Re: ops4j domain names
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020 9:20:29 AM CEST Grzegorz Grzybek wrote: > For me, ops4j.org page never worked (I mean it shows only "It works!"), so > I'm +1 for moving to ops4j.github.org with or without redirect from > ops4j.org TLD. I strongly suggest to keep the ops4j domains (at the very least ops4j.org): 1) Reverse domain name (org.ops4j.) is used for all releases 2) Keeping ops4j domains is the only way to prevent takeover by scammers 3) What should happen if GitHub will go away in the future (unlikely but happened to other services, e.g. java.net)? We can point all ops4j.[org|net|com] to ops4j.github.io with no effort (even supported by low-budget hosting providers). I'm willing to spend some bucks and time for keeping the domains and setting up a minimal website for the project (we use JBake at Apache Sling to generate a static website, could be an option here also). Regards, O. > regards > Grzegorz Grzybek > > wt., 31 mar 2020 o 08:19 Niclas Hedhman napisał(a): > > I am... That is then what the vote is for... > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 1:39 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > > > > jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Even if we go to ops4j.github.com, I think it will be helpful to > >> redirect from ops4j.org. So, I volunteer to "take" the ops4j domain. It > >> will give us time to "transfer" resources to github. > >> > >> OK with that ? > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 4:15 AM Niclas Hedhman > >> > >> wrote: > >>> The thread's primary question is; > >>> > >>> Shall I a) let the ops4j domain names expire, or b) transfer them to > >>> someone else? If b), then Who/What? > >>> > >>> The rest is "interesting" but actually "out of scope" for something very > >>> concrete in 10 weeks time. The full structure of community can in > >>> principle > >>> be discussed/decided later, or not... > >>> > >>> > >>> // Niclas > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > >>> > >>> jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> I agree. > >>>> > >>>> What do you think I start a vote on the mailing list to propose to move > >>>> to ops4j.github.com ? > >>>> > >>>> Regards > >>>> JB > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:34 PM Peter Neubauer < > >>>> > >>>> neubauer.pe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> Thanks Niclas for bringing up the issue! > >>>>> > >>>>> FWIW - I think Github is basically what OPS4J set out to be > >>>>> code-contribution-wise. IMHO going back to Apache is a matter of the > >>>>> community deciding if the barriers for governance/contribution are > >>>>> lower > >>>>> now. Otherwise - I think just moving everything to Github - only would > >>>>> be > >>>>> the lowest-threshold option here. > >>>>> > >>>>> /peter > >>>>> > >>>>> On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 8:50:52 AM UTC+1, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > >>>>>> Imho, we should switch everything to github. I wouldn't even bother > >>>>>> paying for a domain, i think something like ops4j.github.org is > >>>>>> enough. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 13:01, Toni Menzel a > >>>>>> > >>>>>> écrit : > >>>>>>> *TL/TR:* > >>>>>>> I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org (the one that is actively > >>>>>>> used atm). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> *Long version:* > >>>>>>> Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go > >>>>>>> with OPS4J in general. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get > >>>>>>> hands dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust > >>>>>>> was > >>>>>>> default. Think about it, back then everyone could get write access > >>>>>>> to the > >>>>>>> subversion repo
Re: ops4j domain names
For me, ops4j.org page never worked (I mean it shows only "It works!"), so I'm +1 for moving to ops4j.github.org with or without redirect from ops4j.org TLD. regards Grzegorz Grzybek wt., 31 mar 2020 o 08:19 Niclas Hedhman napisał(a): > I am... That is then what the vote is for... > > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 1:39 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Even if we go to ops4j.github.com, I think it will be helpful to >> redirect from ops4j.org. So, I volunteer to "take" the ops4j domain. It >> will give us time to "transfer" resources to github. >> >> OK with that ? >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 4:15 AM Niclas Hedhman >> wrote: >> >>> >>> The thread's primary question is; >>> >>> Shall I a) let the ops4j domain names expire, or b) transfer them to >>> someone else? If b), then Who/What? >>> >>> The rest is "interesting" but actually "out of scope" for something very >>> concrete in 10 weeks time. The full structure of community can in principle >>> be discussed/decided later, or not... >>> >>> >>> // Niclas >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>> jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I agree. >>>> >>>> What do you think I start a vote on the mailing list to propose to move >>>> to ops4j.github.com ? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> JB >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:34 PM Peter Neubauer < >>>> neubauer.pe...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks Niclas for bringing up the issue! >>>>> >>>>> FWIW - I think Github is basically what OPS4J set out to be >>>>> code-contribution-wise. IMHO going back to Apache is a matter of the >>>>> community deciding if the barriers for governance/contribution are lower >>>>> now. Otherwise - I think just moving everything to Github - only would be >>>>> the lowest-threshold option here. >>>>> >>>>> /peter >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 8:50:52 AM UTC+1, Guillaume Nodet wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Imho, we should switch everything to github. I wouldn't even bother >>>>>> paying for a domain, i think something like ops4j.github.org is >>>>>> enough. >>>>>> >>>>>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 13:01, Toni Menzel a >>>>>> écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> *TL/TR:* >>>>>>> I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org (the one that is actively >>>>>>> used atm). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Long version:* >>>>>>> Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go >>>>>>> with OPS4J in general. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get >>>>>>> hands dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust was >>>>>>> default. Think about it, back then everyone could get write access to >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> subversion repo and start hacking on new or existing projects. Including >>>>>>> admin access to jira and whatever else was existing back then. Pax URL, >>>>>>> Pax >>>>>>> Runner, Pax Exam, Pax Construct etc. all got initiated by individuals >>>>>>> without asking for permission. I mean.. thats Names like Pax Tinybundles >>>>>>> got to life.. but oh well. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, why am I writing this: there is - at least for pax url, web and >>>>>>> exam - a huge user base that seems to be quite healthy. Even if there is >>>>>>> just that "ops4j" name of the github organization now, no website etc. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, question: what are the options? Let me just drop them here that >>>>>>> come to my mind (ordered from easy-as-py to more complicated options): >>>>>>> >>>>>>>- keep things as is, find individual sponsors like I do with the >>>>>>>Build Server (who uses that still by the way??), and JB or me (thi
Re: ops4j domain names
I am... That is then what the vote is for... On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 1:39 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: > Even if we go to ops4j.github.com, I think it will be helpful to redirect > from ops4j.org. So, I volunteer to "take" the ops4j domain. It will give > us time to "transfer" resources to github. > > OK with that ? > > Regards > JB > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 4:15 AM Niclas Hedhman wrote: > >> >> The thread's primary question is; >> >> Shall I a) let the ops4j domain names expire, or b) transfer them to >> someone else? If b), then Who/What? >> >> The rest is "interesting" but actually "out of scope" for something very >> concrete in 10 weeks time. The full structure of community can in principle >> be discussed/decided later, or not... >> >> >> // Niclas >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I agree. >>> >>> What do you think I start a vote on the mailing list to propose to move >>> to ops4j.github.com ? >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:34 PM Peter Neubauer >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Niclas for bringing up the issue! >>>> >>>> FWIW - I think Github is basically what OPS4J set out to be >>>> code-contribution-wise. IMHO going back to Apache is a matter of the >>>> community deciding if the barriers for governance/contribution are lower >>>> now. Otherwise - I think just moving everything to Github - only would be >>>> the lowest-threshold option here. >>>> >>>> /peter >>>> >>>> On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 8:50:52 AM UTC+1, Guillaume Nodet wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Imho, we should switch everything to github. I wouldn't even bother >>>>> paying for a domain, i think something like ops4j.github.org is >>>>> enough. >>>>> >>>>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 13:01, Toni Menzel a >>>>> écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> *TL/TR:* >>>>>> I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org (the one that is actively >>>>>> used atm). >>>>>> >>>>>> *Long version:* >>>>>> Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go >>>>>> with OPS4J in general. >>>>>> >>>>>> It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get >>>>>> hands dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust was >>>>>> default. Think about it, back then everyone could get write access to the >>>>>> subversion repo and start hacking on new or existing projects. Including >>>>>> admin access to jira and whatever else was existing back then. Pax URL, >>>>>> Pax >>>>>> Runner, Pax Exam, Pax Construct etc. all got initiated by individuals >>>>>> without asking for permission. I mean.. thats Names like Pax Tinybundles >>>>>> got to life.. but oh well. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, why am I writing this: there is - at least for pax url, web and >>>>>> exam - a huge user base that seems to be quite healthy. Even if there is >>>>>> just that "ops4j" name of the github organization now, no website etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, question: what are the options? Let me just drop them here that >>>>>> come to my mind (ordered from easy-as-py to more complicated options): >>>>>> >>>>>>- keep things as is, find individual sponsors like I do with the >>>>>>Build Server (who uses that still by the way??), and JB or me (this >>>>>> means >>>>>>I'd be also fine to pay for the org domain that is in active use,too >>>>>> btw). >>>>>>It would be good to have two different companies or legal entities >>>>>> backing >>>>>>this anyway. >>>>>>- Modernize OPS4J a bit. Get it a landing page at least and a >>>>>>clear who is behind all this, who pays etc. Maybe look at Github >>>>>> Sponsoring >>>>>>to spread costs across user base - avoid single entity control. >>>>>>- Maybe look into makin
Re: ops4j domain names
Even if we go to ops4j.github.com, I think it will be helpful to redirect from ops4j.org. So, I volunteer to "take" the ops4j domain. It will give us time to "transfer" resources to github. OK with that ? Regards JB On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 4:15 AM Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > The thread's primary question is; > > Shall I a) let the ops4j domain names expire, or b) transfer them to > someone else? If b), then Who/What? > > The rest is "interesting" but actually "out of scope" for something very > concrete in 10 weeks time. The full structure of community can in principle > be discussed/decided later, or not... > > > // Niclas > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I agree. >> >> What do you think I start a vote on the mailing list to propose to move >> to ops4j.github.com ? >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:34 PM Peter Neubauer >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Niclas for bringing up the issue! >>> >>> FWIW - I think Github is basically what OPS4J set out to be >>> code-contribution-wise. IMHO going back to Apache is a matter of the >>> community deciding if the barriers for governance/contribution are lower >>> now. Otherwise - I think just moving everything to Github - only would be >>> the lowest-threshold option here. >>> >>> /peter >>> >>> On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 8:50:52 AM UTC+1, Guillaume Nodet wrote: >>>> >>>> Imho, we should switch everything to github. I wouldn't even bother >>>> paying for a domain, i think something like ops4j.github.org is enough. >>>> >>>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 13:01, Toni Menzel a >>>> écrit : >>>> >>>>> *TL/TR:* >>>>> I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org (the one that is actively used >>>>> atm). >>>>> >>>>> *Long version:* >>>>> Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go >>>>> with OPS4J in general. >>>>> >>>>> It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get >>>>> hands dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust was >>>>> default. Think about it, back then everyone could get write access to the >>>>> subversion repo and start hacking on new or existing projects. Including >>>>> admin access to jira and whatever else was existing back then. Pax URL, >>>>> Pax >>>>> Runner, Pax Exam, Pax Construct etc. all got initiated by individuals >>>>> without asking for permission. I mean.. thats Names like Pax Tinybundles >>>>> got to life.. but oh well. >>>>> >>>>> Now, why am I writing this: there is - at least for pax url, web and >>>>> exam - a huge user base that seems to be quite healthy. Even if there is >>>>> just that "ops4j" name of the github organization now, no website etc. >>>>> >>>>> So, question: what are the options? Let me just drop them here that >>>>> come to my mind (ordered from easy-as-py to more complicated options): >>>>> >>>>>- keep things as is, find individual sponsors like I do with the >>>>>Build Server (who uses that still by the way??), and JB or me (this >>>>> means >>>>>I'd be also fine to pay for the org domain that is in active use,too >>>>> btw). >>>>>It would be good to have two different companies or legal entities >>>>> backing >>>>>this anyway. >>>>>- Modernize OPS4J a bit. Get it a landing page at least and a >>>>>clear who is behind all this, who pays etc. Maybe look at Github >>>>> Sponsoring >>>>>to spread costs across user base - avoid single entity control. >>>>>- Maybe look into making it a proper foundation or at least an >>>>> entity that makes the work here eligible for future donations. I am not >>>>>sure of this is worth it. But i feel Open Source != Open Governance. >>>>>- Retire non active projects and donate active projects to apache. >>>>>Probably difficult because of Intellectual Property) >>>>> >>>>> wdyt? >>>>> Toni >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>&g
