think asking for budget is a task of the Incubator PMC, I
> > would
> >>  suggest
> >>  >
> >>  > 1. Incubator PMC/infra estimates the cost of new podlings as you did
> >>  > 2. Incubator PMC reports those numbers to ASF infra at regular
> >>  > intervals, maybe just include them in their monthly reports
> >>  > 3. Infra adds the numbers up and if needed asks for more budget based
> >>  > on these podlings
> >>
> >>  I think it very much _is_ the job of the IPMC to argue for increased
> >>  spending, as any other project would if they required additional funds
> >>  for specific requirements. The IPMC (or rather, a part of it) wants to
> >>  add NetBeans as a podling, it should be up to the IPMC to argue the
> >>  podling's case.
> >>
> >>  Infra has already expressed concerns with the costs of the podling
> >>  (remember VP Infra started this discussion), it's up to the IPMC to get
> >>  an ack that this increased expenditure is okay. I'm not saying this
> >>  needs to be voted on by the board (I honestly don't know/care how this
> >>  is done), but it should be acked by operations that the added expense
> is
> >>  okay.
> >>
> >>  >
> >>  > For now, considering that the numbers you indicate won't make a
> > big
> >>  > dent in the current infra budget [1] and considering that it's the
> >>  > first time we do such an analysis I suggest for the infra team to
> >>  > accept decoupling the NetBeans acceptance vote from the details of
> >>  > these numbers, and we'll sort out the corresponding budget later
> > at
> >>  > the board / infra level.
> >>
> >>  Infra doesn't decide which podlings the IPMC lets into the fold, but it
> >>  may say "sorry, we're not going to offer you the services 

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

[Mark Struberg]

+1

This is almsot a worst case calculation.
I too think that we will be able to cut down costs seriously as we do not need 
10 servers anymore. 

E.g. we can share the OSX box with OpenOffice, the GIT repo will get cut down 
and the traffic is mostly offloaded to github.
We might be able to offload the plugins hosting to Maven.central and/or 
Bintray, etc

Of course there will still be resources which are needed, but I don't see them 
as show stopper. 


I also think the initial committer discussion is resolved.

So what else do we need before starting a VOTE?
This thread has almost 200 replies, so there seems to be a huge interest...


LieGrue,
strub





> On Sunday, 25 September 2016, 19:03, Geertjan Wielenga 
>  wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> 
> 
>>  My only concern, if you go ahead with a vote before you get an ack, is
>>  that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs.
> 
> 
> I'd like to reiterate a point I have made earlier: the preliminary NetBeans
> cost findings are based on the current infrastructure of NetBeans in
> Oracle. In the context of Apache, a number of the services we had before we
> will (1) not need anymore or (2) not have supported by Apache anymore.
> 
> During incubation, we will work on moving the Oracle NetBeans
> infrastructure to the Apache NetBeans infrastructure. We are extremely
> interested in being part of Apache and have wanted this for many years
> already -- we are going to err on the side of compliance with the Apache
> Way over the structures we had before. Take a look again at the proposal
> and notice how many organizations are already involved -- multiple of those
> will be able to provide the services that Apache may not be able to provide.
> 
> We simply want to be an Apache project, we love Apache, we have supported
> so many Apache projects over the years (Maven, Ant, Groovy, and more) and
> want to support even more of them and simply be good citizens of the Apache
> community.
> 
> Gj
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Gruno  
> wrote:
> 
>>  On 09/25/2016 06:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>>  > Hi Daniel,
>>  >
>>  > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno 
> 
>>  wrote:
>>  >> ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and 
> the
>>  cliff
>>  >> notes are as follows...
>>  >
>>  > Thanks very much for this - it is useful and I think we should do that
>>  > for any "big" podling that comes in, from now on.
>>  >
>>  >> ...Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the 
> board
>>  for
>>  >> a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as 
> well as
>>  >> the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this 
> into
>>  >> the existing ASF infra
>>  >
>>  > I don't think asking for budget is a task of the Incubator PMC, I 
> would
>>  suggest
>>  >
>>  > 1. Incubator PMC/infra estimates the cost of new podlings as you did
>>  > 2. Incubator PMC reports those numbers to ASF infra at regular
>>  > intervals, maybe just include them in their monthly reports
>>  > 3. Infra adds the numbers up and if needed asks for more budget based
>>  > on these podlings
>> 
>>  I think it very much _is_ the job of the IPMC to argue for increased
>>  spending, as any other project would if they required additional funds
>>  for specific requirements. The IPMC (or rather, a part of it) wants to
>>  add NetBeans as a podling, it should be up to the IPMC to argue the
>>  podling's case.
>> 
>>  Infra has already expressed concerns with the costs of the podling
>>  (remember VP Infra started this discussion), it's up to the IPMC to get
>>  an ack that this increased expenditure is okay. I'm not saying this
>>  needs to be voted on by the board (I honestly don't know/care how this
>>  is done), but it should be acked by operations that the added expense is
>>  okay.
>> 
>>  >
>>  > For now, considering that the numbers you indicate won't make a 
> big
>>  > dent in the current infra budget [1] and considering that it's the
>>  > first time we do such an analysis I suggest for the infra team to
>>  > accept decoupling the NetBeans acceptance vote from the details of
>>  > these numbers, and we'll sort out the corresponding budget later 
> at
>>  > the board / infra level.
>> 
>>  Infra doesn't decide which podlings the IPMC lets into the fold, but it
>>  may say "sorry, we're not going to offer you the services you 
> require"
>>  if there's no acknowledgement that an increased expense is okay.
>> 
>>  The IPMC is, for all I care, free to hold a vote, in which people may
>>  vote -1 if they don't think the budget is sound/warranted. Infra 
> doesn't
>>  have binding votes there :)
>> 
>>  My only concern, if you go ahead with a vote before you get an ack, is
>>  that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs.
>> 
>>  With regards,
>>  

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Le 25 sept. 2016 18:50, "Geertjan Wielenga" <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> a écrit :

>... In all fairness, it's simply impossible to prove the comparative usage
of
> one development tool over another.
>
> I'm also concerned that this is a discussion point at all in this
context

So am I. The ASF exists to provide a space for our projects to exist, not
to compete against others.

Bertrand

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 5:32 PM, John Ament said:

So the concern I raised to Geertjan was that he had committers
> listed who had never committed to Netbeans previously, but was excluding
> people who used to commit to Netbeans.


For the record, no one was being excluded. The original approach taken,
following the advice of our mentors, was not to try to be exhaustive in any
way, but instead to try to show diversity. We did that and the mentors were
satisfied. Then various other Apache folks were of the opinion that our
approach was not sufficient and we have been trying to follow those
approaches as well, e.g., we are trying to include and approach as many as
possible who have committed in the past to see whether they want to
continue doing so. To continue to follow the approach taken by our mentors,
we're not trying to be exclusive and we're also not trying to hold up the
vote.

We're just trying to make as many people happy as possible. :-) Plus, the
more details we come up with in relation to our committers and their
intentions and so on, the better for everyone.

Thanks,

Geertjan

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 5:32 PM, John D. Ament 
wrote:

