I have no problem with open and frank discussions about the shortcomings of OFBiz, I'm totally in favor of them. I guess it all depends on context and intent. In my opinion PMC members have an obligation to act in the best interests of the project when interacting with the project and its community. If they cannot or do not wish to do that then I think they have a moral obligation to resign.
While I'd prefer it if the OFBiz lists (particularly the user list) wasn't used as an avenue to advertise Moqui or any other competing framework (derivative works are a different matter), I don't really have much of a problem with it and it is probably what is tolerated because of your history. What I did have a problem with was how a PMC member chose to portray OFBiz to its users. Al effectively said that Moqui is the new OFBiz by calling it the "successor" and "latest base", that's an untrue and damaging assertion. These discussions are new to the lists as far as I'm concerned, "Why X is better than OFBiz and you should consider using it instead" is not something I'm used to seeing from PMC members or committers. I don't know how best to deal with the it but I do think PMC members initiating in such discussions should consider whether they have the best interests of the project at heart and act accordingly. Regards Scott On 1/06/2013, at 12:57 PM, David E. Jones wrote: > > I suppose I'm just as guilty of this as Al. > > Doing this sort of thing has been common since the beginning of OFBiz and > includes users, contributors, committers, and once it existed PMC members > too. There have been all sorts of discussions over time about alternative > tools and even alternative business applications including other ecommerce > and ERP apps. > > More recently derivative works have become more common and they have been > pimped on the mailing lists and in other OFBiz-related venues for a while > (also to the complaints of some). I guess this actually goes back a ways to > early derivative works of OFBiz like Neogia, so maybe even that is not such a > new phenomena. > > Maybe my posts on the topic are more tolerated given my history with OFBiz, > but in general I believe in open communication and exploration of > alternatives. I'm happy to let people compare the Entity Engine to more > recent tools like Hibernate and JPA (even if those are just improvements on > very old object-relational mapping concepts) because the more dynamic > approach is all sorts of advantages that object-tied persistence tools just > can't touch. > > As we've found over the years with OFBiz there are some things other tools do > better, and some things the OFBiz framework tools do better. It's always > interesting to discuss them, even if most people pimping one or the other do > so in total ignorance of the other... or sometimes both! Some of the most > ardent proponents of JPA/Hibernate I've spoken with over the years have > little experience with either option. > > Whatever the case, in discussions like this my personal "approval" of a > comment depends more on details and experiences offered than on general > statements of what is and isn't a good idea, and even in this discussion I'd > rather see defenders of OFBiz offer details than general statements. > > I tried to do that in my reply to your post Adrian, because your post didn't > include any sorts of details defending your assertion. It comes across as > whining and not productive discussion. > > One thing I can say that OFBiz has a pretty good position in is market share, > public awareness, and through it's maturity and affiliation with the ASF > quite a bit of public confidence too. That's a great thing that will drive > the project for years still regardless of other trends or any competition. Of > mature ERP and large ecommerce systems it is still probably the best for > heavy customization and does well in organizations or derivative works where > that is needed. I don't imagine Moqui and the projects in its ecosystem will > touch that for a while. > > Most derivative works that compete with OFBiz benefit from this too, and even > still many have a hard time competing with plain vanilla OFBiz. This is true > for both public derivative works that are advertised in some way or other > (like Big Fish) or the dozen or so private derivative works that I'm aware of > within a number of different OFBiz service providers (ie used for clients and > internal projects only, not really distributed publicly either open source or > commercial). > > Such extensions made public do more to help OFBiz than harm it, by a big > amount IMO. Even Moqui/Mantle/etc do more to drive traffic to OFBiz than the > other way around. That may change over time, but right now that's the case > from what I'm aware of (ie people looking at Moqui/Mantle/etc and deciding to > use OFBiz instead). > > -David > > > > On May 31, 2013, at 3:03 AM, Scott Gray <scott.g...@hotwaxmedia.com> wrote: > >> Al, >> >> Privately or not, if this is how you intend to interact with OFBiz users by >> actively encouraging them to switch to the competing framework that you're >> currently working with, then I'd strongly encourage you to resign from the >> OFBiz PMC. It's really not the type of project management we need. >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On 22/05/2013, at 10:26 PM, Al Byers wrote: >> >>> I feel like I owe another apology to the OFBiz developers. Though my >>> initial remarks were accidental (and embarrassing), I was wrong not to >>> acknowledge that OFBiz has a wealth of functionality that Moqui does not >>> approach at this time. And my lack of first hand knowledge of all the work >>> that has gone into upgrading OFBiz is no excuse for not acknowledging that. >>> I know that I will need and want to use OFBiz for the rest of my career and >>> those who have put so much effort into making it the valuable product that >>> it is should be commended, for they will never get full payback for their >>> work. Thanks for all that you have done. >>> >>> - Al Byers >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Jacques Le Roux < >>> jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: >>> >>>> From: "Al Byers" <bye...