Re: ops4j domain names
Hello What do you think I start a vote on the mailing list > +1 for starting the vote ;) regards Grzegorz Grzybek wt., 31 mar 2020 o 04:15 Niclas Hedhman napisał(a): > > The thread's primary question is; > > Shall I a) let the ops4j domain names expire, or b) transfer them to > someone else? If b), then Who/What? > > The rest is "interesting" but actually "out of scope" for something very > concrete in 10 weeks time. The full structure of community can in principle > be discussed/decided later, or not... > > > // Niclas > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I agree. >> >> What do you think I start a vote on the mailing list to propose to move >> to ops4j.github.com ? >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:34 PM Peter Neubauer >> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Niclas for bringing up the issue! >>> >>> FWIW - I think Github is basically what OPS4J set out to be >>> code-contribution-wise. IMHO going back to Apache is a matter of the >>> community deciding if the barriers for governance/contribution are lower >>> now. Otherwise - I think just moving everything to Github - only would be >>> the lowest-threshold option here. >>> >>> /peter >>> >>> On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 8:50:52 AM UTC+1, Guillaume Nodet wrote: >>>> >>>> Imho, we should switch everything to github. I wouldn't even bother >>>> paying for a domain, i think something like ops4j.github.org is enough. >>>> >>>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 13:01, Toni Menzel a >>>> écrit : >>>> >>>>> *TL/TR:* >>>>> I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org (the one that is actively used >>>>> atm). >>>>> >>>>> *Long version:* >>>>> Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go >>>>> with OPS4J in general. >>>>> >>>>> It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get >>>>> hands dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust was >>>>> default. Think about it, back then everyone could get write access to the >>>>> subversion repo and start hacking on new or existing projects. Including >>>>> admin access to jira and whatever else was existing back then. Pax URL, >>>>> Pax >>>>> Runner, Pax Exam, Pax Construct etc. all got initiated by individuals >>>>> without asking for permission. I mean.. thats Names like Pax Tinybundles >>>>> got to life.. but oh well. >>>>> >>>>> Now, why am I writing this: there is - at least for pax url, web and >>>>> exam - a huge user base that seems to be quite healthy. Even if there is >>>>> just that "ops4j" name of the github organization now, no website etc. >>>>> >>>>> So, question: what are the options? Let me just drop them here that >>>>> come to my mind (ordered from easy-as-py to more complicated options): >>>>> >>>>>- keep things as is, find individual sponsors like I do with the >>>>>Build Server (who uses that still by the way??), and JB or me (this >>>>> means >>>>>I'd be also fine to pay for the org domain that is in active use,too >>>>> btw). >>>>>It would be good to have two different companies or legal entities >>>>> backing >>>>>this anyway. >>>>>- Modernize OPS4J a bit. Get it a landing page at least and a >>>>>clear who is behind all this, who pays etc. Maybe look at Github >>>>> Sponsoring >>>>>to spread costs across user base - avoid single entity control. >>>>>- Maybe look into making it a proper foundation or at least an >>>>>entity that makes the work here eligible for future donations. I am not >>>>>sure of this is worth it. But i feel Open Source != Open Governance. >>>>>- Retire non active projects and donate active projects to apache. >>>>>Probably difficult because of Intellectual Property) >>>>> >>>>> wdyt? >>>>> Toni >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Toni Menzel | rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> | growing developer >>>
Re: ops4j domain names
The thread's primary question is; Shall I a) let the ops4j domain names expire, or b) transfer them to someone else? If b), then Who/What? The rest is "interesting" but actually "out of scope" for something very concrete in 10 weeks time. The full structure of community can in principle be discussed/decided later, or not... // Niclas On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree. > > What do you think I start a vote on the mailing list to propose to move to > ops4j.github.com ? > > Regards > JB > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:34 PM Peter Neubauer > wrote: > >> Thanks Niclas for bringing up the issue! >> >> FWIW - I think Github is basically what OPS4J set out to be >> code-contribution-wise. IMHO going back to Apache is a matter of the >> community deciding if the barriers for governance/contribution are lower >> now. Otherwise - I think just moving everything to Github - only would be >> the lowest-threshold option here. >> >> /peter >> >> On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 8:50:52 AM UTC+1, Guillaume Nodet wrote: >>> >>> Imho, we should switch everything to github. I wouldn't even bother >>> paying for a domain, i think something like ops4j.github.org is enough. >>> >>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 13:01, Toni Menzel a >>> écrit : >>> >>>> *TL/TR:* >>>> I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org (the one that is actively used >>>> atm). >>>> >>>> *Long version:* >>>> Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go >>>> with OPS4J in general. >>>> >>>> It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get >>>> hands dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust was >>>> default. Think about it, back then everyone could get write access to the >>>> subversion repo and start hacking on new or existing projects. Including >>>> admin access to jira and whatever else was existing back then. Pax URL, Pax >>>> Runner, Pax Exam, Pax Construct etc. all got initiated by individuals >>>> without asking for permission. I mean.. thats Names like Pax Tinybundles >>>> got to life.. but oh well. >>>> >>>> Now, why am I writing this: there is - at least for pax url, web and >>>> exam - a huge user base that seems to be quite healthy. Even if there is >>>> just that "ops4j" name of the github organization now, no website etc. >>>> >>>> So, question: what are the options? Let me just drop them here that >>>> come to my mind (ordered from easy-as-py to more complicated options): >>>> >>>>- keep things as is, find individual sponsors like I do with the >>>>Build Server (who uses that still by the way??), and JB or me (this >>>> means >>>>I'd be also fine to pay for the org domain that is in active use,too >>>> btw). >>>>It would be good to have two different companies or legal entities >>>> backing >>>>this anyway. >>>>- Modernize OPS4J a bit. Get it a landing page at least and a clear >>>>who is behind all this, who pays etc. Maybe look at Github Sponsoring to >>>>spread costs across user base - avoid single entity control. >>>>- Maybe look into making it a proper foundation or at least an >>>>entity that makes the work here eligible for future donations. I am not >>>>sure of this is worth it. But i feel Open Source != Open Governance. >>>>- Retire non active projects and donate active projects to apache. >>>>Probably difficult because of Intellectual Property) >>>> >>>> wdyt? >>>> Toni >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Toni Menzel | rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> | growing developer >>>> culture* >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>>> jeanbapti...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Niclas >>>>> >>>>> First of all, thanks a lot for all what you did (and still doing ). >>>>> >>>>> I’m ready to take the hand for the domain and finance them. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts ? >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> JB >>>>> >>>>> Le mer. 19 févr. 202
Re: ops4j domain names
I agree. What do you think I start a vote on the mailing list to propose to move to ops4j.github.com ? Regards JB On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:34 PM Peter Neubauer wrote: > Thanks Niclas for bringing up the issue! > > FWIW - I think Github is basically what OPS4J set out to be > code-contribution-wise. IMHO going back to Apache is a matter of the > community deciding if the barriers for governance/contribution are lower > now. Otherwise - I think just moving everything to Github - only would be > the lowest-threshold option here. > > /peter > > On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 8:50:52 AM UTC+1, Guillaume Nodet wrote: >> >> Imho, we should switch everything to github. I wouldn't even bother >> paying for a domain, i think something like ops4j.github.org is enough. >> >> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 13:01, Toni Menzel a >> écrit : >> >>> *TL/TR:* >>> I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org (the one that is actively used >>> atm). >>> >>> *Long version:* >>> Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go with >>> OPS4J in general. >>> >>> It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get >>> hands dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust was >>> default. Think about it, back then everyone could get write access to the >>> subversion repo and start hacking on new or existing projects. Including >>> admin access to jira and whatever else was existing back then. Pax URL, Pax >>> Runner, Pax Exam, Pax Construct etc. all got initiated by individuals >>> without asking for permission. I mean.. thats Names like Pax Tinybundles >>> got to life.. but oh well. >>> >>> Now, why am I writing this: there is - at least for pax url, web and >>> exam - a huge user base that seems to be quite healthy. Even if there is >>> just that "ops4j" name of the github organization now, no website etc. >>> >>> So, question: what are the options? Let me just drop them here that come >>> to my mind (ordered from easy-as-py to more complicated options): >>> >>>- keep things as is, find individual sponsors like I do with the >>>Build Server (who uses that still by the way??), and JB or me (this means >>>I'd be also fine to pay for the org domain that is in active use,too >>> btw). >>>It would be good to have two different companies or legal entities >>> backing >>>this anyway. >>>- Modernize OPS4J a bit. Get it a landing page at least and a clear >>>who is behind all this, who pays etc. Maybe look at Github Sponsoring to >>>spread costs across user base - avoid single entity control. >>>- Maybe look into making it a proper foundation or at least an >>>entity that makes the work here eligible for future donations. I am not >>>sure of this is worth it. But i feel Open Source != Open Governance. >>>- Retire non active projects and donate active projects to apache. >>>Probably difficult because of Intellectual Property) >>> >>> wdyt? >>> Toni >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Toni Menzel | rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> | growing developer >>> culture* >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>> jeanbapti...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Niclas >>>> >>>> First of all, thanks a lot for all what you did (and still doing ). >>>> >>>> I’m ready to take the hand for the domain and finance them. >>>> >>>> Thoughts ? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> JB >>>> >>>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 12:13, Niclas Hedhman a >>>> écrit : >>>> >>>>> Everyone, >>>>> In a few months time (June), the OPS4J domain names are up for >>>>> renewal. And I have been paying for those for 15 years now, and since I no >>>>> longer participate in OPS4J I would like to transfer the domain names. But >>>>> where to?? >>>>> >>>>> Ideally a foundation that would be Ok to take it over, otherwise to a >>>>> trusted community member. >>>>> >>>>> Ideas are welcome, and should be discussed. I have no opinion and will >>>>> simply follow what you all can agree on. >>>>> >>>>> ops4j.org >>>>> ops4j.net >>>>> ops4j.com
Re: ops4j domain names
Thanks Niclas for bringing up the issue! FWIW - I think Github is basically what OPS4J set out to be code-contribution-wise. IMHO going back to Apache is a matter of the community deciding if the barriers for governance/contribution are lower now. Otherwise - I think just moving everything to Github - only would be the lowest-threshold option here. /peter On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 8:50:52 AM UTC+1, Guillaume Nodet wrote: > > Imho, we should switch everything to github. I wouldn't even bother > paying for a domain, i think something like ops4j.github.org is enough. > > Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 13:01, Toni Menzel > a écrit : > >> *TL/TR:* >> I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org (the one that is actively used >> atm). >> >> *Long version:* >> Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go with >> OPS4J in general. >> >> It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get >> hands dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust was >> default. Think about it, back then everyone could get write access to the >> subversion repo and start hacking on new or existing projects. Including >> admin access to jira and whatever else was existing back then. Pax URL, Pax >> Runner, Pax Exam, Pax Construct etc. all got initiated by individuals >> without asking for permission. I mean.. thats Names like Pax Tinybundles >> got to life.. but oh well. >> >> Now, why am I writing this: there is - at least for pax url, web and exam >> - a huge user base that seems to be quite healthy. Even if there is just >> that "ops4j" name of the github organization now, no website etc. >> >> So, question: what are the options? Let me just drop them here that come >> to my mind (ordered from easy-as-py to more complicated options): >> >>- keep things as is, find individual sponsors like I do with the >>Build Server (who uses that still by the way??), and JB or me (this means >>I'd be also fine to pay for the org domain that is in active use,too >> btw). >>It would be good to have two different companies or legal entities >> backing >>this anyway. >>- Modernize OPS4J a bit. Get it a landing page at least and a clear >>who is behind all this, who pays etc. Maybe look at Github Sponsoring to >>spread costs across user base - avoid single entity control. >>- Maybe look into making it a proper foundation or at least an entity >>that makes the work here eligible for future donations. I am not sure of >>this is worth it. But i feel Open Source != Open Governance. >>- Retire non active projects and donate active projects to apache. >>Probably difficult because of Intellectual Property) >> >> wdyt? >> Toni >> >> >> >> >> *Toni Menzel | rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> | growing developer >> culture* >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> jeanbapti...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >>> Hi Niclas >>> >>> First of all, thanks a lot for all what you did (and still doing ). >>> >>> I’m ready to take the hand for the domain and finance them. >>> >>> Thoughts ? >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 12:13, Niclas Hedhman >> > a écrit : >>> >>>> Everyone, >>>> In a few months time (June), the OPS4J domain names are up for renewal. >>>> And I have been paying for those for 15 years now, and since I no longer >>>> participate in OPS4J I would like to transfer the domain names. But where >>>> to?? >>>> >>>> Ideally a foundation that would be Ok to take it over, otherwise to a >>>> trusted community member. >>>> >>>> Ideas are welcome, and should be discussed. I have no opinion and will >>>> simply follow what you all can agree on. >>>> >>>> ops4j.org >>>> ops4j.net >>>> ops4j.com >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Niclas >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - op...@googlegroups.com >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "OPS4J" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to op