> John,
>
> Will try to respond in line.
>
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 2:59 AM John McDonnell 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> >
> > I am a netbeans user that has been following this thread since the
> > proposal was announced and I am a little fascinated with this whole
> > process, it seems rather interesting...
> >
> > Although this initial committer list seems to be a sticking point, but
> > from reading this page:
> > https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#committers I'm not
> > sure why it is...
> >
>
> Maybe review this line
> http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#template-
> initial-committers to
> get a better understanding about why this list is critical.
>
>
> >
> > I have contributed defect fixes for JClouds in the past, and from what
> > I see on this project is that there's an GitHub repo that allows
> > people to contribute PR's, but theres also a ASF repo, which the
> > contributors actually merge in the PRs from GitHub into the "hidden"
> > ASF repo...   Is this how every ASF project runs? and is this how
> > Apache Netbeans would run?  Because if so, do you want to give a wide
> > list of committers initially?
> >
>
> Why do you use "hidden" here to describe the repo?  The github mirrors are
> just that - mirrors.  Committers have write access to the ASF repos at
> http://git.apache.org/ .  Those changes are then sync'd back to github.
>
>
> >
> > I would have thought it would make sense to keep the number to a group
> > of trusted people that Netbeans/GJ trust up front to commit PRs into
> > the main repo, and to make short term decisions.  Then if a
> > developer/contributor shows themselves to be a useful part of the
> > community then you can quickly vote to change their status...
> >
>
> It is.  So the concern I raised to Geertjan was that he had committers
> listed who had never committed to Netbeans previously, but was excluding
> people who used to commit to Netbeans.  In both of these cases, there is an
> intent to continue to contribute (or resume contributing), which is part of
> the vendor-neutral mentality the ASF brings (and is ultimately what the
> Netbeans community is after).  Realistically, those who used to contribute
> will know the code base better than those who are just coming in, to be
> able to help guide new contributors on what to look out for.
>
>
> >
> > Anyways I'm going to go back to lurking in the background...
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > On 25 September 2016 at 07:40, Jochen Theodorou 
> wrote:
> > > On 24.09.2016 15:10, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou
> > >>
> > >> For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare
> > >> plattform
> > >>>
> > >>> and no IDE.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> No, that's not true at all. The NetBeans plugins are of various kinds.
> > >> There are plugins that are listed in the Plugin Manager by default,
> > these
> > >> are the standard functionalities of NetBeans IDE, i.e., these are all
> > from
> > >> the NetBeans source code and will be part of the Apache donation.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ok, wrong knowledge on my side. From hat I have seen in the repository
> it
> > > should be fine then. I have also seen some possibly license critical
> > stuff
> > > there, but that is for during incubation to sort out
> > >
> > >
> > > bye Jochen
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > John
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: 

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:


> My only concern, if you go ahead with a vote before you get an ack, is
> that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs.


I'd like to reiterate a point I have made earlier: the preliminary NetBeans
cost findings are based on the current infrastructure of NetBeans in
Oracle. In the context of Apache, a number of the services we had before we
will (1) not need anymore or (2) not have supported by Apache anymore.

During incubation, we will work on moving the Oracle NetBeans
infrastructure to the Apache NetBeans infrastructure. We are extremely
interested in being part of Apache and have wanted this for many years
already -- we are going to err on the side of compliance with the Apache
Way over the structures we had before. Take a look again at the proposal
and notice how many organizations are already involved -- multiple of those
will be able to provide the services that Apache may not be able to provide.

We simply want to be an Apache project, we love Apache, we have supported
so many Apache projects over the years (Maven, Ant, Groovy, and more) and
want to support even more of them and simply be good citizens of the Apache
community.

Gj


On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Gruno  wrote:

> On 09/25/2016 06:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno 
> wrote:
> >> ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the
> cliff
> >> notes are as follows...
> >
> > Thanks very much for this - it is useful and I think we should do that
> > for any "big" podling that comes in, from now on.
> >
> >> ...Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board
> for
> >> a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well as
> >> the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
> >> the existing ASF infra
> >
> > I don't think asking for budget is a task of the Incubator PMC, I would
> suggest
> >
> > 1. Incubator PMC/infra estimates the cost of new podlings as you did
> > 2. Incubator PMC reports those numbers to ASF infra at regular
> > intervals, maybe just include them in their monthly reports
> > 3. Infra adds the numbers up and if needed asks for more budget based
> > on these podlings
>
> I think it very much _is_ the job of the IPMC to argue for increased
> spending, as any other project would if they required additional funds
> for specific requirements. The IPMC (or rather, a part of it) wants to
> add NetBeans as a podling, it should be up to the IPMC to argue the
> podling's case.
>
> Infra has already expressed concerns with the costs of the podling
> (remember VP Infra started this discussion), it's up to the IPMC to get
> an ack that this increased expenditure is okay. I'm not saying this
> needs to be voted on by the board (I honestly don't know/care how this
> is done), but it should be acked by operations that the added expense is
> okay.
>
> >
> > For now, considering that the numbers you indicate won't make a big
> > dent in the current infra budget [1] and considering that it's the
> > first time we do such an analysis I suggest for the infra team to
> > accept decoupling the NetBeans acceptance vote from the details of
> > these numbers, and we'll sort out the corresponding budget later at
> > the board / infra level.
>
> Infra doesn't decide which podlings the IPMC lets into the fold, but it
> may say "sorry, we're not going to offer you the services you require"
> if there's no acknowledgement that an increased expense is okay.
>
> The IPMC is, for all I care, free to hold a vote, in which people may
> vote -1 if they don't think the budget is sound/warranted. Infra doesn't
> have binding votes there :)
>
> My only concern, if you go ahead with a vote before you get an ack, is
> that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
> >
> > -Bertrand
> >
> > [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/
> 2015/board_minutes_2015_04_22.txt
> > for example
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

[Daniel Gruno]

On 09/25/2016 06:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno  wrote:
>> ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff
>> notes are as follows...
> 
> Thanks very much for this - it is useful and I think we should do that
> for any "big" podling that comes in, from now on.
> 
>> ...Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board for
>> a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well as
>> the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
>> the existing ASF infra
> 
> I don't think asking for budget is a task of the Incubator PMC, I would 
> suggest
> 
> 1. Incubator PMC/infra estimates the cost of new podlings as you did
> 2. Incubator PMC reports those numbers to ASF infra at regular
> intervals, maybe just include them in their monthly reports
> 3. Infra adds the numbers up and if needed asks for more budget based
> on these podlings

I think it very much _is_ the job of the IPMC to argue for increased
spending, as any other project would if they required additional funds
for specific requirements. The IPMC (or rather, a part of it) wants to
add NetBeans as a podling, it should be up to the IPMC to argue the
podling's case.

Infra has already expressed concerns with the costs of the podling
(remember VP Infra started this discussion), it's up to the IPMC to get
an ack that this increased expenditure is okay. I'm not saying this
needs to be voted on by the board (I honestly don't know/care how this
is done), but it should be acked by operations that the added expense is
okay.

> 
> For now, considering that the numbers you indicate won't make a big
> dent in the current infra budget [1] and considering that it's the
> first time we do such an analysis I suggest for the infra team to
> accept decoupling the NetBeans acceptance vote from the details of
> these numbers, and we'll sort out the corresponding budget later at
> the board / infra level.

Infra doesn't decide which podlings the IPMC lets into the fold, but it
may say "sorry, we're not going to offer you the services you require"
if there's no acknowledgement that an increased expense is okay.

The IPMC is, for all I care, free to hold a vote, in which people may
vote -1 if they don't think the budget is sound/warranted. Infra doesn't
have binding votes there :)

My only concern, if you go ahead with a vote before you get an ack, is
that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs.

With regards,
Daniel.

> 
> -Bertrand
> 
> [1] 
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2015/board_minutes_2015_04_22.txt
> for example
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:


> I am not opposed to Geertjan/NetBeans team refining the current list,
> but please don't delay the incubation vote by doing so.


Absolutely agree.


> And above all please avoid giving the impression that whatever list
> you come up with is complete - I'm sure you'll forget a few folks and
> other folks who are on the list will end up contributing nothing, and
> none of that is a problem.


Definitely yes.

Thanks,

Gj


On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik 
> wrote:
> > ...when I was a VP of Incubator a few years
> > ago I had to deal with a formal escalation brought to the ASF level
> > by somebody who felt unduly left out of that initial list of
> committers...
>
> The way I would deal with the is politely explain how people can
> become committers once incubation starts, and don't go any further.
>
> I am strongly opposed to giving more value to the initial committers
> list than we have done so far, which is just an initial list that's
> going to be expanded and also often reduced during incubation,
> according to how people actually contribute to the project.
>
> A "draft list of committers and future PMC members" if you wish, nothing
> more.
>
> I am not opposed to Geertjan/NetBeans team refining the current list,
> but please don't delay the incubation vote by doing so.
>
> And above all please avoid giving the impression that whatever list
> you come up with is complete - I'm sure you'll forget a few folks and
> other folks who are on the list will end up contributing nothing, and
> none of that is a problem.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:


> What I'm saying is that to make a case for extra budget there needs to be
> solid justification that  a move to ASF will help the community grow.


This is the first I've heard of this.

My one data point is http://pages.zeroturnaround.com/RebelLabs-Developer-
> Productivity-Report-2016.html?utm_source=rebellabs_allreports_medium=
> rebellabs_campaign=rebellabs (requires sign in). That reports shows a
> decline from 14% in 2012 to 10% today. To be fair that has been steady
> since 2014.


Here's my thoughts on that survey:
https://blogs.oracle.com/geertjan/entry/adding_some_color_to_the

 If my data (limited to the above single data point) is
> inaccurate/invalid/not representative then you should have no problem
> providing evidence to the contrary when you ask for this budget.