@automationgroups.com> >>>>> Sorry Adrian, >>>>> >>>>> Had my mind on too many things and didn't mean to send it to the list. >>>> But >>>>> then, a dose of "open mike" might be refreshing. I know that there are >>>> some >>>>> great developers on OFBiz, but sometimes things get too large to refactor >>>>> and a fresh start is better. >>>> >>>> This was already discussed indeed. This option is still open. On the other >>>> hand, after more than a decade, I believe OFBiz is even better. >>>> For almost 3 years now we are less including new features and more fixing >>>> what exists. >>>> Notably in the framewors itself, where a replacement by Moqui makes more >>>> sense. >>>> We are even removing unused stuff, sometimes too harshly said Skip >>>> recently, nobody's perfect. >>>> >>>>> I don't think American car manufacturers were really concerned about >>>>> improving their product until the Japanese came along. And, even then, I >>>>> don't think that they have become competitive except to the extent that >>>>> they have pushed the "reset" button. >>>> >>>> In French we say "comparaison n'est pas raison". Don't try to translate >>>> with Google (again lost in translation). But I guess you can get it >>>> without. >>>> >>>>> It is not reasonable to think that OFBiz will just make the next release >>>> on >>>>> Moqui, but it seems like there could be a vanguard interested in making a >>>>> port. >>>> >>>> I think nobody is against it. As you say this would be a long, or maybe >>>> medium, term goal. >>>> OFBiz is considered stable now. Replacing the framework with Moqui would >>>> certainly take some time before acquiring the same level of stability >>>> >>>> Jacques >>>> PS: thanks Adrian for your defense of the team >>>> >>>>> -Al >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Adrian Crum < >>>>> adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> A quick clarification on this. >>>>>> >>>>>> "OFBiz was brilliant when David created it over ten years ago, but..." >>>>>> implies OFBiz is no longer brilliant. OFBiz continues to be just as >>>>>> brilliant, with a talented team of developers keeping it current with >>>>>> current technology. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5/20/2013 4:04 PM, Al Byers wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Carlos, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am just starting to look around for OFBiz work and was intrigued to >>>> see >>>>>>> your email there this morning. I have been working with OFBiz for over >>>> 10 >>>>>>> years now and am interested in what you have going. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But I must ask if you have considered Moqui (moqui.org < >>>> http://moqui.org>) >>>>>>> - David Jones's successor to OFBiz? I was just at a small conference >>>> with >>>>>>> David and the folks at HowWax Media and based on David's comments and >>>> what >>>>>>> I know about Moqui from my past year of working with it, if you are >>>>>>> starting anew, and especially if you are not using the current >>>> e-commerce >>>>>>> features of OFBiz, then you would be well served to look at Moqui. >>>> OFBiz >>>>>>> was brilliant when David created it over ten years ago, but technology >>>> has >>>>>>> made great advances in that time and if you have the freedom to do so, >>>> it >>>>>>> makes sense to start with the latest base. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have attached David's introduction to Moqui PDF, which I don't think >>>> is >>>>>>> readily available off the moqui.org <http://moqui.org> website. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I hope to hear from you soon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Al Byers >>>>>>> 801-400-5111 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Carlos Cruz <car...@nbtbizcapital.com >>>> <mailto: >>>>>>> carlos@nbtbizcapital.**com <car...@nbtbizcapital.com>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm looking for a Java programmer that is familiar with OFBiz. >>>>>>> Particularly with OFBiz Web Services and OFBiz Entity Engine. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm interested in hosting OFBiz for some very specific industries >>>>>>> and I want to develop some very specific interfaces. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is a long term project, I could be flexible with the hours. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you're interested email me for more details. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also feel free to forward this email to someone you think might be >>>>>>> interested. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks!! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carlos >>>>>>> >>>>>>> logo-for-social-media-sites-**email_signature >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CruzControl Radius >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your Success Is Our Service >>>>>>> >>>>>>> www.ccradius.com <http://www.ccradius.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> email:car...@ccradius.com <mailto:email%3Acarlos@**ccradius.com< >>>> email%253acar...@ccradius.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1-877-285-5499 <tel:1-877-285-5499> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >
