Pierre, This is beyond baffling. What is the point of submitting this to the ASF Board? What do you imagine that they would do with it given the structure and procedures of the ASF?
The Board does not tell PMCs what to do, just as PMCs do not tell committers and contributors what to do. The only exception to this is general guidelines and policies (from both the Board and from PMCs) to help people understand the basis of their decisions about WHO to include/exclude on PMCs and among Committers. Are you asking the Board to override the PMC procedures to change the structure of the PMC or Committers of OFBiz? If not, what is your point? Sure, OFBiz has all sorts of potential and many of us have ideas and opinions about what it should/might look like in the future, but that has nothing to do with the future. The ASF is a bottom-up organization, not a top-down one. The future of OFBiz is determined mostly by the day-to-day actions of Committers, and the PMC is mostly there to determine who the Committers will be and when really necessary mediate conflicts and take other official actions for the project through votes. If you want to influence the direction of OFBiz it is not done by communicating with the Board, or even the PMC. It is done by communicating and coordinating with Committers and other contributors. If that isn't working the way you want to there is not authority to appeal to, only the options of merit (ie actual contributions and efforts) and influence of merit of others. That's the important stuff, but I should also say that a lot of the content of your message to the Board is NOT correct. Just off the top of my head, without trying to reply to each point, that includes the date OFBiz become an ASF top-level project, my reasons for stepping away from Apache OFBiz, and the basis for decisions about new committers (it is absolutely not based on contributions to the framework, and NEVER has been... in fact the majority of Committers invited had few if any contributions to the framework at the time of their invitation). You might also be surprised to know that I really am still involved with OFBiz, even I don't personally commit very often. I'm still involved with consulting on and managing pretty large OFBiz-based contracts that involve hiring a number of OFBiz committer and contributors and work from these projects does make it back into OFBiz. Professionally I don't do much OFBiz development any more, just training, mentoring, analysis/design, architecture, code review and debugging assistance, etc. That is one of the big reasons I don't commit a whole lot directly to OFBiz any more, even though most of my income is still based on OFBiz consulting. The other reasons are the Moqui related ones, which I have covered in a lot of detail in other messages and there is no point in repeating them. Basically it's a cost/benefit analysis for me personally on opportunity to innovate and create... to push forward, in my simple way, the state of the art in enterprise automation software. My reasons are about the present and the future, not about the past. The past is only a source of lessons to help us decide about now and plan for the future. Otherwise it doesn't matter. If you want OFBiz to be different, it is also not about the past, it is just about the present and future. It is also not anything that can be done top-down, it is all bottom-up based on merit. Merit comes from effort and contributions. If you want to change things, that is where to focus. You might be able to influence others with merit, but this sort of message is not only ineffective for doing that, but downright harmful. Who with merit in OFBiz is going to listen to this and do something different based on it? What sort of action or change are you even calling for? This is all based on the past and largely complaining and pointing out problems in the past, with next to nothing about ideas for the future. If you care about my personal recommendation for getting stuff done there is only ONE approach I've found that works, and even this doesn't always work. The basic idea is to start discussing and working on specific objectives and keep on top of it until others are inspired enough to join in and add their merit to mine. I and many others followed this pattern of merit and that is how OFBiz started, and how most of what exists in OFBiz got there. As Scott said so eloquently in a recent message it comes down to being the change you want to see, and inspiring others to join in. Just discussing stuff and filing issues does very little. It all comes down to discussions that are thorough and thoughtful (of others and of the topic), and then writing code based on the results. IMO Jacopo and many other PMC members and committers are doing a fantastic job keeping this project progressing and frankly taking on a massive burden that is way beyond the resources they have available to them. In this sort of structure the only resource any of us has is our free time and knowledge/experience (with software, business, and people). This is just another principle behind there being no top-down management. It is all bottom-up and merit based. I wasn't able to join your call this morning, way too early my time and I'm short on sleep and have higher priorities given the context of the call and communication leading up to it. If I had joined and said anything, it would have been more or less what I wrote here. -David On Mar 13, 2014, at 4:46 AM, Pierre Smits <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > For your information, please find below the email sent to the ASF board at > 1.01 AM this morning. > > Regards, > Pierre Smits > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > Based Manufacturing, Professional > Services and Retail & Trade > http://www.orrtiz.com > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Pierre Smits <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:01 AM > Subject: Functioning and Future of Apache OFBiz > To: [email protected], [email protected] > > > Dear Apache Board, > > Jacopo, the chair of the PMC of our Apache OFBiz may have submitted or will > soon submit the quarterly report 'ASF Board Report 2014-03' to you for > review and evaluation of the health of