In all fairness, it's simply impossible to prove the comparative usage of
one development tool over another.

I'm also concerned that this is a discussion point at all in this context.

Thanks,

Geertjan





On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz  wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno 
> wrote:
> > ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff
> > notes are as follows...
>
> Thanks very much for this - it is useful and I think we should do that
> for any "big" podling that comes in, from now on.
>
> > ...Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board
> for
> > a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well as
> > the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
> > the existing ASF infra
>
> I don't think asking for budget is a task of the Incubator PMC, I would
> suggest
>
> 1. Incubator PMC/infra estimates the cost of new podlings as you did
> 2. Incubator PMC reports those numbers to ASF infra at regular
> intervals, maybe just include them in their monthly reports
> 3. Infra adds the numbers up and if needed asks for more budget based
> on these podlings
>
> For now, considering that the numbers you indicate won't make a big
> dent in the current infra budget [1] and considering that it's the
> first time we do such an analysis I suggest for the infra team to
> accept decoupling the NetBeans acceptance vote from the details of
> these numbers, and we'll sort out the corresponding budget later at
> the board / infra level.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/
> 2015/board_minutes_2015_04_22.txt
> for example
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

Hi Daniel,

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno  wrote:
> ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff
> notes are as follows...

Thanks very much for this - it is useful and I think we should do that
for any "big" podling that comes in, from now on.

> ...Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board for
> a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well as
> the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
> the existing ASF infra

I don't think asking for budget is a task of the Incubator PMC, I would suggest

1. Incubator PMC/infra estimates the cost of new podlings as you did
2. Incubator PMC reports those numbers to ASF infra at regular
intervals, maybe just include them in their monthly reports
3. Infra adds the numbers up and if needed asks for more budget based
on these podlings

For now, considering that the numbers you indicate won't make a big
dent in the current infra budget [1] and considering that it's the
first time we do such an analysis I suggest for the infra team to
accept decoupling the NetBeans acceptance vote from the details of
these numbers, and we'll sort out the corresponding budget later at
the board / infra level.

-Bertrand

[1] 
https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2015/board_minutes_2015_04_22.txt
for example

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Bertrand Delacretaz]

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Roman Shaposhnik  wrote:
> ...when I was a VP of Incubator a few years
> ago I had to deal with a formal escalation brought to the ASF level
> by somebody who felt unduly left out of that initial list of committers...

The way I would deal with the is politely explain how people can
become committers once incubation starts, and don't go any further.

I am strongly opposed to giving more value to the initial committers
list than we have done so far, which is just an initial list that's
going to be expanded and also often reduced during incubation,
according to how people actually contribute to the project.

A "draft list of committers and future PMC members" if you wish, nothing more.

I am not opposed to Geertjan/NetBeans team refining the current list,
but please don't delay the incubation vote by doing so.

And above all please avoid giving the impression that whatever list
you come up with is complete - I'm sure you'll forget a few folks and
other folks who are on the list will end up contributing nothing, and
none of that is a problem.

-Bertrand

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Ross Gardler]

My last sentence below is too terse... I know NetBeans is a different project 
to AOO. I should not draw a direct comparis0on between the two projects. I hope 
we can avoid a long thread on how Net Beans is more attractive to developers 
than other end user projects. However, my more general point of user numbers 
not being a good indicator is remains.

> -Original Message-
> From: Ross Gardler
> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 8:48 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
> NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
> 
> I do not sign the check, but I am responsible for the budgets of the 
> foundation.
> I'm not saying I would not consider such a request (and you could go straight
> to the board if I did). I'm saying a case needs to be made rather than a 
> simple
> request for cash (see other mail).
> 
> As for the numbers, user numbers are irrelevant. If that were the metric of
> success for an open source project then Open Office would be thriving.
> 
> Ross
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Emilian Bold [mailto:emilian.b...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 2:09 AM
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
> > NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
> >
> > Ross Gardler is the current president of the ASF so in a way he does
> > sign the check and should be worried about these things.
> >
> > Still, the number of Java developers is only growing and they need an
> > IDE and NetBeans is a major IDE with 1.5 million individual users!
> > This number is probably conservative since it excludes all the people
> > behind
> > (corporate) firewalls.
> >
> > Helping NetBeans would be for the public good and it really does help
> > the other Apache properties such as Ant, Maven, Tomcat, Groovy, etc.
> >
> > Business wise, NetBeans is a great deal for Apache. The netbeans.org
> > domain alone could pull in ads the cost of infrastructure (although
> > ASF might have a policy against ads, etc, etc)
> >
> >
> > --emi
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> > geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com
> > >
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that
> > > > a move of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest
> > > > that NetBeans is seeing.
> > >
> > >
> > > OK, we do need to see the basis for that assertion. I think the only
> > > thing that cannot be tolerated is assertions without basis. Where is
> > > the evidence of "the decline in interest that NetBeans is seeing"?
> > > Because, speaking on behalf of the NetBeans community, we are not
> > > seeing that, at all. That evidence is not there or, if it is, we
> > > need to know
> > what it is.
> > >
> > > Gj
> > >
> > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler
> > >  > > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > The ASF need to justify spending an extra $10k per year in this
> > > > one project at the expense of that $10k going to other projects.
> > > >
> > > > Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that
> > > > a move of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest
> > > > that NetBeans is seeing.
> > > >
> > > > It may sound trivial, but we can support three "traditional" ASF
> > > > projects for NetBeans budget. As a charity we need to think
> > > > carefully about how we spend our money. A solid argument that this
> > > > would reverse the downward trend for NetBeans will go a long way
> > > > to reassuring me (as one member,
> > > but
> > > > also as the person ultimately responsible for paying such a budget
> > > request
> > > > to the board).
> > > >
> > > > Ross
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Twitter: @rgardler
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > From: Ted Dunning  > > >
> > > > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM
> > > > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > > 
> > > > Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS]
> > > > Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
> > > >
> > > > Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at
> > > > least a
> > > coop
> > > > request between infra (who get the budget and the operational
> > > > onus) and incubator (who cause the problem).
> > > >
> > > > Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.
> > > >
> > > > I will work with the board to determine the best form.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann
> > > >  > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > 

RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Ross Gardler]

I do not sign the check, but I am responsible for the budgets of the 
foundation. I'm not saying I would not consider such a request (and you could 
go straight to the board if I did). I'm saying a case needs to be made rather 
than a simple request for cash (see other mail).

As for the numbers, user numbers are irrelevant. If that were the metric of 
success for an open source project then Open Office would be thriving.

Ross

> -Original Message-
> From: Emilian Bold [mailto:emilian.b...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 2:09 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans
> Incubator Proposal)
> 
> Ross Gardler is the current president of the ASF so in a way he does sign the
> check and should be worried about these things.
> 
> Still, the number of Java developers is only growing and they need an IDE and
> NetBeans is a major IDE with 1.5 million individual users! This number is
> probably conservative since it excludes all the people behind
> (corporate) firewalls.
> 
> Helping NetBeans would be for the public good and it really does help the
> other Apache properties such as Ant, Maven, Tomcat, Groovy, etc.
> 
> Business wise, NetBeans is a great deal for Apache. The netbeans.org domain
> alone could pull in ads the cost of infrastructure (although ASF might have a
> policy against ads, etc, etc)
> 
> 
> --emi
> 
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com
> > wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > >
> > > Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a
> > > move of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest
> > > that NetBeans is seeing.
> >
> >
> > OK, we do need to see the basis for that assertion. I think the only
> > thing that cannot be tolerated is assertions without basis. Where is
> > the evidence of "the decline in interest that NetBeans is seeing"?
> > Because, speaking on behalf of the NetBeans community, we are not
> > seeing that, at all. That evidence is not there or, if it is, we need to 
> > know
> what it is.
> >
> > Gj
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler
> >  > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The ASF need to justify spending an extra $10k per year in this one
> > > project at the expense of that $10k going to other projects.
> > >
> > > Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a
> > > move of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest
> > > that NetBeans is seeing.
> > >
> > > It may sound trivial, but we can support three "traditional" ASF
> > > projects for NetBeans budget. As a charity we need to think
> > > carefully about how we spend our money. A solid argument that this
> > > would reverse the downward trend for NetBeans will go a long way to
> > > reassuring me (as one member,
> > but
> > > also as the person ultimately responsible for paying such a budget
> > request
> > > to the board).
> > >
> > > Ross
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Twitter: @rgardler
> > >
> > > 
> > > From: Ted Dunning  > >
> > > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM
> > > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > 
> > > Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS]
> > > Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
> > >
> > > Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least
> > > a
> > coop
> > > request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus)
> > > and incubator (who cause the problem).
> > >
> > > Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.
> > >
> > > I will work with the board to determine the best form.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann  > >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno"  > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi folks,
> > > >
> > > > I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans
> > > > infrastructure,
> > > it's
> > > > ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and
> > > > the
> > > cliff
> > > > notes are as follows:
> > > >
> > > > - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> > > > - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> > > > - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year,
> > > depending
> > > >   on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how
> > > > close
> > 

RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Ross Gardler]

You seem to have taken my comment as an indication that I have concerns one way 
or the other. That is not the case. What I'm saying is that to make a case for 
extra budget there needs to be solid justification that  a move to ASF will 
help the community grow. The ASF is not a magic bullet, there needs to be a 
plan coming from the incoming project. The costings here are more than we 
usually get when a new podling is considered. This is a very good start.