Re: ops4j domain names
Not formal one yet. I can start a vote. Regards JB On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 9:58 AM Toni Menzel wrote: > yep, moving CI to 100% githib actions would allow us to decommission the > old Jenkins instance. > Is there a resolution regarding the domain names yet? > > *Toni Menzel | Strategic Software Delivery Consultant @ rebaze GmbH* > Consultant profiletonimenzel.com <https://www.tonimenzel.com> > Consultancy profile rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> > *#CloudNative #Accelerate #DevEx* > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 9:49 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That's a good idea. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 8:50 AM Guillaume Nodet >> wrote: >> >>> Imho, we should switch everything to github. I wouldn't even bother >>> paying for a domain, i think something like ops4j.github.org is enough. >>> >>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 13:01, Toni Menzel a >>> écrit : >>> >>>> *TL/TR:* >>>> I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org (the one that is actively used >>>> atm). >>>> >>>> *Long version:* >>>> Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go >>>> with OPS4J in general. >>>> >>>> It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get >>>> hands dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust was >>>> default. Think about it, back then everyone could get write access to the >>>> subversion repo and start hacking on new or existing projects. Including >>>> admin access to jira and whatever else was existing back then. Pax URL, Pax >>>> Runner, Pax Exam, Pax Construct etc. all got initiated by individuals >>>> without asking for permission. I mean.. thats Names like Pax Tinybundles >>>> got to life.. but oh well. >>>> >>>> Now, why am I writing this: there is - at least for pax url, web and >>>> exam - a huge user base that seems to be quite healthy. Even if there is >>>> just that "ops4j" name of the github organization now, no website etc. >>>> >>>> So, question: what are the options? Let me just drop them here that >>>> come to my mind (ordered from easy-as-py to more complicated options): >>>> >>>>- keep things as is, find individual sponsors like I do with the >>>>Build Server (who uses that still by the way??), and JB or me (this >>>> means >>>>I'd be also fine to pay for the org domain that is in active use,too >>>> btw). >>>>It would be good to have two different companies or legal entities >>>> backing >>>>this anyway. >>>>- Modernize OPS4J a bit. Get it a landing page at least and a clear >>>>who is behind all this, who pays etc. Maybe look at Github Sponsoring to >>>>spread costs across user base - avoid single entity control. >>>>- Maybe look into making it a proper foundation or at least an >>>>entity that makes the work here eligible for future donations. I am not >>>>sure of this is worth it. But i feel Open Source != Open Governance. >>>>- Retire non active projects and donate active projects to apache. >>>>Probably difficult because of Intellectual Property) >>>> >>>> wdyt? >>>> Toni >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Toni Menzel | rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> | growing developer >>>> culture* >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>>> jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Niclas >>>>> >>>>> First of all, thanks a lot for all what you did (and still doing ). >>>>> >>>>> I’m ready to take the hand for the domain and finance them. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts ? >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> JB >>>>> >>>>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 12:13, Niclas Hedhman a >>>>> écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> Everyone, >>>>>> In a few months time (June), the OPS4J domain names are up for >>>>>> renewal. And I have been paying for those for 15 years now, and since I >>>>>> no >>>>>> longe
Re: ops4j domain names
It make sense :) regards, François Le lun. 23 mars 2020 à 09:58, Toni Menzel a écrit : > yep, moving CI to 100% githib actions would allow us to decommission the > old Jenkins instance. > Is there a resolution regarding the domain names yet? > > *Toni Menzel | Strategic Software Delivery Consultant @ rebaze GmbH* > Consultant profiletonimenzel.com <https://www.tonimenzel.com> > Consultancy profile rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> > *#CloudNative #Accelerate #DevEx* > > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 9:49 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> That's a good idea. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 8:50 AM Guillaume Nodet >> wrote: >> >>> Imho, we should switch everything to github. I wouldn't even bother >>> paying for a domain, i think something like ops4j.github.org is enough. >>> >>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 13:01, Toni Menzel a >>> écrit : >>> >>>> *TL/TR:* >>>> I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org (the one that is actively used >>>> atm). >>>> >>>> *Long version:* >>>> Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go >>>> with OPS4J in general. >>>> >>>> It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get >>>> hands dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust was >>>> default. Think about it, back then everyone could get write access to the >>>> subversion repo and start hacking on new or existing projects. Including >>>> admin access to jira and whatever else was existing back then. Pax URL, Pax >>>> Runner, Pax Exam, Pax Construct etc. all got initiated by individuals >>>> without asking for permission. I mean.. thats Names like Pax Tinybundles >>>> got to life.. but oh well. >>>> >>>> Now, why am I writing this: there is - at least for pax url, web and >>>> exam - a huge user base that seems to be quite healthy. Even if there is >>>> just that "ops4j" name of the github organization now, no website etc. >>>> >>>> So, question: what are the options? Let me just drop them here that >>>> come to my mind (ordered from easy-as-py to more complicated options): >>>> >>>>- keep things as is, find individual sponsors like I do with the >>>>Build Server (who uses that still by the way??), and JB or me (this >>>> means >>>>I'd be also fine to pay for the org domain that is in active use,too >>>> btw). >>>>It would be good to have two different companies or legal entities >>>> backing >>>>this anyway. >>>>- Modernize OPS4J a bit. Get it a landing page at least and a clear >>>>who is behind all this, who pays etc. Maybe look at Github Sponsoring to >>>>spread costs across user base - avoid single entity control. >>>>- Maybe look into making it a proper foundation or at least an >>>>entity that makes the work here eligible for future donations. I am not >>>>sure of this is worth it. But i feel Open Source != Open Governance. >>>>- Retire non active projects and donate active projects to apache. >>>>Probably difficult because of Intellectual Property) >>>> >>>> wdyt? >>>> Toni >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Toni Menzel | rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> | growing developer >>>> culture* >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>>> jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Niclas >>>>> >>>>> First of all, thanks a lot for all what you did (and still doing ). >>>>> >>>>> I’m ready to take the hand for the domain and finance them. >>>>> >>>>> Thoughts ? >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> JB >>>>> >>>>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 12:13, Niclas Hedhman a >>>>> écrit : >>>>> >>>>>> Everyone, >>>>>> In a few months time (June), the OPS4J domain names are up for >>>>>> renewal. And I have been paying for those for 15 years now, and since I >>>>>> no >>>>>> longe
Re: ops4j domain names
yep, moving CI to 100% githib actions would allow us to decommission the old Jenkins instance. Is there a resolution regarding the domain names yet? *Toni Menzel | Strategic Software Delivery Consultant @ rebaze GmbH* Consultant profiletonimenzel.com <https://www.tonimenzel.com> Consultancy profile rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> *#CloudNative #Accelerate #DevEx* On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 9:49 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's a good idea. > > Regards > JB > > On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 8:50 AM Guillaume Nodet wrote: > >> Imho, we should switch everything to github. I wouldn't even bother >> paying for a domain, i think something like ops4j.github.org is enough. >> >> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 13:01, Toni Menzel a >> écrit : >> >>> *TL/TR:* >>> I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org (the one that is actively used >>> atm). >>> >>> *Long version:* >>> Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go with >>> OPS4J in general. >>> >>> It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get >>> hands dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust was >>> default. Think about it, back then everyone could get write access to the >>> subversion repo and start hacking on new or existing projects. Including >>> admin access to jira and whatever else was existing back then. Pax URL, Pax >>> Runner, Pax Exam, Pax Construct etc. all got initiated by individuals >>> without asking for permission. I mean.. thats Names like Pax Tinybundles >>> got to life.. but oh well. >>> >>> Now, why am I writing this: there is - at least for pax url, web and >>> exam - a huge user base that seems to be quite healthy. Even if there is >>> just that "ops4j" name of the github organization now, no website etc. >>> >>> So, question: what are the options? Let me just drop them here that come >>> to my mind (ordered from easy-as-py to more complicated options): >>> >>>- keep things as is, find individual sponsors like I do with the >>>Build Server (who uses that still by the way??), and JB or me (this means >>>I'd be also fine to pay for the org domain that is in active use,too >>> btw). >>>It would be good to have two different companies or legal entities >>> backing >>>this anyway. >>>- Modernize OPS4J a bit. Get it a landing page at least and a clear >>>who is behind all this, who pays etc. Maybe look at Github Sponsoring to >>>spread costs across user base - avoid single entity control. >>>- Maybe look into making it a proper foundation or at least an >>>entity that makes the work here eligible for future donations. I am not >>>sure of this is worth it. But i feel Open Source != Open Governance. >>>- Retire non active projects and donate active projects to apache. >>>Probably difficult because of Intellectual Property) >>> >>> wdyt? >>> Toni >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Toni Menzel | rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> | growing developer >>> culture* >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>> jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Niclas >>>> >>>> First of all, thanks a lot for all what you did (and still doing ). >>>> >>>> I’m ready to take the hand for the domain and finance them. >>>> >>>> Thoughts ? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> JB >>>> >>>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 12:13, Niclas Hedhman a >>>> écrit : >>>> >>>>> Everyone, >>>>> In a few months time (June), the OPS4J domain names are up for >>>>> renewal. And I have been paying for those for 15 years now, and since I no >>>>> longer participate in OPS4J I would like to transfer the domain names. But >>>>> where to?? >>>>> >>>>> Ideally a foundation that would be Ok to take it over, otherwise to a >>>>> trusted community member. >>>>> >>>>> Ideas are welcome, and should be discussed. I have no opinion and will >>>>> simply follow what you all can agree on. >>>>> >>>>> ops4j.org >>>>> ops4j.net >>>>> ops4j.com >>>>> >>>>> &
Re: ops4j domain names
That's a good idea. Regards JB On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 8:50 AM Guillaume Nodet wrote: > Imho, we should switch everything to github. I wouldn't even bother > paying for a domain, i think something like ops4j.github.org is enough. > > Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 13:01, Toni Menzel a > écrit : > >> *TL/TR:* >> I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org (the one that is actively used >> atm). >> >> *Long version:* >> Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go with >> OPS4J in general. >> >> It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get >> hands dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust was >> default. Think about it, back then everyone could get write access to the >> subversion repo and start hacking on new or existing projects. Including >> admin access to jira and whatever else was existing back then. Pax URL, Pax >> Runner, Pax Exam, Pax Construct etc. all got initiated by individuals >> without asking for permission. I mean.. thats Names like Pax Tinybundles >> got to life.. but oh well. >> >> Now, why am I writing this: there is - at least for pax url, web and exam >> - a huge user base that seems to be quite healthy. Even if there is just >> that "ops4j" name of the github organization now, no website etc. >> >> So, question: what are the options? Let me just drop them here that come >> to my mind (ordered from easy-as-py to more complicated options): >> >>- keep things as is, find individual sponsors like I do with the >>Build Server (who uses that still by the way??), and JB or me (this means >>I'd be also fine to pay for the org domain that is in active use,too btw). >>It would be good to have two different companies or legal entities backing >>this anyway. >>- Modernize OPS4J a bit. Get it a landing page at least and a clear >>who is behind all this, who pays etc. Maybe look at Github Sponsoring to >>spread costs across user base - avoid single entity control. >>- Maybe look into making it a proper foundation or at least an entity >>that makes the work here eligible for future donations. I am not sure of >>this is worth it. But i feel Open Source != Open Governance. >>- Retire non active projects and donate active projects to apache. >>Probably difficult because of Intellectual Property) >> >> wdyt? >> Toni >> >> >> >> >> *Toni Menzel | rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> | growing developer >> culture* >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Niclas >>> >>> First of all, thanks a lot for all what you did (and still doing ). >>> >>> I’m ready to take the hand for the domain and finance them. >>> >>> Thoughts ? >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 12:13, Niclas Hedhman a >>> écrit : >>> >>>> Everyone, >>>> In a few months time (June), the OPS4J domain names are up for renewal. >>>> And I have been paying for those for 15 years now, and since I no longer >>>> participate in OPS4J I would like to transfer the domain names. But where >>>> to?? >>>> >>>> Ideally a foundation that would be Ok to take it over, otherwise to a >>>> trusted community member. >>>> >>>> Ideas are welcome, and should be discussed. I have no opinion and will >>>> simply follow what you all can agree on. >>>> >>>> ops4j.org >>>> ops4j.net >>>> ops4j.com >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Niclas >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "OPS4J" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CADmm%2BKf7a0rzdkro7v-rxBV1p1-KkSMTE_BQT2HhUZyOUM9jyA%40mail.gmail.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CADmm%2BKf7a0rzdkro7v-rxBV1p1-KkSMTE_BQT2HhUZyOUM9jyA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer> >>>>
Re: ops4j domain names
pon., 23 mar 2020 o 08:50 Guillaume Nodet napisał(a): > Imho, we should switch everything to github. I wouldn't even bother > paying for a domain, i think something like ops4j.github.org is enough. > +1.02 regards Grzegorz Grzybek > > > Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 13:01, Toni Menzel a > écrit : > >> *TL/TR:* >> I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org (the one that is actively used >> atm). >> >> *Long version:* >> Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go with >> OPS4J in general. >> >> It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get >> hands dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust was >> default. Think about it, back then everyone could get write access to the >> subversion repo and start hacking on new or existing projects. Including >> admin access to jira and whatever else was existing back then. Pax URL, Pax >> Runner, Pax Exam, Pax Construct etc. all got initiated by individuals >> without asking for permission. I mean.. thats Names like Pax Tinybundles >> got to life.. but oh well. >> >> Now, why am I writing this: there is - at least for pax url, web and exam >> - a huge user base that seems to be quite healthy. Even if there is just >> that "ops4j" name of the github organization now, no website etc. >> >> So, question: what are the options? Let me just drop them here that come >> to my mind (ordered from easy-as-py to more complicated options): >> >>- keep things as is, find individual sponsors like I do with the >>Build Server (who uses that still by the way??), and JB or me (this means >>I'd be also fine to pay for the org domain that is in active use,too btw). >>It would be good to have two different companies or legal entities backing >>this anyway. >>- Modernize OPS4J a bit. Get it a landing page at least and a clear >>who is behind all this, who pays etc. Maybe look at Github Sponsoring to >>spread costs across user base - avoid single entity control. >>- Maybe look into making it a proper foundation or at least an entity >>that makes the work here eligible for future donations. I am not sure of >>this is worth it. But i feel Open Source != Open Governance. >>- Retire non active projects and donate active projects to apache. >>Probably difficult because of Intellectual Property) >> >> wdyt? >> Toni >> >> >> >> >> *Toni Menzel | rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> | growing developer >> culture* >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Niclas >>> >>> First of all, thanks a lot for all what you did (and still doing ). >>> >>> I’m ready to take the hand for the domain and finance them. >>> >>> Thoughts ? >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 12:13, Niclas Hedhman a >>> écrit : >>> >>>> Everyone, >>>> In a few months time (June), the OPS4J domain names are up for renewal. >>>> And I have been paying for those for 15 years now, and since I no longer >>>> participate in OPS4J I would like to transfer the domain names. But where >>>> to?? >>>> >>>> Ideally a foundation that would be Ok to take it over, otherwise to a >>>> trusted community member. >>>> >>>> Ideas are welcome, and should be discussed. I have no opinion and will >>>> simply follow what you all can agree on. >>>> >>>> ops4j.org >>>> ops4j.net >>>> ops4j.com >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Niclas >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "OPS4J" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CADmm%2BKf7a0rzdkro7v-rxBV1p1-KkSMTE_BQT2HhUZyOUM9jyA%40mail.gmail.com >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CADmm%2BKf7a0rzdkro7v-rxBV1p1-KkSMTE_BQT2HhUZyOUM9jyA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer> >>&
Re: ops4j domain names
Imho, we should switch everything to github. I wouldn't even bother paying for a domain, i think something like ops4j.github.org is enough. Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 13:01, Toni Menzel a écrit : > *TL/TR:* > I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org (the one that is actively used > atm). > > *Long version:* > Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go with > OPS4J in general. > > It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get hands > dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust was default. > Think about it, back then everyone could get write access to the subversion > repo and start hacking on new or existing projects. Including admin access > to jira and whatever else was existing back then. Pax URL, Pax Runner, Pax > Exam, Pax Construct etc. all got initiated by individuals without asking > for permission. I mean.. thats Names like Pax Tinybundles got to life.. but > oh well. > > Now, why am I writing this: there is - at least for pax url, web and exam > - a huge user base that seems to be quite healthy. Even if there is just > that "ops4j" name of the github organization now, no website etc. > > So, question: what are the options? Let me just drop them here that come > to my mind (ordered from easy-as-py to more complicated options): > >- keep things as is, find individual sponsors like I do with the Build >Server (who uses that still by the way??), and JB or me (this means I'd be >also fine to pay for the org domain that is in active use,too btw). It >would be good to have two different companies or legal entities backing >this anyway. >- Modernize OPS4J a bit. Get it a landing page at least and a clear >who is behind all this, who pays etc. Maybe look at Github Sponsoring to >spread costs across user base - avoid single entity control. >- Maybe look into making it a proper foundation or at least an entity >that makes the work here eligible for future donations. I am not sure of >this is worth it. But i feel Open Source != Open Governance. >- Retire non active projects and donate active projects to apache. >Probably difficult because of Intellectual Property) > > wdyt? > Toni > > > > > *Toni Menzel | rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> | growing developer > culture* > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Niclas >> >> First of all, thanks a lot for all what you did (and still doing ). >> >> I’m ready to take the hand for the domain and finance them. >> >> Thoughts ? >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 12:13, Niclas Hedhman a >> écrit : >> >>> Everyone, >>> In a few months time (June), the OPS4J domain names are up for renewal. >>> And I have been paying for those for 15 years now, and since I no longer >>> participate in OPS4J I would like to transfer the domain names. But where >>> to?? >>> >>> Ideally a foundation that would be Ok to take it over, otherwise to a >>> trusted community member. >>> >>> Ideas are welcome, and should be discussed. I have no opinion and will >>> simply follow what you all can agree on. >>> >>> ops4j.org >>> ops4j.net >>> ops4j.com >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> Niclas >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> -- >>> OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "OPS4J" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CADmm%2BKf7a0rzdkro7v-rxBV1p1-KkSMTE_BQT2HhUZyOUM9jyA%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CADmm%2BKf7a0rzdkro7v-rxBV1p1-KkSMTE_BQT2HhUZyOUM9jyA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- >> -- >> -- >> OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "OPS4J" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CAB8EV3
Re: ops4j domain names
Hello Coming back to the Git-Hub Actions, as a CI replacement. It does work quite > well, it would be great though to have an actually "green" build again ;) > I'm working on it ;) regards Grzegorz Grzybek sob., 21 mar 2020 o 18:34 'Achim Nierbeck' via OPS4J napisał(a): > Adding some more thoughts to it. > First of all, at least for Pax-Web the Actions seem to work as a ci > replacement. > So basically everything runs smoothly. > Regarding keeping Pax-Web as part of ops4j or Apache Karaf, I have no > strong preference. > It's just been an Idea, as it felt quite natural, as the main consumer is > still Apache Karaf. > So basically I'm fine with any way we proceed. > > Coming back to the Git-Hub Actions, as a CI replacement. It does work > quite well, it would be great though to have an actually "green" build > again ;) > > regards, Achim > > > Am Fr., 21. Feb. 2020 um 12:38 Uhr schrieb Toni Menzel < > toni.men...@rebaze.com>: > >> Yeah I agree with Nicolas concern about the original rebellious spirit of >> ops4j. I also like the highlight that ops4j is not just about osgi (that’s >> the pax prefix in all those projects btw). >> The key question is if GitHub just removed the need for such a place? >> If not, what should ops4j be? Coming back to options 1 to 3 of my >> original mail: just pay for the current expense (domain) or additionally >> refresh it with a little bit of extra effort (website/landing page, >> contribution guide) or (option 3) make it a legal entity (reasoning to be >> discussed). >> >> >> Toni Menzel | rebaze.com >> ---------- >> *From:* ops4j@googlegroups.com on behalf of >> Niclas Hedhman >> *Sent:* Friday, February 21, 2020 11:30:59 AM >> *To:* OPS4J >> *Subject:* Re: ops4j domain names >> >> >> FTR; Grzegorz is basically (re-)expressing the the original intent of >> OPS4J, i.e. no barriers, welcoming and make it to what we will/want. In the >> beginning, the founders had to run all services and we took time to put up >> the stuff we needed. The services are now 3rd party, and although that has >> been very positive, it has also slowly brewed a "it is what it is" rather >> than "what I/we want", and less engagement from community members. >> >> Going to Apache would also be a step "back", since OPS4J was a little bit >> protest against the "committer barriers" that is/was present in many >> projects. An over-protective mentality, if you like and OPS4J set out to >> prove that those barriers were not needed on the grounds that they were >> said to exist. >> >> Also to note; OPS4J didn't set out to be OSGi-centric. It was just that >> OSGi needed a somewhat more neutral ground than the original "homes", i.e. >> KF, Felix and Equinox communities, because interoperability back then was >> quite horrendous. >> >> Niclas >> >> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 6:18 PM Grzegorz Grzybek >> wrote: >> >> Hello >> >> I really don't feel competent enough to discuss such organization >> changes. For me having Pax-Web (and Pax-Logging and others) outside of ASF >> gives me easier release process. But I confess that I don't think much >> about how Sonatype's OPS4J repos are managed, by whom and using what rules. >> >> Felix indeed has log and http implementations, so adding pax-logging and >> pax-web to Karaf (even if natural) would be kind of strange at ASF. >> >> I'd also never consider "merging" felix.log and felix.http with >> pax-logging and pax-web respectively, because the latter have some specific >> features many people got used to (e.g., Undertow backend) >> >> What I miss is non existing CI for Pax projects. There was >> http://ci.ops4j.org/jenkins/ at some point, but it's no longer available. >> >> regards >> Grzegorz Grzybek >> >> czw., 20 lut 2020 o 08:06 Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> napisał(a): >> >> That's true, but I think that's also a drawback. >> >> The leak of governance and the fact we don't have any staging on releases >> could be seen as an issue. >> >> That's why it could be interesting to have this under the "Karaf >> Umbrella". >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 7:58 AM 'Christoph Läubrich' via OPS4J < >> ops4j@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> I always enjoyed the ease of contribution via github with minimal >> effort. While for apache-projects has alway
Re: ops4j domain names
Adding some more thoughts to it. First of all, at least for Pax-Web the Actions seem to work as a ci replacement. So basically everything runs smoothly. Regarding keeping Pax-Web as part of ops4j or Apache Karaf, I have no strong preference. It's just been an Idea, as it felt quite natural, as the main consumer is still Apache Karaf. So basically I'm fine with any way we proceed. Coming back to the Git-Hub Actions, as a CI replacement. It does work quite well, it would be great though to have an actually "green" build again ;) regards, Achim Am Fr., 21. Feb. 2020 um 12:38 Uhr schrieb Toni Menzel < toni.men...@rebaze.com>: > Yeah I agree with Nicolas concern about the original rebellious spirit of > ops4j. I also like the highlight that ops4j is not just about osgi (that’s > the pax prefix in all those projects btw). > The key question is if GitHub just removed the need for such a place? > If not, what should ops4j be? Coming back to options 1 to 3 of my original > mail: just pay for the current expense (domain) or additionally refresh it > with a little bit of extra effort (website/landing page, contribution > guide) or (option 3) make it a legal entity (reasoning to be discussed). > > > Toni Menzel | rebaze.com > -- > *From:* ops4j@googlegroups.com on behalf of > Niclas Hedhman > *Sent:* Friday, February 21, 2020 11:30:59 AM > *To:* OPS4J > *Subject:* Re: ops4j domain names > > > FTR; Grzegorz is basically (re-)expressing the the original intent of > OPS4J, i.e. no barriers, welcoming and make it to what we will/want. In the > beginning, the founders had to run all services and we took time to put up > the stuff we needed. The services are now 3rd party, and although that has > been very positive, it has also slowly brewed a "it is what it is" rather > than "what I/we want", and less engagement from community members. > > Going to Apache would also be a step "back", since OPS4J was a little bit > protest against the "committer barriers" that is/was present in many > projects. An over-protective mentality, if you like and OPS4J set out to > prove that those barriers were not needed on the grounds that they were > said to exist. > > Also to note; OPS4J didn't set out to be OSGi-centric. It was just that > OSGi needed a somewhat more neutral ground than the original "homes", i.e. > KF, Felix and Equinox communities, because interoperability back then was > quite horrendous. > > Niclas > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 6:18 PM Grzegorz Grzybek > wrote: > > Hello > > I really don't feel competent enough to discuss such organization changes. > For me having Pax-Web (and Pax-Logging and others) outside of ASF gives me > easier release process. But I confess that I don't think much about how > Sonatype's OPS4J repos are managed, by whom and using what rules. > > Felix indeed has log and http implementations, so adding pax-logging and > pax-web to Karaf (even if natural) would be kind of strange at ASF. > > I'd also never consider "merging" felix.log and felix.http with > pax-logging and pax-web respectively, because the latter have some specific > features many people got used to (e.g., Undertow backend) > > What I miss is non existing CI for Pax projects. There was > http://ci.ops4j.org/jenkins/ at some point, but it's no longer available. > > regards > Grzegorz Grzybek > > czw., 20 lut 2020 o 08:06 Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> napisał(a): > > That's true, but I think that's also a drawback. > > The leak of governance and the fact we don't have any staging on releases > could be seen as an issue. > > That's why it could be interesting to have this under the "Karaf Umbrella". > > Regards > JB > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 7:58 AM 'Christoph Läubrich' via OPS4J < > ops4j@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > I always enjoyed the ease of contribution via github with minimal > effort. While for apache-projects has always felt like a mess because of > different hurdles. > > So I would defiantly vote for staying with github, dropping JIRA in > favour of github issues (they improved the issue/project handling a lot) > to centralize development to one place. > > Github even offers building "Actions" now so maybe this is also an > alternative for custom build-server. > > Am 20.02.20 um 07:17 schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofré: > > Hi, > > > > If option 4 is interesting, we have to remember: > > > > 1. First, in which Apache umbrella project. I don't think Felix is a > > good match as we might have some overlap with existing projects (felix > > http, ...). Maybe Kara
Re: ops4j domain names
Yeah I agree with Nicolas concern about the original rebellious spirit of ops4j. I also like the highlight that ops4j is not just about osgi (that’s the pax prefix in all those projects btw). The key question is if GitHub just removed the need for such a place? If not, what should ops4j be? Coming back to options 1 to 3 of my original mail: just pay for the current expense (domain) or additionally refresh it with a little bit of extra effort (website/landing page, contribution guide) or (option 3) make it a legal entity (reasoning to be discussed). Toni Menzel | rebaze.com From: ops4j@googlegroups.com on behalf of Niclas Hedhman Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 11:30:59 AM To: OPS4J Subject: Re: ops4j domain names FTR; Grzegorz is basically (re-)expressing the the original intent of OPS4J, i.e. no barriers, welcoming and make it to what we will/want. In the beginning, the founders had to run all services and we took time to put up the stuff we needed. The services are now 3rd party, and although that has been very positive, it has also slowly brewed a "it is what it is" rather than "what I/we want", and less engagement from community members. Going to Apache would also be a step "back", since OPS4J was a little bit protest against the "committer barriers" that is/was present in many projects. An over-protective mentality, if you like and OPS4J set out to prove that those barriers were not needed on the grounds that they were said to exist. Also to note; OPS4J didn't set out to be OSGi-centric. It was just that OSGi needed a somewhat more neutral ground than the original "homes", i.e. KF, Felix and Equinox communities, because interoperability back then was quite horrendous. Niclas On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 6:18 PM Grzegorz Grzybek mailto:gr.grzy...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello I really don't feel competent enough to discuss such organization changes. For me having Pax-Web (and Pax-Logging and others) outside of ASF gives me easier release process. But I confess that I don't think much about how Sonatype's OPS4J repos are managed, by whom and using what rules. Felix indeed has log and http implementations, so adding pax-logging and pax-web to Karaf (even if natural) would be kind of strange at ASF. I'd also never consider "merging" felix.log and felix.http with pax-logging and pax-web respectively, because the latter have some specific features many people got used to (e.g., Undertow backend) What I miss is non existing CI for Pax projects. There was http://ci.ops4j.org/jenkins/ at some point, but it's no longer available. regards Grzegorz Grzybek czw., 20 lut 2020 o 08:06 Jean-Baptiste Onofré mailto:jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com>> napisał(a): That's true, but I think that's also a drawback. The leak of governance and the fact we don't have any staging on releases could be seen as an issue. That's why it could be interesting to have this under the "Karaf Umbrella". Regards JB On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 7:58 AM 'Christoph Läubrich' via OPS4J mailto:ops4j@googlegroups.com>> wrote: I always enjoyed the ease of contribution via github with minimal effort. While for apache-projects has always felt like a mess because of different hurdles. So I would defiantly vote for staying with github, dropping JIRA in favour of github issues (they improved the issue/project handling a lot) to centralize development to one place. Github even offers building "Actions" now so maybe this is also an alternative for custom build-server. Am 20.02.20 um 07:17 schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofré: > Hi, > > If option 4 is interesting, we have to remember: > > 1. First, in which Apache umbrella project. I don't think Felix is a > good match as we might have some overlap with existing projects (felix > http, ...). Maybe Karaf ? > 2. We need to transfer IP and "PMC" set and ask in the Apache project > community with a formal vote. > 3. We will have to follow Apache process, especially for releases > (meaning at least 3 days vote, 3 binding votes, etc), extending Apache > pom, etc. > > So, IMHO, we have really two options: > > 1. We keep OPS4J community, do a cleanup (announcing non active projects) > 2. We move active Pax projects to Apache (obviously my preference would > be Karaf). > > Thoughts ? > > Regards > JB > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 1:01 PM Toni Menzel > mailto:toni.men...@rebaze.com> > <mailto:toni.men...@rebaze.com<mailto:toni.men...@rebaze.com>>> wrote: > > *TL/TR:* > I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org<http://ops4j.org> > <http://ops4j.org> (the one > that is actively used atm). > > *Long version:* > Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go > with OPS
Re: ops4j domain names
>> > companies or legal entities backing this anyway. >> > * Modernize OPS4J a bit. Get it a landing page at least and a >> > clear who is behind all this, who pays etc. Maybe look at Github >> > Sponsoring to spread costs across user base - avoid single >> > entity control. >> > * Maybe look into making it a proper foundation or at least an >> > entity that makes the work here eligible for future donations. I >> > am not sure of this is worth it. But i feel Open Source != Open >> > Governance. >> > * Retire non active projects and donate active projects to apache. >> > Probably difficult because of Intellectual Property) >> > >> > wdyt? >> > Toni >> > >> > >> > *Toni Menzel | rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> | growing >> > developer culture >> > >> > * >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré >> > > > <mailto:jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Niclas >> > >> > First of all, thanks a lot for all what you did (and still doing >> > ). >> > >> > I’m ready to take the hand for the domain and finance them. >> > >> > Thoughts ? >> > >> > Regards >> > JB >> > >> > Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 12:13, Niclas Hedhman >> > mailto:nic...@hedhman.org>> a écrit : >> > >> > Everyone, >> > In a few months time (June), the OPS4J domain names are up >> > for renewal. And I have been paying for those for 15 years >> > now, and since I no longer participate in OPS4J I would like >> > to transfer the domain names. But where to?? >> > >> > Ideally a foundation that would be Ok to take it over, >> > otherwise to a trusted community member. >> > >> > Ideas are welcome, and should be discussed. I have no >> > opinion and will simply follow what you all can agree on. >> > >> > ops4j.org <http://ops4j.org> >> > ops4j.net <http://ops4j.net> >> > ops4j.com <http://ops4j.com> >> > >> > >> > Cheers >> > Niclas >> > >> > -- >> > -- >> > -- >> > OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com >> > <mailto:ops4j@googlegroups.com> >> > >> > --- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the >> > Google Groups "OPS4J" group. >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails >> > from it, send an email to >> ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >> > <mailto:ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> > >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CADmm%2BKf7a0rzdkro7v-rxBV1p1-KkSMTE_BQT2HhUZyOUM9jyA%40mail.gmail.com >> > < >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CADmm%2BKf7a0rzdkro7v-rxBV1p1-KkSMTE_BQT2HhUZyOUM9jyA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer >> >. >> > >> > -- >> > -- >> > -- >> > OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com >> > <mailto:ops4j@googlegroups.com> >> > >> > --- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the >> > Google Groups "OPS4J" group. >> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from >> > it, send an email to ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >> > <mailto:ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> > >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CAB8EV3QGMMWvzzCck96CxemuYgSiYWNcs%2BOGPXmtaKTthoJvrw%40mail.gmail.com >> > < >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CAB8EV3QGMMWvzzCck96CxemuYgSiYWNcs%2BOGPXmtaKTthoJvrw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer >> >. >> > >> > -- >> > -- >>
Re: ops4j domain names
Since I know one thing or two about Apache and the Apache License... perhaps I should chime in. 1. Pax Logger was actually donated to Felix once before, but nothing came out of it. It was a simple IP clearance paper to fill in and upload together with a tarball. This was simple because no community came with it. 2. Since re-licensing is not needed, all contributions in OPS4J can be handed over to Apache Software Foundation without getting approvals from individuals. Legally, Karaf could take the bits it wants and continue "over there", but that is against the tradition in Apache to not fork if the community doesn't want it. 3. IMHO, the main issue with Apache (or any other foundation) would be the "community". I would expect that everyone that has contributed anything would "come along" to Apache, in which case Karaf PMC might not be OK of accepting that many committers in one go, although they could do it. Going in via the Incubator is something I probably would recommend against. I haven't checked recently, but many years ago there were >100 contributors that had made commits to the Pax codebase. Of course, many just showed up for a single commit, and many are no longer around. But they shouldn't be ignored. Niclas On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 4:22 PM 'Christoph Läubrich' via OPS4J < ops4j@googlegroups.com> wrote: > This does not mean that it would only be possible under any > "governance-umbrella", but I also understand that Karaf is the main > consumer and/or driver of current development. > > Thus I'm not completely against it (and would not have any obligations > to give any organization the required permission for any contribution I > have made to pax projects), my only fear is that this process will even > be going further so things are getting more and more "karaf-like" and > other requirements are not taken into account anymore. > > So whatever is decided, I have really enjoyed all the years even though > contributions from my side are not always constant over time it was the > entry-point for me to getting started with OpenSource contributions. > > -- -- -- OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OPS4J" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CADmm%2BKdr%3DgFHo5d7_aSLTm_uucaHW%3DyrEeQat%3DjjUth_BJDdGw%40mail.gmail.com.
Re: ops4j domain names
ead costs across user base - avoid single > entity control. > * Maybe look into making it a proper foundation or at least an > entity that makes the work here eligible for future donations. I > am not sure of this is worth it. But i feel Open Source != Open > Governance. > * Retire non active projects and donate active projects to apache. > Probably difficult because of Intellectual Property) > > wdyt? > Toni > > > *Toni Menzel | rebaze.com <http://rebaze.com> <https://www.rebaze.com> | growing > developer culture > > * > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré > mailto:jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> > <mailto:jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com <mailto:jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com>>> wrote: > > Hi Niclas > > First of all, thanks a lot for all what you did (and still doing > ). > > I’m ready to take the hand for the domain and finance them. > > Thoughts ? > > Regards > JB > > Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 12:13, Niclas Hedhman > mailto:nic...@hedhman.org> <mailto:nic...@hedhman.org <mailto:nic...@hedhman.org>>> a écrit : > > Everyone, > In a few months time (June), the OPS4J domain names are up > for renewal. And I have been paying for those for 15 years > now, and since I no longer participate in OPS4J I would like > to transfer the domain names. But where to?? > > Ideally a foundation that would be Ok to take it over, > otherwise to a trusted community member. > > Ideas are welcome, and should be discussed. I have no > opinion and will simply follow what you all can agree on. > > ops4j.org <http://ops4j.org> <http://ops4j.org> > ops4j.net <http://ops4j.net> <http://ops4j.net> > ops4j.com <http://ops4j.com> <http://ops4j.com> > > > Cheers > Niclas > > -- > -- > -- > OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com <mailto:ops4j@googlegroups.com> > <mailto:ops4j@googlegroups.com <mailto:ops4j@googlegroups.com>> > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google Groups "OPS4J" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails > from it, send an email to ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:ops4j%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > <mailto:ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:ops4j%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CADmm%2BKf7a0rzdkro7v-rxBV1p1-KkSMTE_BQT2HhUZyOUM9jyA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CADmm%2BKf7a0rzdkro7v-rxBV1p1-KkSMTE_BQT2HhUZyOUM9jyA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>. > > -- > -- > -- > OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com <mailto:ops4j@googlegroups.com> > <mailto:ops4j@googlegroups.com <mailto:ops4j@googlegroups.com>> > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google Groups "OPS4J" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from > it, send an email to ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:ops4j%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > <mailto:ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:ops4j%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CAB8EV3QGMMWvzzCck96CxemuYgSiYWNcs%2BOGPXmtaKTthoJvrw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CAB8EV3QGMMWvzzCck96CxemuYgSiYWNcs%2BOGPXmtaKTthoJvrw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer>. > > -- > -- >
Re: ops4j domain names
That's true, but I think that's also a drawback. The leak of governance and the fact we don't have any staging on releases could be seen as an issue. That's why it could be interesting to have this under the "Karaf Umbrella". Regards JB On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 7:58 AM 'Christoph Läubrich' via OPS4J < ops4j@googlegroups.com> wrote: > I always enjoyed the ease of contribution via github with minimal > effort. While for apache-projects has always felt like a mess because of > different hurdles. > > So I would defiantly vote for staying with github, dropping JIRA in > favour of github issues (they improved the issue/project handling a lot) > to centralize development to one place. > > Github even offers building "Actions" now so maybe this is also an > alternative for custom build-server. > > Am 20.02.20 um 07:17 schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofré: > > Hi, > > > > If option 4 is interesting, we have to remember: > > > > 1. First, in which Apache umbrella project. I don't think Felix is a > > good match as we might have some overlap with existing projects (felix > > http, ...). Maybe Karaf ? > > 2. We need to transfer IP and "PMC" set and ask in the Apache project > > community with a formal vote. > > 3. We will have to follow Apache process, especially for releases > > (meaning at least 3 days vote, 3 binding votes, etc), extending Apache > > pom, etc. > > > > So, IMHO, we have really two options: > > > > 1. We keep OPS4J community, do a cleanup (announcing non active projects) > > 2. We move active Pax projects to Apache (obviously my preference would > > be Karaf). > > > > Thoughts ? > > > > Regards > > JB > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 1:01 PM Toni Menzel > <mailto:toni.men...@rebaze.com>> wrote: > > > > *TL/TR:* > > I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org <http://ops4j.org> (the one > > that is actively used atm). > > > > *Long version:* > > Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go > > with OPS4J in general. > > > > It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get > > hands dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust > > was default. Think about it, back then everyone could get write > > access to the subversion repo and start hacking on new or existing > > projects. Including admin access to jira and whatever else was > > existing back then. Pax URL, Pax Runner, Pax Exam, Pax Construct > > etc. all got initiated by individuals without asking for permission. > > I mean.. thats Names like Pax Tinybundles got to life.. but oh well. > > > > Now, why am I writing this: there is - at least for pax url, web and > > exam - a huge user base that seems to be quite healthy. Even if > > there is just that "ops4j" name of the github organization now, no > > website etc. > > > > So, question: what are the options? Let me just drop them here that > > come to my mind (ordered from easy-as-py to more complicated > options): > > > > * keep things as is, find individual sponsors like I do with the > > Build Server (who uses that still by the way??), and JB or me > > (this means I'd be also fine to pay for the org domain that is > > in active use,too btw). It would be good to have two different > > companies or legal entities backing this anyway. > > * Modernize OPS4J a bit. Get it a landing page at least and a > > clear who is behind all this, who pays etc. Maybe look at Github > > Sponsoring to spread costs across user base - avoid single > > entity control. > > * Maybe look into making it a proper foundation or at least an > > entity that makes the work here eligible for future donations. I > > am not sure of this is worth it. But i feel Open Source != Open > > Governance. > > * Retire non active projects and donate active projects to apache. > > Probably difficult because of Intellectual Property) > > > > wdyt? > > Toni > > > > > > *Toni Menzel | rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> | growing > > developer culture > > > > * > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré > > > <mailto:jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Hi Niclas > > > > First of all, thanks a lot f
Re: ops4j domain names
I always enjoyed the ease of contribution via github with minimal
effort. While for apache-projects has always felt like a mess because of
different hurdles.
So I would defiantly vote for staying with github, dropping JIRA in
favour of github issues (they improved the issue/project handling a lot)
to centralize development to one place.
Github even offers building "Actions" now so maybe this is also an
alternative for custom build-server.
Am 20.02.20 um 07:17 schrieb Jean-Baptiste Onofré:
Hi,
If option 4 is interesting, we have to remember:
1. First, in which Apache umbrella project. I don't think Felix is a
good match as we might have some overlap with existing projects (felix
http, ...). Maybe Karaf ?
2. We need to transfer IP and "PMC" set and ask in the Apache project
community with a formal vote.
3. We will have to follow Apache process, especially for releases
(meaning at least 3 days vote, 3 binding votes, etc), extending Apache
pom, etc.
So, IMHO, we have really two options:
1. We keep OPS4J community, do a cleanup (announcing non active projects)
2. We move active Pax projects to Apache (obviously my preference would
be Karaf).
Thoughts ?
Regards
JB
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 1:01 PM Toni Menzel <mailto:toni.men...@rebaze.com>> wrote:
*TL/TR:*
I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org <http://ops4j.org> (the one
that is actively used atm).
*Long version:*
Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go
with OPS4J in general.
It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get
hands dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust
was default. Think about it, back then everyone could get write
access to the subversion repo and start hacking on new or existing
projects. Including admin access to jira and whatever else was
existing back then. Pax URL, Pax Runner, Pax Exam, Pax Construct
etc. all got initiated by individuals without asking for permission.
I mean.. thats Names like Pax Tinybundles got to life.. but oh well.
Now, why am I writing this: there is - at least for pax url, web and
exam - a huge user base that seems to be quite healthy. Even if
there is just that "ops4j" name of the github organization now, no
website etc.
So, question: what are the options? Let me just drop them here that
come to my mind (ordered from easy-as-py to more complicated options):
* keep things as is, find individual sponsors like I do with the
Build Server (who uses that still by the way??), and JB or me
(this means I'd be also fine to pay for the org domain that is
in active use,too btw). It would be good to have two different
companies or legal entities backing this anyway.