our project in your next board > meeting. > > In this report he, besides the others, point out 2 important aspects: > > 1. We have no issues that require Board assistance at this time, and > 2. We have an ongoing discussion, within the PMC/committers group and > the community, about the current status of the OFBiz project; > oversimplifying the two positions are the following: > 1. the ones that are worried that the project's progress is slower than > in the past (several historical committers are indeed less > active) and push > to get more committers and PMC members onboard > 2. the ones that believe that slowing down is natural in a project > that is reaching a stability phase and, considering the great > complexity of > the OFBiz codebase, it is important to only invite contributors that > clearly demonstrate a deep knowledge of the framework in order to > maintain and improve its quality and stability over time > > With the second main bullet it seems that Jacopo tries, together with the > statement of his personal belief, to make it sound that the discussion is > > - just a discussion as it might take place in any project, > - that it just started recently (as you might believe since there is no > previous report mentioning such a discussion), and > - that it all has to do with the output of the project. > > Unfortunately, the discussion is going for a longer period than only the > months within the last quarter and the controversy between PMC/committers > and the rest of the community grows deeper. > > In order to fully comprehend what the controversy is about I need to > elaborate on a) the OFBiz solution (the technical aspect), and b) the OFBiz > community (history and current setup) of the project. > > a) the OFBiz solution > > The output of the OFBiz project is not only a technical suite of core > functions and apis (the Framework, as the PMC/committers call it) to build > and host applications on and to process and persist its data, but it is > also a comprehensive and integrated suite of business > applications/solutions for various kinds of enterprises in diversity of > industry markets and sectors. > And it doesn't matter whether it is for a single organisation setup, a > multiple organisation setup or through a multi-tenancy setup. The total > package includes business applications for asset management, order > management, crm, invoicing, e-commerce, manufacturing, project management, > warehousing, in and outbound logistics, supply chain management > (purchasing), payment processing, financial and general account, reporting > and BI, to name but a few. Even functionality to kickstart new business > applications is integrated. > In essence, the Apache OFBiz solution is the SAP of Open Source - done the > Apache way. > > This comprehensive suite has its business solutions, functions and apis > layered in 3 categories or levels: > > 1. The core (the FrameWork, as the PMC/committers call it) consisting of > the general/generic definitions, functions and apis for persisting and > processing of all kinds of data; > 2. The base (applications), consisting of business solutions as/for > accounting (financial transactions, payment processing), content mgt, human > resource mgt, manufacturing, catalog & product management, order mgt and > invoice processing, marketing, warehousing and logistics and work effort mgt > 3. Special purpose applications, e.g. for e-commerce, project mgt, asset > mgt, e-bay integration, google-integration and bi/reporting > > This all-encompassing approach established itself while incubating within > the ASF and has been (and still is) the major aspect of the mission > statement of the OFBiz project. It is this all-encompassing > approach/charter that kickstarted the project before it came to Apache, > during its infancy as a podling and from day one as a TLP and has attracted > many users and contributors (with all kinds of technical backgrounds, > delivering contributions encompassing languages as Java, Groovy, XML, FTL > and javascript) from all kinds of cultures and business domains. And not > only programmers, but also documenters (books have been published), ui/ux > specialists and more. > > In short, the OFBiz solution delivers more than you would expect at first > glance. > > b) the OFBIZ community (history and current state) > The initiative started way back in 2001 (a few visionary developers had the > drive to start this and had the ambition to bring it under the ASF > umbrella). The initiative when through the incubation process and was > awarded TLP status in 2004. In this period the majority of work needed and > contributed was > in the fist layer (the core). This first period of incubation and TLP years > also set the policies and ruling that still is are being enforced today. > But the contributions by the initial community members and newcomers to the > applications in the other layers also continued and increased. > > The PMC currently lists 13 names (of which the 2 mentors have never been > active in the community as far as I can tell). See > here<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Apache+OFBiz+PMC+%28Project+Management+Committee%29+Members+and+Committers>. > As you can see, Erwan de Ferrieres - who is mentioned in the report above > as being the latest addition to the PMC - doesn't appear in the list of PMC > members. So basically the PMC hasn't changed since 2007. And the original > founders of the project (Andrew Jenezki and David Jones) aren't actively > participating in the project anymore. > > Now the growing controversies. > > 1. Since the inception of the project only community members who > contributed regularly to the core of OFBiz have made the cut merit-wise to > be invited to become committers. None of the other community members who > contributed to the other aspects of the project (the applications in the > other two layers, documentation or engaging in the mailing list to help > users) have ever made the cut. This has led to alienation to some of those > contributors. > 2. Since the departure of founder David Jones in 2010 as an active > member of the community - he felt that over time the contributions (bug > fixes and enhancements) to the core and the base applications had