The data I refer to is only one data point. If you have data that contradicts 
it then provide it in your request for funds (yes this has been discussed to 
some extent across the main discuss thread, but it needs to be packaged up 
nicely for VP Infra, Prez and finally Board to consider.

My one data point is 
http://pages.zeroturnaround.com/RebelLabs-Developer-Productivity-Report-2016.html?utm_source=rebellabs_allreports_medium=rebellabs_campaign=rebellabs
 (requires sign in). That reports shows a decline from 14% in 2012 to 10% 
today. To be fair that has been steady since 2014.

The reason for my explicit request is that the foundation is currently running 
at a significant deficit. That's not a problem since we have many years of cash 
in the bank at the current deficit. However, we do need to plan for the future. 
So any new budget requests need to be fully justified. That's all I'm asking 
for. A "just because" is not sufficient. Like you and others have said there 
needs to be evidence to back up claims, simply adopting the apache way does not 
mean that NetBeans will be successful as an Apache project. If my data (limited 
to the above single data point) is inaccurate/invalid/not representative then 
you should have no problem providing evidence to the contrary when you ask for 
this budget.

One final note, back in Jan 2015 the board approved a limited experiment with 
directed sponsorship to help alleviate issues like this. Maybe this would be 
useful to the NetBeans community. See presidents report here: 
http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2015/board_minutes_2015_01_21.txt

Ross

> -Original Message-
> From: m...@wadechandler.com [mailto:m...@wadechandler.com] On Behalf Of
> Wade Chandler
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 8:04 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
> NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
> 
> First, I think we need to see the data you are referring to. Anecdotally the 
> NB
> community seems to be growing. We are certainly competing with more
> projects such as VS Code and others in recent years. However, given reviews
> over the past many years of Java IDEs, NB has consistently been in the top 3.
> IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate is not an open source project by the way, so I suggest 
> any
> comparisons to it, especially in the context of an organization such as 
> Apache,
> is not relevant. Money being one thing, and everything else another, including
> OSS versus sort of OSS, I think it a fair question, but I hope not a 
> subjective and
> biased one.
> 
> Has moving to Apache ever reversed trends which you are referring? For
> instance, does Apache champion it's own model over others? Why should a
> project move to the Apache way? Us in the NB community have pushed Oracle
> to move to a more open and community focused model for years. This
> sounded like it was about to happen, and many were excited to hear Apache,
> but I don't know what goal post this is, and if realistic, and if this email 
> is to be
> viewed negatively or not.
> 
> It doesn't seem oriented towards analyzing statements of cost to be applied in
> support of other projects, or a way forward based on cost reduction or code
> sharing given the initial estimate, but instead focuses on a seemingly 
> nebulous
> decline of NetBeans which is the first news I have seen of this.
> 
> Are there ways to cut the cost estimates? GoDaddy (surely others) has some
> nice plans with unlimited storage and bandwidth, and some rewrites of some
> systems with PHP, could make some things more viable. What about cost share
> across projects with similar needs? Do no other Apache projects have plugins
> or distribution needs? Other than build servers, what can't be consolidated?
> What about monetary donations to projects or specific Apache line items? Has
> there been any such talk?
> 
> How many other OSS Java IDEs are their? Seem only 2 at the Eclipse and
> NetBeans level. Having them both exist makes the entire ecosystem healthier
> in my opinion. It would be a shame to not have one of the real open source
> Java IDEs exist as an Apache project IMO.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Wade
> 
> On Sep 24, 2016 7:16 PM, "Ross Gardler" 
> wrote:
> 
> > The ASF need to justify spending an extra $10k per year in this one
> > project at the expense of that $10k going to other projects.
> >
> > Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a
> > move of NetBeans to the 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[John D. Ament]

John,

Will try to respond in line.

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 2:59 AM John McDonnell 
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
>
> I am a netbeans user that has been following this thread since the
> proposal was announced and I am a little fascinated with this whole
> process, it seems rather interesting...
>
> Although this initial committer list seems to be a sticking point, but
> from reading this page:
> https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#committers I'm not
> sure why it is...
>

Maybe review this line
http://incubator.apache.org/guides/proposal.html#template-initial-committers to
get a better understanding about why this list is critical.


>
> I have contributed defect fixes for JClouds in the past, and from what
> I see on this project is that there's an GitHub repo that allows
> people to contribute PR's, but theres also a ASF repo, which the
> contributors actually merge in the PRs from GitHub into the "hidden"
> ASF repo...   Is this how every ASF project runs? and is this how
> Apache Netbeans would run?  Because if so, do you want to give a wide
> list of committers initially?
>

Why do you use "hidden" here to describe the repo?  The github mirrors are
just that - mirrors.  Committers have write access to the ASF repos at
http://git.apache.org/ .  Those changes are then sync'd back to github.


>
> I would have thought it would make sense to keep the number to a group
> of trusted people that Netbeans/GJ trust up front to commit PRs into
> the main repo, and to make short term decisions.  Then if a
> developer/contributor shows themselves to be a useful part of the
> community then you can quickly vote to change their status...
>

It is.  So the concern I raised to Geertjan was that he had committers
listed who had never committed to Netbeans previously, but was excluding
people who used to commit to Netbeans.  In both of these cases, there is an
intent to continue to contribute (or resume contributing), which is part of
the vendor-neutral mentality the ASF brings (and is ultimately what the
Netbeans community is after).  Realistically, those who used to contribute
will know the code base better than those who are just coming in, to be
able to help guide new contributors on what to look out for.


>
> Anyways I'm going to go back to lurking in the background...
>
> Regards
>
> John
>
>
> On 25 September 2016 at 07:40, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:
> > On 24.09.2016 15:10, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou
> >>
> >> For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare
> >> plattform
> >>>
> >>> and no IDE.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> No, that's not true at all. The NetBeans plugins are of various kinds.
> >> There are plugins that are listed in the Plugin Manager by default,
> these
> >> are the standard functionalities of NetBeans IDE, i.e., these are all
> from
> >> the NetBeans source code and will be part of the Apache donation.
> >
> >
> >
> > ok, wrong knowledge on my side. From hat I have seen in the repository it
> > should be fine then. I have also seen some possibly license critical
> stuff
> > there, but that is for during incubation to sort out
> >
> >
> > bye Jochen
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> John
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[John D. Ament]

Geertjan,

This is a sound plan.

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:22 PM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> It really is impossible for us to follow all the (in many cases
> contradictory) advice we have been given re the initial contributors list.
>
> Here's what I propose:
>
> 1. We make the initial contributors list as detailed as we can, i.e., I
> have already started doing this, grouping individual contributors in
> specific categories and also indicating which ones have contributed in the
> past, in most cases the recent past, i.e., these are the ones with most
> direct skills who are likely to begin contributing as soon as possible.
> Yes, most of these are from Oracle, which makes sense since we're moving to
> Apache precisely in order to open up the governance model so that more can
> participate.
> 2. When in doubt, we will follow the advice of our mentors over the advice
> of those who are not our mentors.
> 3. We will show in the initial contributors list what each of the initial
> contributors is planning to contribute, as concretely as possible, to show
> that we have a list of contributors who really want to and are planning to
> contribute as soon as they're able to do so.
> 4. I don't believe anyone will fork NetBeans for not being on the initial
> contributors list nor do I believe that anyone will want to be on the
> initial contributors list as some kind of desire for status -- everyone on
> the list is known in one way or another in the community or has worked on
> NetBeans for years from within Oracle. These are all people who are
> committed to NetBeans and to its future in Apache.
> 5. At the end of incubation, we will go through the list very thoroughly.
> Anyone who has not contributed will be contacted to confirm that they'd
> like to be removed from the list before we become a TPL. I see no problems
> in that regard, I'm sure people who don't end up committing will have no
> problem being removed from the list at that stage and being voted in again
> if/when they change their mind later.
>

This is typically how our meritocracy works.  In addition, when you draft
your TLP resolution, you'll have a chance to list out the committers and
PMC members.  This will be reviewed by the community so everyone will have
a chance to speak up.