* Modernize OPS4J a bit. Get it a landing page at least and a
clear who is behind all this, who pays etc. Maybe look at Github
Sponsoring to spread costs across user base - avoid single
entity control.
* Maybe look into making it a proper foundation or at least an
entity that makes the work here eligible for future donations. I
am not sure of this is worth it. But i feel Open Source != Open
Governance.
* Retire non active projects and donate active projects to apache.
Probably difficult because of Intellectual Property)
wdyt?
Toni
*Toni Menzel | rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> | growing
developer culture
*
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré
mailto:jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Niclas
First of all, thanks a lot for all what you did (and still doing
).
I’m ready to take the hand for the domain and finance them.
Thoughts ?
Regards
JB
Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 12:13, Niclas Hedhman
mailto:nic...@hedhman.org>> a écrit :
Everyone,
In a few months time (June), the OPS4J domain names are up
for renewal. And I have been paying for those for 15 years
now, and since I no longer participate in OPS4J I would like
to transfer the domain names. But where to??
Ideally a foundation that would be Ok to take it over,
otherwise to a trusted community member.
Ideas are welcome, and should be discussed. I have no
opinion and will simply follow what you all can agree on.
ops4j.org <http://ops4j.org>
ops4j.net <http://ops4j.net>
ops4j.com <http://ops4j.com>
Cheers
Niclas
--
--
--
OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com
<mailto:ops4j@googlegroups.com>
---
You received
Re: ops4j domain names
Hi, If option 4 is interesting, we have to remember: 1. First, in which Apache umbrella project. I don't think Felix is a good match as we might have some overlap with existing projects (felix http, ...). Maybe Karaf ? 2. We need to transfer IP and "PMC" set and ask in the Apache project community with a formal vote. 3. We will have to follow Apache process, especially for releases (meaning at least 3 days vote, 3 binding votes, etc), extending Apache pom, etc. So, IMHO, we have really two options: 1. We keep OPS4J community, do a cleanup (announcing non active projects) 2. We move active Pax projects to Apache (obviously my preference would be Karaf). Thoughts ? Regards JB On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 1:01 PM Toni Menzel wrote: > *TL/TR:* > I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org (the one that is actively used > atm). > > *Long version:* > Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go with > OPS4J in general. > > It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get hands > dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust was default. > Think about it, back then everyone could get write access to the subversion > repo and start hacking on new or existing projects. Including admin access > to jira and whatever else was existing back then. Pax URL, Pax Runner, Pax > Exam, Pax Construct etc. all got initiated by individuals without asking > for permission. I mean.. thats Names like Pax Tinybundles got to life.. but > oh well. > > Now, why am I writing this: there is - at least for pax url, web and exam > - a huge user base that seems to be quite healthy. Even if there is just > that "ops4j" name of the github organization now, no website etc. > > So, question: what are the options? Let me just drop them here that come > to my mind (ordered from easy-as-py to more complicated options): > >- keep things as is, find individual sponsors like I do with the Build >Server (who uses that still by the way??), and JB or me (this means I'd be >also fine to pay for the org domain that is in active use,too btw). It >would be good to have two different companies or legal entities backing >this anyway. >- Modernize OPS4J a bit. Get it a landing page at least and a clear >who is behind all this, who pays etc. Maybe look at Github Sponsoring to >spread costs across user base - avoid single entity control. >- Maybe look into making it a proper foundation or at least an entity >that makes the work here eligible for future donations. I am not sure of >this is worth it. But i feel Open Source != Open Governance. >- Retire non active projects and donate active projects to apache. >Probably difficult because of Intellectual Property) > > wdyt? > Toni > > > > > *Toni Menzel | rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> | growing developer > culture* > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Niclas >> >> First of all, thanks a lot for all what you did (and still doing ). >> >> I’m ready to take the hand for the domain and finance them. >> >> Thoughts ? >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 12:13, Niclas Hedhman a >> écrit : >> >>> Everyone, >>> In a few months time (June), the OPS4J domain names are up for renewal. >>> And I have been paying for those for 15 years now, and since I no longer >>> participate in OPS4J I would like to transfer the domain names. But where >>> to?? >>> >>> Ideally a foundation that would be Ok to take it over, otherwise to a >>> trusted community member. >>> >>> Ideas are welcome, and should be discussed. I have no opinion and will >>> simply follow what you all can agree on. >>> >>> ops4j.org >>> ops4j.net >>> ops4j.com >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> Niclas >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> -- >>> OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "OPS4J" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CADmm%2BKf7a0rzdkro7v-rxBV1p1-KkSMTE_BQT2HhUZyOUM9jyA%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CADmm%2BKf7a0rzdkro7v-rxBV1p1-KkSMTE_BQT2HhUZyOUM9jyA%40
Re: ops4j domain names
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 3:25:31 PM CET 'Achim Nierbeck' via OPS4J wrote: > Hi, > > I fully agree on Toni ... > actually for PaxWeb it had always been an issue of not beeing an apache > project. > Therefore I'd go with option 4, the how-to would be needed to be worked > out. Really? But we already have a HTTP and Log service at Felix (and another one at Sling) and I guess it means a lot of paper work related to IP and donations. O. > regards, Achim > > > Am Mi., 19. Feb. 2020 um 13:21 Uhr schrieb Grzegorz Grzybek < > > gr.grzy...@gmail.com>: > > Hello > > > > While being happy contributor of pax-logging, pax-web, > > pax-jdbc/jms/transx, pax-url, pax-cdi, I never wonder about how it works. > > I've never seen working https://ops4j.org site (it's now "it works!" > > page) and I assumed Atlassian is providing us (how?) JIRA + Confluence. > > > > I don't know what to suggest, except that I'll welcome any improvement ;) > > > > regards > > Grzegorz Grzybek > > > > śr., 19 lut 2020 o 13:15 Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > > > > jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> napisał(a): > >> Hi Toni > >> > >> Thanks for bringing this discussion forward. > >> > >> I agree with your statements. Let me get back with comments and > >> proposals. > >> > >> Regards > >> JB > >> > >> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 13:01, Toni Menzel a > >> > >> écrit : > >>> *TL/TR:* > >>> I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org (the one that is actively used > >>> atm). > >>> > >>> *Long version:* > >>> Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go with > >>> OPS4J in general. > >>> > >>> It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get > >>> hands dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust was > >>> default. Think about it, back then everyone could get write access to > >>> the > >>> subversion repo and start hacking on new or existing projects. Including > >>> admin access to jira and whatever else was existing back then. Pax URL, > >>> Pax > >>> Runner, Pax Exam, Pax Construct etc. all got initiated by individuals > >>> without asking for permission. I mean.. thats Names like Pax Tinybundles > >>> got to life.. but oh well. > >>> > >>> Now, why am I writing this: there is - at least for pax url, web and > >>> exam - a huge user base that seems to be quite healthy. Even if there is > >>> just that "ops4j" name of the github organization now, no website etc. > >>> > >>> So, question: what are the options? Let me just drop them here that come > >>> > >>> to my mind (ordered from easy-as-py to more complicated options): > >>>- keep things as is, find individual sponsors like I do with the > >>>Build Server (who uses that still by the way??), and JB or me (this > >>>means > >>>I'd be also fine to pay for the org domain that is in active use,too > >>>btw). > >>>It would be good to have two different companies or legal entities > >>>backing > >>>this anyway. > >>>- Modernize OPS4J a bit. Get it a landing page at least and a clear > >>>who is behind all this, who pays etc. Maybe look at Github Sponsoring > >>>to > >>>spread costs across user base - avoid single entity control. > >>>- Maybe look into making it a proper foundation or at least an > >>>entity that makes the work here eligible for future donations. I am > >>>not > >>>sure of this is worth it. But i feel Open Source != Open Governance. > >>> - Retire non active projects and donate active projects to apache. > >>>Probably difficult because of Intellectual Property) > >>> > >>> wdyt? > >>> Toni > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *Toni Menzel | rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> | growing developer > >>> culture* > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > >>> > >>> jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Hi Niclas > >>>> > >>>> First of all, thanks a lot for all what you did (and still doing
Re: ops4j domain names
Hi, I fully agree on Toni ... actually for PaxWeb it had always been an issue of not beeing an apache project. Therefore I'd go with option 4, the how-to would be needed to be worked out. regards, Achim Am Mi., 19. Feb. 2020 um 13:21 Uhr schrieb Grzegorz Grzybek < gr.grzy...@gmail.com>: > Hello > > While being happy contributor of pax-logging, pax-web, > pax-jdbc/jms/transx, pax-url, pax-cdi, I never wonder about how it works. > I've never seen working https://ops4j.org site (it's now "it works!" > page) and I assumed Atlassian is providing us (how?) JIRA + Confluence. > > I don't know what to suggest, except that I'll welcome any improvement ;) > > regards > Grzegorz Grzybek > > śr., 19 lut 2020 o 13:15 Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> napisał(a): > >> Hi Toni >> >> Thanks for bringing this discussion forward. >> >> I agree with your statements. Let me get back with comments and >> proposals. >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 13:01, Toni Menzel a >> écrit : >> >>> *TL/TR:* >>> I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org (the one that is actively used >>> atm). >>> >>> *Long version:* >>> Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go with >>> OPS4J in general. >>> >>> It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get >>> hands dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust was >>> default. Think about it, back then everyone could get write access to the >>> subversion repo and start hacking on new or existing projects. Including >>> admin access to jira and whatever else was existing back then. Pax URL, Pax >>> Runner, Pax Exam, Pax Construct etc. all got initiated by individuals >>> without asking for permission. I mean.. thats Names like Pax Tinybundles >>> got to life.. but oh well. >>> >>> Now, why am I writing this: there is - at least for pax url, web and >>> exam - a huge user base that seems to be quite healthy. Even if there is >>> just that "ops4j" name of the github organization now, no website etc. >>> >>> So, question: what are the options? Let me just drop them here that come >>> to my mind (ordered from easy-as-py to more complicated options): >>> >>>- keep things as is, find individual sponsors like I do with the >>>Build Server (who uses that still by the way??), and JB or me (this means >>>I'd be also fine to pay for the org domain that is in active use,too >>> btw). >>>It would be good to have two different companies or legal entities >>> backing >>>this anyway. >>>- Modernize OPS4J a bit. Get it a landing page at least and a clear >>>who is behind all this, who pays etc. Maybe look at Github Sponsoring to >>>spread costs across user base - avoid single entity control. >>>- Maybe look into making it a proper foundation or at least an >>>entity that makes the work here eligible for future donations. I am not >>>sure of this is worth it. But i feel Open Source != Open Governance. >>>- Retire non active projects and donate active projects to apache. >>>Probably difficult because of Intellectual Property) >>> >>> wdyt? >>> Toni >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Toni Menzel | rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> | growing developer >>> culture* >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >>> jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Niclas >>>> >>>> First of all, thanks a lot for all what you did (and still doing ). >>>> >>>> I’m ready to take the hand for the domain and finance them. >>>> >>>> Thoughts ? >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> JB >>>> >>>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 12:13, Niclas Hedhman a >>>> écrit : >>>> >>>>> Everyone, >>>>> In a few months time (June), the OPS4J domain names are up for >>>>> renewal. And I have been paying for those for 15 years now, and since I no >>>>> longer participate in OPS4J I would like to transfer the domain names. But >>>>> where to?? >>>>> >>>>> Ideally a foundation that would be Ok to take it over, otherwise to a >>>>> trusted community member. >>>>> >>>