grown to > include flaws he wanted fixed, but he failed to achieve consensus within > the PMC though there was and is support from other community members to > enhance the core and base applications, functions and apis to be able to > replace and enhance current legacy solutions by the output of other Apache > Projects, e.g. Chemistry/JackRabbit for content management, SHIRO for > authentication/authorisation/security and session management, Drools/ODE > for rules and orchestration management, . He, since then, created OFBiz > evolution 2. > 3. Though community members keep contributing (we currently have 1000 > unresolved issues, of which 163 with patches) the approach to improve > output is not to attract more committers to guide the community members to > provide more patches and commit approved ones, but to phase-out > applications from layer 3 and sub components from layer 2 in order to > decrease the workload on the existing active PMC members/committers (the > slim down roadmap). > 4. A second PMC Member/committer has re-addressed the flaws in core and > base in the community and is willing to fix this together with the > community and within the project. Again there is support for this > innovation. And again no consensus can be reached with other PMC > members/committers - as it appears from postings in the MLs of the project > 5. Though the number of new users is growing (the attraction of OFBiz is > not its core, but that it is an open, integrated eco-suite of business > applications with an active community) the participation of PMC > members/committers in the communities ML is declining. Only 1 PMC > member/committer is active on a somewhat daily basis in the user ML and as > a coach to help contributors to provide patches and helping in review and > commit. Some PMC members only manage the same limited number of issues year > on year and do not interact with the other community members. > 6. Though committers can use their own discretion with regards to > resolving bugs, some of these committers see this also as a free pass to > dump code and functionality enhancements into the set of business > applications without delivering patches (that could be implemented in older > versions) or involving other community members regarding establishing the > need for it within the community, without establishing consensus regarding > the added value, the requirements and solutions approach definition. Nor > trying to solicit assistance in requirements gathering & analysis, testing > and communication of these solutions. > 7. Though everybody in the community understands that nobody is obliged > to resolve issues but that everybody can assist in furthering issues to > resolvement, it is feared (by some) that raising an issue in JIRA means > that the reporter also resolves it (by delivering patches), or that when a > PMC member/committer assigns an issue to himself it is also resolved by > him. Hence our 1000 open issues, of which over 800 are unassigned. > > Since I joined the project in 2008, and have contributed - both in the MLs > and thru raising and resolving issues - regularly over the years, I see > the health of the OFBiz project trending downwards. > > Hence my plea to you to help this project to stay healthy and innovative. > On Thursday 13th of March we are holding a teleconference on the health and > future of the OFBiz project. I invite you to join in to get a first hand > experience of the sentiments and viewpoints of the various community > members participating. > > Details regarding the teleconference are: > > LocationLocal timeTime zoneUTC offsetLos > Angeles<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=137> (U.S.A. > - California)Thursday, 13 March 2014, > 06:30:00PDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pdt.html>UTC-7 > hoursNew York <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=179> (U.S.A. > - New York)Thursday, 13 March 2014, > 09:30:00EDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/edt.html>UTC-4 > hoursLondon <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=136> (United > Kingdom - England)Thursday, 13 March 2014, > 13:30:00GMT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/eu/gmt.html> > UTCAmsterdam <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=16> > (Netherlands)Thursday, 13 March 2014, > 14:30:00CET<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/eu/cet.html>UTC+1 > hourMoscow <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=166> > (Russia)Thursday, > 13 March 2014, > 17:30:00MSK<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/eu/msk.html>UTC+4 > hoursBangalore <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=438> (India > - Karnataka)Thursday, 13 March 2014, > 19:00:00IST<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist.html>UTC+5:30 > hoursBangkok <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=28> > (Thailand)Thursday, 13 March 2014, > 20:30:00ICT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ict.html>UTC+7 > hoursAuckland <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=22> (New > Zealand)Friday, 14 March 2014, > 02:30:00NZDT<http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html>UTC+13 > hoursCorresponding UTC (GMT)Thursday, 13 March 2014, 13:30:00 > Please find below some details about how to participate, but you can always > more info on the website ofhttp://freeconferencecall.com > > *Conference Invite Details* > *Subject: * The Future of OFBiz - Open Discussion > *Date & time: * 2014-03-13 14:30 (GMT+01:00) > *Duration: * 2 hr. > > *Notes: * > > *Free Conference Call* > Conference Dial-in Number: +31 (0) 6 35205070 (Number in the Netherlands) > Participant Access Code: 779895# > > > > <http://www.freeconferencecall.com/fcci/internationalnumbers.aspx?lang=NL&altlang=EN&phonenumber=+31%20(0)%206%2035205070> > > When prompted enter the access code that has been assigned, followed by the > # key. Once connected to the conference, you will be able to talk and have > access to the touch tone commands listed below. > > > Participant Feature KeysExit - exit the callInstructions - conference > instructionsMute/Unmute - caller controlled muting > > > With best regards, > > Pierre Smits > OFBiz community member