>
> Hope the above works for everyone and thanks everyone for all the energy
> everyone is putting into this process.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Geertjan
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Shane Curcuru 
> wrote:
>
> > toki wrote on 9/24/16 8:04 PM:
> > > On 22/09/2016 05:18, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> > >> had a non-trivial amount of commits to then Sun NetBeans between
> > 2002-2008. He then drifted away from the
> > >> project but would be interested, potentially, re-engaging.
> > >
> > > Is it possible to create a "master list' of everybody who has
> > > contributed, when they contributed, and roughly how much they
> > contributed?
> > >
> > > If so, then:
> > > * send everybody on that list an ICLA to fill out and return;
> > > * Include that list as an appendix to the Incubation Paperwork. Call it
> > > _Individuals who, on request will be considered to be part of the
> > > Initial Committer List_, once the appropriate paperwork has been signed
> > > and submitted;
> > > * The _Initial Committer List_ consists of people who have signed and
> > > submitted the appropriate paperwork, and requested to be on the list;
> >
> > My advice is to leave the initial committer list as-is, and then wait to
> > see who actually shows up to do work on the project during the
> > incubation process.
> >
> > Part of what the IPMC looks for during incubation is can the podling
> > community self-govern, a large part of which is voting in new committers
> > in an appropriate fashion.
> >
> > Separately, when a podling is ready to graduate, and the IPMC votes to
> > recommend graduation to the board, the actual committer and PMC lists
> > for the top level project sometimes change versus the whole committer
> > list during incubation.  People who never show up to actually work on
> > the podling probably should not be left on the committer list for the
> > future top level project.
> >
> > - Shane
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Ate Douma wrote:


> and not all committers are required to commit :-)


That is interesting. Can you explain more about that?

Also, we have done a call for people who want to be added to the initial
contributors list and will be adding a few more -- these are all well known
and established people in the NetBeans community who it would make sense to
include right away, rather than having to vote them in later.

Thanks,

Geertjan

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:03 PM, Ate Douma  wrote:

> On 2016-09-25 12:15, Ate Douma wrote:
>
>> On 2016-09-25 05:22, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>>
>>> It really is impossible for us to follow all the (in many cases
>>> contradictory) advice we have been given re the initial contributors
>>> list.
>>>
>>
>> Hi GeertJan,
>>
>> I've gone through this whole thread again and IMO there really isn't so
>> much
>> contradictory advice :-)
>>
>> The general advice really is, including from the NetBeans Champion and
>> other
>> mentors to not blow up the initial contributor list before the acceptance
>> of the project.
>>
>> The argument Roman Shaposhnik brought forward about a past case where he
>> had to
>> deal with a single individual who felt left out, IMO is/was just a single
>> case.
>> Relevant for sure, but AFAIK also very uncommon and more like a one-off
>> case.
>>
>> The other, and very valid, point brought from Roman was that it should be
>> made
>> very clear what criteria was used to select the initial committer list.
>> Further down I'll provide *my view* on what that criteria is or should be.
>>
>> But I'll start with disagreeing with the second part of his point, that
>> (quote):
>>   "IT MUST BE THE SAME for when somebody comes-a-knocking".
>>
>> Disagreeing with this might seems odd and at odds with how the ASF works,
>> but I
>> think it does not, or at least, it will not.
>>
>> For a project as large and with such a huge history as NetBeans, there is
>> no
>> way we (ASF) will be able to *judge* who is rightfully put on that list,
>> nor
>> who has been left out erroneously.
>>
>> Meaning: a 'complete' initial committer list (for such a project) never
>> can be
>> put together proper.
>> Trying to do so, like by going through all the history and enumerating
>> all past
>> contributors, IMO is a bad idea and will make things worse and more
>> unclear,
>> even more 'unfair'.
>>
>> And such a list will most certainly NOT be proper from an ASF POV, in the
>> sense
>> that we strive for a healthy and active committers and (P)PPMC list of
>> people
>> seriously engaged NOW. Project members who actually "do" stuff (doers
>> decide).
>>
>> Past contributors who do want to re-engage again most certainly need to be
>> valued and be admitted to become committer, but IMO better do this *when*
>> they
>> come knocking (actively) than enlisting them upfront.
>>
>> Having to 'prune' a huge, and likely too huge, list of initial committers
>> before NetBeans graduates to TLP is going to be far more 'painful' than
>> voting
>> in active contributors when they actively show up.
>> Which also is far more in line with "the Apache Way", more 'fair' so to
>> say.
>>
>> Coming back to the maybe odd POV that the selection criteria for initial
>> commmitters list does not have to be the same as that for future
>> committers.
>> IMO it simply cannot be 'equal' for a project like NetBeans.
>>
>> The primary role and responsibility for such initial committers is to get
>> the
>> project rolling and admit new committers base on *their* judgement.
>> So the most important, and IMO only crucial, criteria for selecting the
>> initial
>> committers list is that those people are trusted to "do this right".
>>
>
> And important for the community to realise: the IPMC and the assigned
> mentors are there to help them to do this right!
>
>
>> They can and will vote in new committers as soon as they come knocking,
>> based
>> on their past contribution *and* their (intended) active participation.
>> Based on merit for the *new* Apache NetBeans project, not (just) their
>> past
>> contributions, no matter how small/large that might have been.
>>
>> And for that reason, an initial committers list must be fairly sized, with
>> enough diversity, spread out interest, and with recognition and be
>> trusted by
>> the NetBeans community. And then: stop there.
>>
>> The initially proposed committers list IMO already was 'good enough'
>> for this purpose. And AFAICT nobody questioned the list to be unfair or
>> not
>> 'good enough'. Of course adding one or two extra who were overlooked and
>> are
>> expected to help make a difference and speed up the process still is fine.
>>
>> So my strong advise is to stick to the original list.
>> And to first discuss it with the Bertrand as Champion and the other
>> mentors
>> before modifying the proposal further.
>>
>
> Just to make sure: I'm not objecting against the proposal changes you made
> so far to further clarify initial 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Ate Douma]

On 2016-09-25 12:15, Ate Douma wrote:

On 2016-09-25 05:22, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:

It really is impossible for us to follow all the (in many cases
contradictory) advice we have been given re the initial contributors list.


Hi GeertJan,

I've gone through this whole thread again and IMO there really isn't so much
contradictory advice :-)

The general advice really is, including from the NetBeans Champion and other
mentors to not blow up the initial contributor list before the acceptance
of the project.

The argument Roman Shaposhnik brought forward about a past case where he had to
deal with a single individual who felt left out, IMO is/was just a single case.
Relevant for sure, but AFAIK also very uncommon and more like a one-off case.

The other, and very valid, point brought from Roman was that it should be made
very clear what criteria was used to select the initial committer list.
Further down I'll provide *my view* on what that criteria is or should be.

But I'll start with disagreeing with the second part of his point, that (quote):
  "IT MUST BE THE SAME for when somebody comes-a-knocking".

Disagreeing with this might seems odd and at odds with how the ASF works, but I
think it does not, or at least, it will not.

For a project as large and with such a huge history as NetBeans, there is no
way we (ASF) will be able to *judge* who is rightfully put on that list, nor
who has been left out erroneously.

Meaning: a 'complete' initial committer list (for such a project) never can be
put together proper.
Trying to do so, like by going through all the history and enumerating all past
contributors, IMO is a bad idea and will make things worse and more unclear,
even more 'unfair'.

And such a list will most certainly NOT be proper from an ASF POV, in the sense
that we strive for a healthy and active committers and (P)PPMC list of people
seriously engaged NOW. Project members who actually "do" stuff (doers decide).

Past contributors who do want to re-engage again most certainly need to be
valued and be admitted to become committer, but IMO better do this *when* they
come knocking (actively) than enlisting them upfront.