Re: ops4j domain names
Hello While being happy contributor of pax-logging, pax-web, pax-jdbc/jms/transx, pax-url, pax-cdi, I never wonder about how it works. I've never seen working https://ops4j.org site (it's now "it works!" page) and I assumed Atlassian is providing us (how?) JIRA + Confluence. I don't know what to suggest, except that I'll welcome any improvement ;) regards Grzegorz Grzybek śr., 19 lut 2020 o 13:15 Jean-Baptiste Onofré napisał(a): > Hi Toni > > Thanks for bringing this discussion forward. > > I agree with your statements. Let me get back with comments and proposals. > > Regards > JB > > Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 13:01, Toni Menzel a > écrit : > >> *TL/TR:* >> I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org (the one that is actively used >> atm). >> >> *Long version:* >> Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go with >> OPS4J in general. >> >> It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get >> hands dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust was >> default. Think about it, back then everyone could get write access to the >> subversion repo and start hacking on new or existing projects. Including >> admin access to jira and whatever else was existing back then. Pax URL, Pax >> Runner, Pax Exam, Pax Construct etc. all got initiated by individuals >> without asking for permission. I mean.. thats Names like Pax Tinybundles >> got to life.. but oh well. >> >> Now, why am I writing this: there is - at least for pax url, web and exam >> - a huge user base that seems to be quite healthy. Even if there is just >> that "ops4j" name of the github organization now, no website etc. >> >> So, question: what are the options? Let me just drop them here that come >> to my mind (ordered from easy-as-py to more complicated options): >> >>- keep things as is, find individual sponsors like I do with the >>Build Server (who uses that still by the way??), and JB or me (this means >>I'd be also fine to pay for the org domain that is in active use,too btw). >>It would be good to have two different companies or legal entities backing >>this anyway. >>- Modernize OPS4J a bit. Get it a landing page at least and a clear >>who is behind all this, who pays etc. Maybe look at Github Sponsoring to >>spread costs across user base - avoid single entity control. >>- Maybe look into making it a proper foundation or at least an entity >>that makes the work here eligible for future donations. I am not sure of >>this is worth it. But i feel Open Source != Open Governance. >>- Retire non active projects and donate active projects to apache. >>Probably difficult because of Intellectual Property) >> >> wdyt? >> Toni >> >> >> >> >> *Toni Menzel | rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> | growing developer >> culture* >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < >> jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Niclas >>> >>> First of all, thanks a lot for all what you did (and still doing ). >>> >>> I’m ready to take the hand for the domain and finance them. >>> >>> Thoughts ? >>> >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 12:13, Niclas Hedhman a >>> écrit : >>> >>>> Everyone, >>>> In a few months time (June), the OPS4J domain names are up for renewal. >>>> And I have been paying for those for 15 years now, and since I no longer >>>> participate in OPS4J I would like to transfer the domain names. But where >>>> to?? >>>> >>>> Ideally a foundation that would be Ok to take it over, otherwise to a >>>> trusted community member. >>>> >>>> Ideas are welcome, and should be discussed. I have no opinion and will >>>> simply follow what you all can agree on. >>>> >>>> ops4j.org >>>> ops4j.net >>>> ops4j.com >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Niclas >>>> >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "OPS4J" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to ops4j+unsubscr...@goo
Re: ops4j domain names
Hi Toni Thanks for bringing this discussion forward. I agree with your statements. Let me get back with comments and proposals. Regards JB Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 13:01, Toni Menzel a écrit : > *TL/TR:* > I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org (the one that is actively used > atm). > > *Long version:* > Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go with > OPS4J in general. > > It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get hands > dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust was default. > Think about it, back then everyone could get write access to the subversion > repo and start hacking on new or existing projects. Including admin access > to jira and whatever else was existing back then. Pax URL, Pax Runner, Pax > Exam, Pax Construct etc. all got initiated by individuals without asking > for permission. I mean.. thats Names like Pax Tinybundles got to life.. but > oh well. > > Now, why am I writing this: there is - at least for pax url, web and exam > - a huge user base that seems to be quite healthy. Even if there is just > that "ops4j" name of the github organization now, no website etc. > > So, question: what are the options? Let me just drop them here that come > to my mind (ordered from easy-as-py to more complicated options): > >- keep things as is, find individual sponsors like I do with the Build >Server (who uses that still by the way??), and JB or me (this means I'd be >also fine to pay for the org domain that is in active use,too btw). It >would be good to have two different companies or legal entities backing >this anyway. >- Modernize OPS4J a bit. Get it a landing page at least and a clear >who is behind all this, who pays etc. Maybe look at Github Sponsoring to >spread costs across user base - avoid single entity control. >- Maybe look into making it a proper foundation or at least an entity >that makes the work here eligible for future donations. I am not sure of >this is worth it. But i feel Open Source != Open Governance. >- Retire non active projects and donate active projects to apache. >Probably difficult because of Intellectual Property) > > wdyt? > Toni > > > > > *Toni Menzel | rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> | growing developer > culture* > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < > jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Niclas >> >> First of all, thanks a lot for all what you did (and still doing ). >> >> I’m ready to take the hand for the domain and finance them. >> >> Thoughts ? >> >> Regards >> JB >> >> Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 12:13, Niclas Hedhman a >> écrit : >> >>> Everyone, >>> In a few months time (June), the OPS4J domain names are up for renewal. >>> And I have been paying for those for 15 years now, and since I no longer >>> participate in OPS4J I would like to transfer the domain names. But where >>> to?? >>> >>> Ideally a foundation that would be Ok to take it over, otherwise to a >>> trusted community member. >>> >>> Ideas are welcome, and should be discussed. I have no opinion and will >>> simply follow what you all can agree on. >>> >>> ops4j.org >>> ops4j.net >>> ops4j.com >>> >>> >>> Cheers >>> Niclas >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> -- >>> OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "OPS4J" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CADmm%2BKf7a0rzdkro7v-rxBV1p1-KkSMTE_BQT2HhUZyOUM9jyA%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CADmm%2BKf7a0rzdkro7v-rxBV1p1-KkSMTE_BQT2HhUZyOUM9jyA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- >> -- >> -- >> OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "OPS4J" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CAB8
Re: ops4j domain names
*TL/TR:* I'd be also happy to pay for ops4j.org (the one that is actively used atm). *Long version:* Since this is coming up now, there is a general question were to go with OPS4J in general. It predated github and probably was back then the easiest way to get hands dirty in a non-trivial java based OSS community where trust was default. Think about it, back then everyone could get write access to the subversion repo and start hacking on new or existing projects. Including admin access to jira and whatever else was existing back then. Pax URL, Pax Runner, Pax Exam, Pax Construct etc. all got initiated by individuals without asking for permission. I mean.. thats Names like Pax Tinybundles got to life.. but oh well. Now, why am I writing this: there is - at least for pax url, web and exam - a huge user base that seems to be quite healthy. Even if there is just that "ops4j" name of the github organization now, no website etc. So, question: what are the options? Let me just drop them here that come to my mind (ordered from easy-as-py to more complicated options): - keep things as is, find individual sponsors like I do with the Build Server (who uses that still by the way??), and JB or me (this means I'd be also fine to pay for the org domain that is in active use,too btw). It would be good to have two different companies or legal entities backing this anyway. - Modernize OPS4J a bit. Get it a landing page at least and a clear who is behind all this, who pays etc. Maybe look at Github Sponsoring to spread costs across user base - avoid single entity control. - Maybe look into making it a proper foundation or at least an entity that makes the work here eligible for future donations. I am not sure of this is worth it. But i feel Open Source != Open Governance. - Retire non active projects and donate active projects to apache. Probably difficult because of Intellectual Property) wdyt? Toni *Toni Menzel | rebaze.com <https://www.rebaze.com> | growing developer culture* On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 12:37 PM Jean-Baptiste Onofré < jeanbaptiste.ono...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Niclas > > First of all, thanks a lot for all what you did (and still doing ). > > I’m ready to take the hand for the domain and finance them. > > Thoughts ? > > Regards > JB > > Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 12:13, Niclas Hedhman a > écrit : > >> Everyone, >> In a few months time (June), the OPS4J domain names are up for renewal. >> And I have been paying for those for 15 years now, and since I no longer >> participate in OPS4J I would like to transfer the domain names. But where >> to?? >> >> Ideally a foundation that would be Ok to take it over, otherwise to a >> trusted community member. >> >> Ideas are welcome, and should be discussed. I have no opinion and will >> simply follow what you all can agree on. >> >> ops4j.org >> ops4j.net >> ops4j.com >> >> >> Cheers >> Niclas >> >> -- >> -- >> -- >> OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "OPS4J" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CADmm%2BKf7a0rzdkro7v-rxBV1p1-KkSMTE_BQT2HhUZyOUM9jyA%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CADmm%2BKf7a0rzdkro7v-rxBV1p1-KkSMTE_BQT2HhUZyOUM9jyA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer> >> . >> > -- > -- > -- > OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "OPS4J" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CAB8EV3QGMMWvzzCck96CxemuYgSiYWNcs%2BOGPXmtaKTthoJvrw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CAB8EV3QGMMWvzzCck96CxemuYgSiYWNcs%2BOGPXmtaKTthoJvrw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer> > . > -- -- -- OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OPS4J" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CAEjgzHT%2BYNAL3CA1dsqGpevhpoYsU9OYVUBi%3Df%2BMT9_u5ta3fw%40mail.gmail.com.
Re: ops4j domain names
Hi Niclas First of all, thanks a lot for all what you did (and still doing ). I’m ready to take the hand for the domain and finance them. Thoughts ? Regards JB Le mer. 19 févr. 2020 à 12:13, Niclas Hedhman a écrit : > Everyone, > In a few months time (June), the OPS4J domain names are up for renewal. > And I have been paying for those for 15 years now, and since I no longer > participate in OPS4J I would like to transfer the domain names. But where > to?? > > Ideally a foundation that would be Ok to take it over, otherwise to a > trusted community member. > > Ideas are welcome, and should be discussed. I have no opinion and will > simply follow what you all can agree on. > > ops4j.org > ops4j.net > ops4j.com > > > Cheers > Niclas > > -- > -- > -- > OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "OPS4J" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CADmm%2BKf7a0rzdkro7v-rxBV1p1-KkSMTE_BQT2HhUZyOUM9jyA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CADmm%2BKf7a0rzdkro7v-rxBV1p1-KkSMTE_BQT2HhUZyOUM9jyA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer> > . > -- -- -- OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OPS4J" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CAB8EV3QGMMWvzzCck96CxemuYgSiYWNcs%2BOGPXmtaKTthoJvrw%40mail.gmail.com.
ops4j domain names
Everyone, In a few months time (June), the OPS4J domain names are up for renewal. And I have been paying for those for 15 years now, and since I no longer participate in OPS4J I would like to transfer the domain names. But where to?? Ideally a foundation that would be Ok to take it over, otherwise to a trusted community member. Ideas are welcome, and should be discussed. I have no opinion and will simply follow what you all can agree on. ops4j.org ops4j.net ops4j.com Cheers Niclas -- -- -- OPS4J - http://www.ops4j.org - ops4j@googlegroups.com --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OPS4J" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ops4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ops4j/CADmm%2BKf7a0rzdkro7v-rxBV1p1-KkSMTE_BQT2HhUZyOUM9jyA%40mail.gmail.com.