Having to 'prune' a huge, and likely too huge, list of initial committers
before NetBeans graduates to TLP is going to be far more 'painful' than voting
in active contributors when they actively show up.
Which also is far more in line with "the Apache Way", more 'fair' so to say.

Coming back to the maybe odd POV that the selection criteria for initial
commmitters list does not have to be the same as that for future committers.
IMO it simply cannot be 'equal' for a project like NetBeans.

The primary role and responsibility for such initial committers is to get the
project rolling and admit new committers base on *their* judgement.
So the most important, and IMO only crucial, criteria for selecting the initial
committers list is that those people are trusted to "do this right".


And important for the community to realise: the IPMC and the assigned mentors 
are there to help them to do this right!




They can and will vote in new committers as soon as they come knocking, based
on their past contribution *and* their (intended) active participation.
Based on merit for the *new* Apache NetBeans project, not (just) their past
contributions, no matter how small/large that might have been.

And for that reason, an initial committers list must be fairly sized, with
enough diversity, spread out interest, and with recognition and be trusted by
the NetBeans community. And then: stop there.

The initially proposed committers list IMO already was 'good enough'
for this purpose. And AFAICT nobody questioned the list to be unfair or not
'good enough'. Of course adding one or two extra who were overlooked and are
expected to help make a difference and speed up the process still is fine.

So my strong advise is to stick to the original list.
And to first discuss it with the Bertrand as Champion and the other mentors
before modifying the proposal further.


Just to make sure: I'm not objecting against the proposal changes you made so 
far to further clarify initial committers affiliations.

But (bold) marking people out who have provided code contribution in the past
IMO isn't and shouldn't be seen as a single or even most important criteria.
As mentioned before all forms of participation and contributions are valued
within the ASF, and not all committers are required to commit :-)

Ate



Kind regards, Ate



Here's what I propose:

1. We make the initial contributors list as detailed as we can, i.e., I
have already started doing this, grouping individual contributors in
specific categories and also indicating which ones have contributed in the
past, in most cases the recent past, i.e., these are the ones with most
direct skills who are likely to begin contributing as soon as possible.
Yes, most of these are from Oracle, which makes sense since we're moving to
Apache precisely in order to open up the 

[ANNOUNCE]

[Nicolas Kourtellis]

Hi,

The Apache SAMOA team is proud to announce the release of Apache SAMOA
version 0.4.0-incubating.

Apache SAMOA is a platform for mining big data streams. It provides a
collection of distributed streaming algorithms for the most common data
mining and machine learning tasks such as classification, clustering, and
regression, as well as programming abstractions to develop new algorithms
that run on top of distributed stream processing engines (DSPEs). It
features a pluggable architecture that allows it to run on several DSPEs
such as Apache Flink, Apache Storm and Apache Samza.

Release artifacts available at
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/incubator/samoa/0.4.0-incubating/
Maven artifacts available at
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases/
org/apache/samoa/
More details on Apache SAMOA can be found at
http://samoa.incubator.apache.org
Thanks to all the contributors who made this release possible.

Thanks,
The Apache SAMOA team


DISCLAIMER
Apache SAMOA is an effort undergoing incubation at The Apache Software
Foundation (ASF), sponsored by the Apache Incubator. Incubation is required
of all newly accepted projects until a further review indicates that the
infrastructure, communications, and decision making process have stabilized
in a manner consistent with other successful ASF projects. While incubation
status is not necessarily a reflection of the completeness or stability of
the code, it does indicate that the project has yet to be fully endorsed by
the ASF.

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Greg Stein]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Emilian Bold 
wrote:
>...

> alone could pull in ads the cost of infrastructure (although ASF might have
> a policy against ads, etc, etc)
>

We never run ads. Ever.

Just hang on a day or two, for us to *really* review these costs. Look at
Daniel's subject: "Preliminary". No need to get too hung up right now.

Thanks,
-g

Re: Request to join Apache Streams (Incubating) as Mentor

[Ate Douma]

I'm happy to add and have Suneel join me as mentor for Apache Streams.

I can't find anything about this: Is there any formal process or voting needed
before I make this so?

Ate

On 2016-09-23 19:51, Suneel Marthi wrote:






-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release SAMOA 0.4.0 (incubating) RC1

[Gianmarco De Francisci Morales]

Thanks everyone for the feedback, we'll fix the rat for the next release.
There seem to be some random test failures, we are investigating the causes.

-- Gianmarco

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Stian Soiland-Reyes 
wrote:

> My vote: 0 (non-binding)
>
> +1 tag/commit
> +1 git vs source zip
> +1 No binaries
> 0 mvn install fails in test
> 0 Apache rat is not happy
> 0 dist includes a  _remote.repositories file - this should be removed
> +1 LICENSE DISCLAIMER NOTICE
>
> I'm afraid it's not a positive vote from me because the build fails in
> test - and the README told me to do "mvn package" (A workaround here
> could be to use -DskipTests=true - but I don't know why the test
> fails)
>
>
> Apache rat complains about:
>  !? CONTRIBUTING.md
>  !? .travis.yml
>  !? bin/samza-kryo
>
> These should be added to pom.xml's apache-rat configuration to be
> ignored. None of them are worthy of a license header I think.
>
>
> Your vote email didn't say the hash of the source distro, it is (sha1)
> cab5ace6bfff3b70f883db61578fbda847f0fd66
> samoa-0.4.0-incubating-source-release.zip
>
> (which matches *.sha1 on dist)
>
>
>
>
>
> Tests run: 7, Failures: 0, Errors: 1, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.411
> sec <<< FAILURE! - in
> org.apache.samoa.topology.impl.SimpleEntranceProcessingItemTest
> testStartSendingEvents(org.apache.samoa.topology.impl.
> SimpleEntranceProcessingItemTest)
>  Time elapsed: 0.313 sec  <<< ERROR!
> java.lang.IllegalStateException: Missing invocation to mocked type at
> this point; please make sure there is an associated mock field or mock
> parameter in scope
> at org.apache.samoa.topology.impl.SimpleEntranceProcessingItemTe
> st$4.(SimpleEntranceProcessingItemTest.java:159)
> at org.apache.samoa.topology.impl.SimpleEntranceProcessingItemTe
> st.testStartSendingEvents(SimpleEntranceProcessingItemTest.java:155)
>
> [INFO] Apache SAMOA ... SUCCESS [
> 4.748 s]
> [INFO] samoa-instances  SUCCESS [
> 3.676 s]
> [INFO] samoa-api .. SUCCESS [
> 22.050 s]
> [INFO] samoa-test . SUCCESS [
> 2.149 s]
> [INFO] samoa-local  FAILURE [
> 49.418 s]
>
> using
>
> Apache Maven 3.3.9 (bb52d8502b132ec0a5a3f4c09453c07478323dc5;
> 2015-11-10T16:41:47+00:00)
> Maven home: /home/stain/software/maven
> Java version: 1.8.0_91, vendor: Oracle Corporation
> Java home: /usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64/jre
> Default locale: en_GB, platform encoding: UTF-8
> OS name: "linux", version: "4.4.0-38-generic", arch: "amd64", family:
> "unix"
>
> On 19 September 2016 at 14:50, Nicolas Kourtellis 
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Our new release has been voted from the Apache SAMOA team and we are
> > opening the vote to the incubator email list for testing.
> >
> > Please vote on releasing the following release candidate as Apache
> > SAMOA (incubating)
> > version 0.4.0. This release will be the second release for SAMOA in the
> > incubator.
> >
> > -
> > The commit to be voted on is in the branch "releases/0.4.0-incubating"
> > (commit fc39238dd7d3674c069a8142312da8c1812bc907):
> > https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-samoa/
> > repo?p=incubator-samoa.git;a=commit;h=fc39238dd7d3674c069a8142312da8
> > c1812bc907
> >
> > Tag v0.4.0-incubating:
> > https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator-samoa/
> > repo?p=incubator-samoa.git;a=tag;h=aa5bd941ccbed1aabb46b8119049ac
> 1bb293c3a2
> >
> > Release artifacts are signed with the following key:
> > *https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/nkourtellis.asc
> > *
> >
> > The staging repository for this release can be found at:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/staging/
> > org/apache/samoa/samoa/0.4.0-incubating/
> >
> > The developer's version artifacts:
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/incubator/samoa/0.4.
> 0-incubating-rc1/
> >
> > -
> >
> > Please vote on releasing this package as Apache SAMOA 0.4.0 (incubating).
> >
> > The vote is open for the next 72 hours and passes if a majority of at
> least
> > three +1 PPMC votes are cast.
> >
> > [ ] +1 Release this package as Apache SAMOA 0.4.0 (incubating)
> > [ ] -1 Do not release this package because ...
> >
> > I'm +1 on the release.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Nicolas
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Nicolas Kourtellis
>
>
>
> --
> Stian Soiland-Reyes
> http://orcid.org/-0001-9842-9718
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>
>

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Ate Douma]

On 2016-09-25 05:22, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:

It really is impossible for us to follow all the (in many cases
contradictory) advice we have been given re the initial contributors list.


Hi GeertJan,

I've gone through this whole thread again and IMO there really isn't so much
contradictory advice :-)

The general advice really is, including from the NetBeans Champion and other
mentors to not blow up the initial contributor list before the acceptance
of the project.

The argument Roman Shaposhnik brought forward about a past case where he had to
deal with a single individual who felt left out, IMO is/was just a single case.
Relevant for sure, but AFAIK also very uncommon and more like a one-off case.

The other, and very valid, point brought from Roman was that it should be made
very clear what criteria was used to select the initial committer list.
Further down I'll provide *my view* on what that criteria is or should be.

But I'll start with disagreeing with the second part of his point, that (quote):
  "IT MUST BE THE SAME for when somebody comes-a-knocking".

Disagreeing with this might seems odd and at odds with how the ASF works, but I
think it does not, or at least, it will not.

For a project as large and with such a huge history as NetBeans, there is no
way we (ASF) will be able to *judge* who is rightfully put on that list, nor
who has been left out erroneously.

Meaning: a 'complete' initial committer list (for such a project) never can be
put together proper.
Trying to do so, like by going through all the history and enumerating all past
contributors, IMO is a bad idea and will make things worse and more unclear,
even more 'unfair'.

And such a list will most certainly NOT be proper from an ASF POV, in the sense
that we strive for a healthy and active committers and (P)PPMC list of people
seriously engaged NOW. Project members who actually "do" stuff (doers decide).

Past contributors who do want to re-engage again most certainly need to be
valued and be admitted to become committer, but IMO better do this *when* they
come knocking (actively) than enlisting them upfront.

Having to 'prune' a huge, and likely too huge, list of initial committers
before NetBeans graduates to TLP is going to be far more 'painful' than voting
in active contributors when they actively show up.
Which also is far more in line with "the Apache Way", more 'fair' so to say.

Coming back to the maybe odd POV that the selection criteria for initial
commmitters list does not have to be the same as that for future committers.
IMO it simply cannot be 'equal' for a project like NetBeans.

The primary role and responsibility for such initial committers is to get the
project rolling and admit new committers base on *their* judgement.
So the most important, and IMO only crucial, criteria for selecting the initial
committers list is that those people are trusted to "do this right".

They can and will vote in new committers as soon as they come knocking, based
on their past contribution *and* their (intended) active participation.
Based on merit for the *new* Apache NetBeans project, not (just) their past
contributions, no matter how small/large that might have been.

And for that reason, an initial committers list must be fairly sized, with
enough diversity, spread out interest, and with recognition and be trusted by
the NetBeans community. And then: stop there.

The initially proposed committers list IMO already was 'good enough'
for this purpose. And AFAICT nobody questioned the list to be unfair or not
'good enough'. Of course adding one or two extra who were overlooked and are
expected to help make a difference and speed up the process still is fine.

So my strong advise is to stick to the original list.
And to first discuss it with the Bertrand as Champion and the other mentors
before modifying the proposal further.

Kind regards, Ate



Here's what I propose:

1. We make the initial contributors list as detailed as we can, i.e., I
have already started doing this, grouping individual contributors in
specific categories and also indicating which ones have contributed in the
past, in most cases the recent past, i.e., these are the ones with most
direct skills who are likely to begin contributing as soon as possible.
Yes, most of these are from Oracle, which makes sense since we're moving to
Apache precisely in order to open up the governance model so that more can
participate.
2. When in doubt, we will follow the advice of our mentors over the advice
of those who are not our mentors.
3. We will show in the initial contributors list what each of the initial
contributors is planning to contribute, as concretely as possible, to show
that we have a list of contributors who really want to and are planning to
contribute as soon as they're able to do so.
4. I don't believe anyone will fork NetBeans for not being on the initial
contributors list nor do I believe that anyone will want to be on the
initial contributors list as some 

Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Emilian Bold]

Ross Gardler is the current president of the ASF so in a way he does sign
the check and should be worried about these things.

Still, the number of Java developers is only growing and they need an IDE
and NetBeans is a major IDE with 1.5 million individual users! This number
is probably conservative since it excludes all the people behind
(corporate) firewalls.

Helping NetBeans would be for the public good and it really does help the
other Apache properties such as Ant, Maven, Tomcat, Groovy, etc.

Business wise, NetBeans is a great deal for Apache. The netbeans.org domain
alone could pull in ads the cost of infrastructure (although ASF might have
a policy against ads, etc, etc)


--emi

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wiele...@googlemail.com
> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >
> > Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a move
> > of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest that NetBeans
> > is seeing.
>
>
> OK, we do need to see the basis for that assertion. I think the only thing
> that cannot be tolerated is assertions without basis. Where is the evidence
> of "the decline in interest that NetBeans is seeing"? Because, speaking on
> behalf of the NetBeans community, we are not seeing that, at all. That
> evidence is not there or, if it is, we need to know what it is.
>
> Gj
>
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler  >
> wrote:
>
> > The ASF need to justify spending an extra $10k per year in this one
> > project at the expense of that $10k going to other projects.
> >
> > Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a move
> > of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest that NetBeans
> > is seeing.
> >
> > It may sound trivial, but we can support three "traditional" ASF projects
> > for NetBeans budget. As a charity we need to think carefully about how we
> > spend our money. A solid argument that this would reverse the downward
> > trend for NetBeans will go a long way to reassuring me (as one member,
> but
> > also as the person ultimately responsible for paying such a budget
> request
> > to the board).
> >
> > Ross
> >
> > ---
> > Twitter: @rgardler
> >
> > 
> > From: Ted Dunning  >
> > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> 
> > Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
> > NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
> >
> > Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a
> coop
> > request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus) and
> > incubator (who cause the problem).
> >
> > Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.
> >
> > I will work with the board to determine the best form.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann  >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno"  > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure,
> > it's
> > > ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the
> > cliff
> > > notes are as follows:
> > >
> > > - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> > > - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> > > - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year,
> > depending
> > >   on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close
> we
> > >   come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working
> > > with
> > >   is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in
> > case.
> > > - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site,
> > CI,
> > >   new build machines) and the project (services, plugins,
> > statistics),
> > >   which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra
> > time
> > >   spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial
> > phase.
> > >
> > > Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving
> > the
> > > go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people willing
> to
> > > host this.
> > >
> > > Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering
> > > their
> > > assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case
> > from
> > > the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some 

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Geertjan Wielenga]

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a move
> of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest that NetBeans
> is seeing.


OK, we do need to see the basis for that assertion. I think the only thing
that cannot be tolerated is assertions without basis. Where is the evidence
of "the decline in interest that NetBeans is seeing"? Because, speaking on
behalf of the NetBeans community, we are not seeing that, at all. That
evidence is not there or, if it is, we need to know what it is.

Gj

On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler 
wrote:

> The ASF need to justify spending an extra $10k per year in this one
> project at the expense of that $10k going to other projects.
>
> Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a move
> of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest that NetBeans
> is seeing.
>
> It may sound trivial, but we can support three "traditional" ASF projects
> for NetBeans budget. As a charity we need to think carefully about how we
> spend our money. A solid argument that this would reverse the downward
> trend for NetBeans will go a long way to reassuring me (as one member, but
> also as the person ultimately responsible for paying such a budget request
> to the board).
>
> Ross
>
> ---
> Twitter: @rgardler
>
> 
> From: Ted Dunning 
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
> NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
>
> Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a coop
> request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus) and
> incubator (who cause the problem).
>
> Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.
>
> I will work with the board to determine the best form.
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann 
> wrote:
>
> > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno"  wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure,
> it's
> > ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the
> cliff
> > notes are as follows:
> >
> > - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> > - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> > - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year,
> depending
> >   on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close we
> >   come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working
> > with
> >   is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in
> case.
> > - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site,
> CI,
> >   new build machines) and the project (services, plugins,
> statistics),
> >   which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra
> time
> >   spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial
> phase.
> >
> > Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving
> the
> > go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people willing to
> > host this.
> >
> > Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering
> > their
> > assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the case
> from
> > the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine costs
> > may be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.
> >
> > Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board
> > for
> > a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as well
> as
> > the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
> > the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and
> utilize
> > the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in the
> > coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
> > approving NetBeans as a new podling.
> >
> > With regards,
> > Daniel.
> >
> >
> > 
> -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings

[Jochen Theodorou]

Hi Wade,

first of all, don't worry too much at this point, having discussions and 
trying to grasp the scope and what we get into is very normal at this 
point.


more comments inline...

On 25.09.2016 05:03, Wade Chandler wrote:
[...]

Do no other Apache projects have plugins or distribution needs?


* open office which actually gets helped here by sourceforge
* maven with maven central, which also not hosted at hte ASF
* ??


Other than build servers, what can't be
consolidated? What about monetary donations to projects or specific Apache
line items? Has there been any such talk?


You can donate to the ASF, not a specific project.. unless the project 
sets something up on its own.



How many other OSS Java IDEs are their? Seem only 2 at the Eclipse and
NetBeans level.


VS Code not? Sorry haven't really looked at it


Having them both exist makes the entire ecosystem healthier
in my opinion.


especially with hte bad mood towards eclipse these days


It would be a shame to not have one of the real open source
Java IDEs exist as an Apache project IMO.


It would be good to find a possible solution on the downloads. I mean 
(Groovy project) do have most of our downloads outside ASF to save cost 
(and to handle our somewhat complicated release logic) as well... and of 
course Netbeans has even more downloads


bye Jochen

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Jochen Theodorou]

On 25.09.2016 08:59, John McDonnell wrote:
[...]

I have contributed defect fixes for JClouds in the past, and from what
I see on this project is that there's an GitHub repo that allows
people to contribute PR's, but theres also a ASF repo, which the
contributors actually merge in the PRs from GitHub into the "hidden"
ASF repo...   Is this how every ASF project runs? and is this how
Apache Netbeans would run? Because if so, do you want to give a wide
list of committers initially?


In the end this is a decision of the project. The ASF has some 
constraints though. So currently the git repo is at apache, the github 
one is a mirror. You can still make pull request, but they have to be 
merged to the ASF repo instead of github. To merge you have to have 
commit rights at the ASF of course. Why you would want a small list of 
committers because of that escapes me though. Of course there is a trust 
kevel involved, but Apache is all about being open (for me)



I would have thought it would make sense to keep the number to a group
of trusted people that Netbeans/GJ trust up front to commit PRs into
the main repo, and to make short term decisions.  Then if a
developer/contributor shows themselves to be a useful part of the
community then you can quickly vote to change their status...


Well, to avoid bad blood anyone how contributed in the past reasonably 
and wants to be on the list should be considered. Once you started 
incubation things can be done like you describe - or different - really 
depends on the project


bye Jochen


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)

[Wade Chandler]

First, I think we need to see the data you are referring to. Anecdotally
the NB community seems to be growing. We are certainly competing with more
projects such as VS Code and others in recent years. However, given reviews
over the past many years of Java IDEs, NB has consistently been in the top
3. IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate is not an open source project by the way, so I
suggest any comparisons to it, especially in the context of an organization
such as Apache, is not relevant. Money being one thing, and everything else
another, including OSS versus sort of OSS, I think it a fair question, but
I hope not a subjective and biased one.

Has moving to Apache ever reversed trends which you are referring? For
instance, does Apache champion it's own model over others? Why should a
project move to the Apache way? Us in the NB community have pushed Oracle
to move to a more open and community focused model for years. This sounded
like it was about to happen, and many were excited to hear Apache, but I
don't know what goal post this is, and if realistic, and if this email is
to be viewed negatively or not.

It doesn't seem oriented towards analyzing statements of cost to be applied
in support of other projects, or a way forward based on cost reduction or
code sharing given the initial estimate, but instead focuses on a seemingly
nebulous decline of NetBeans which is the first news I have seen of this.

Are there ways to cut the cost estimates? GoDaddy (surely others) has some
nice plans with unlimited storage and bandwidth, and some rewrites of some
systems with PHP, could make some things more viable. What about cost share
across projects with similar needs? Do no other Apache projects have
plugins or distribution needs? Other than build servers, what can't be
consolidated? What about monetary donations to projects or specific Apache
line items? Has there been any such talk?

How many other OSS Java IDEs are their? Seem only 2 at the Eclipse and
NetBeans level. Having them both exist makes the entire ecosystem healthier
in my opinion. It would be a shame to not have one of the real open source
Java IDEs exist as an Apache project IMO.

Thanks

Wade

On Sep 24, 2016 7:16 PM, "Ross Gardler"  wrote:

> The ASF need to justify spending an extra $10k per year in this one
> project at the expense of that $10k going to other projects.
>
> Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a move
> of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest that NetBeans
> is seeing.
>
> It may sound trivial, but we can support three "traditional" ASF projects
> for NetBeans budget. As a charity we need to think carefully about how we
> spend our money. A solid argument that this would reverse the downward
> trend for NetBeans will go a long way to reassuring me (as one member, but
> also as the person ultimately responsible for paying such a budget request
> to the board).
>
> Ross
>
> ---
> Twitter: @rgardler
>
> 
> From: Ted Dunning 
> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
> NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
>
> Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a coop
> request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus) and
> incubator (who cause the problem).
>
> Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.
>
> I will work with the board to determine the best form.
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann 
> wrote:
>
> > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno"  wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure,
> it's
> > ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the
> cliff
> > notes are as follows:
> >
> > - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins)
> > - 8-13 machines/VMS are required
> > - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and $10k per year,
> depending
> >   on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close we
> >   come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working
> > with
> >   is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in
> case.
> > - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site,
> CI,
> >   new build machines) and the project (services, plugins,
> statistics),
> >   which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra
> time
> >   spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial
> phase.
> >
> > Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving
> the
> > go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people willing to
> > host this.
> >
> > 

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[John McDonnell]

Hi All,


I am a netbeans user that has been following this thread since the
proposal was announced and I am a little fascinated with this whole
process, it seems rather interesting...

Although this initial committer list seems to be a sticking point, but
from reading this page:
https://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#committers I'm not
sure why it is...

I have contributed defect fixes for JClouds in the past, and from what
I see on this project is that there's an GitHub repo that allows
people to contribute PR's, but theres also a ASF repo, which the
contributors actually merge in the PRs from GitHub into the "hidden"
ASF repo...   Is this how every ASF project runs? and is this how
Apache Netbeans would run?  Because if so, do you want to give a wide
list of committers initially?

I would have thought it would make sense to keep the number to a group
of trusted people that Netbeans/GJ trust up front to commit PRs into
the main repo, and to make short term decisions.  Then if a
developer/contributor shows themselves to be a useful part of the
community then you can quickly vote to change their status...

Anyways I'm going to go back to lurking in the background...

Regards

John


On 25 September 2016 at 07:40, Jochen Theodorou  wrote:
> On 24.09.2016 15:10, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou
>>
>> For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare
>> plattform
>>>
>>> and no IDE.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, that's not true at all. The NetBeans plugins are of various kinds.
>> There are plugins that are listed in the Plugin Manager by default, these
>> are the standard functionalities of NetBeans IDE, i.e., these are all from
>> the NetBeans source code and will be part of the Apache donation.
>
>
>
> ok, wrong knowledge on my side. From hat I have seen in the repository it
> should be fine then. I have also seen some possibly license critical stuff
> there, but that is for during incubation to sort out
>
>
> bye Jochen
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
>



-- 
John

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org

Re: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal

[Jochen Theodorou]

On 24.09.2016 15:10, Geertjan Wielenga wrote:

On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Jochen Theodorou

For me the problem is that without plugins you have only the bare plattform

and no IDE.



No, that's not true at all. The NetBeans plugins are of various kinds.
There are plugins that are listed in the Plugin Manager by default, these
are the standard functionalities of NetBeans IDE, i.e., these are all from
the NetBeans source code and will be part of the Apache donation.



ok, wrong knowledge on my side. From hat I have seen in the repository 
it should be fine then. I have also seen some possibly license critical 
stuff there, but that is for during incubation to sort out


bye Jochen

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org