ACS is an Apache project, not a foundation per se; donation goes to Apache. I know that there is some discussion/work to create a way for donating things (not just money) to projects, but I do not know how that is going.
I do not think we need to create other foundation and move away from Apache (because that is what this move would look like....) But still, I wonder, even if we had a CloudStack foundation, would that make organizations that rely on it to donate/contribute more actively? Is that the real problem? On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Marty Godsey <ma...@gonsource.com> wrote: > Alex, > > I agree.. The only "good" way that we will get more adoption is to treat > it like an Enterprise product. But that would require investment. > Investment with money, not just time. > > As an example, I use pfSense alot in my projects. If I put in a pfSense > router, I take 2-5% (depends on scope) of the GDM and donate to the pfSense > project. I do this because pfSense makes me a lot of money and I want it to > get better.. The only way it will get better is by supporting it. And even > if I was a coder, "supporting" it with code only goes so far. > > And as mentioned, we create a CloudStack Foundation that is a 501C corp so > it's a non-profit and tax deductible for people donating. > > So the next question is who would we speak with to get this ball rolling > or even a discussion started? > > Regards, > Marty Godsey > Principal Engineer > nSource Solutions, LLC > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alex Hitchins [mailto:a...@alexhitchins.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 1:49 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ > > If it isn't being treated as a product it will be very impossible to > market it as enterprise ready. > > I know we all know this. > > Similar sized projects under the Apache banner must have the same issue, > what is the best way to gather experience of these projects? See how they > handle these growing pains. > > A cloudstack foundation entity funded by companies earning from cloudstack > seems a good way forward. > > Another tuppence, this is getting expensive. > > > > > On 29 Jun 2017, at 18:18, Ron Wheeler <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> > wrote: > > > > I understand that it is a volunteer organization. > > I do not know how many (if any) of the committers and PMC members are > funded by their organizations (allowed or ordered to work on Cloudstack > during company time) which is often the way that Apache projects get > staffed. > > > > Clearly it is hard to tell someone who is being funded by a company to > fix a problem or who is working on their own time, to do or not do > something. > > > > On the other hand, the PMC has to build a community culture that is > good for the project. > > That means describing a vision, planning and enforcing a roadmap, and > maintaining a focused project "marketing" effort. > > > > There is a lot of extremely talented individuals working on Cloudstack > and it appears to have a very strong and valuable code-base. > > > > To me the key question is about the PMC and the core committers' ability > to make Cloudstack a "product" that can compete for market share and > acceptance. > > > > Is Cloudstack at a point in its development where it should be treated > like a product? > > - sufficient functionality to compete > > - sufficient user base to be a competitor in the market > > - production reliability and stability > > - business model for supporting companies to justify their continued > > support > > > > This may not require more effort but requires different policies and > different activities. > > > > There has to be someone or a PMC that can say "No". > > - This change can not be included in this release because it will delay > the release. > > - This change adds an unacceptable level of complexity > > - This bug fix will have to wait for the next release because it is too > late to test it and fix the docs. > > - This fix breaks the docs > > - The release can not be made until this doc is updated. > > > > Does the core group want to make it a competitive product or is it > sufficient for the interested players to continue in its current form? > > > > Ron > > > > > > > >> On 29/06/2017 9:42 AM, Will Stevens wrote: > >> I personally don't know how Jira solves any of this, but assuming it > >> does, fine... > >> > >> The bigger problem which you have raised is that CloudStack has zero > >> funding. So we can't hire a project manager, or a release manager or > >> someone whose job it is to maintain documentation. I have been trying > >> to find a way to, at the very least, fund a full time release manager > >> who can focus 100% on the project. As the release manager for 4.9, I > >> know it is a full time job. I did my best, but it is a ton of work > >> and is hard to stay on top of. > >> > >> Everyone contributing to CloudStack is donating their time. They > >> can't make a living off supporting ACS, so every one is doing their > >> best with the little time they can take away from their day job or > their family life. > >> > >> Yes, having clear guidelines and sticking to them helps, but without > >> a solid CI infrastructure backing the project and improved testing > >> and automation, we will always struggles with release schedules and > such. > >> > >> I have been involved in this project long enough to know that all the > >> problems you point out exist, but they are also not easily solved. > >> Obviously we have to work with the initiatives we have and take small > >> steps towards improvement, but we also have to be realistic with our > >> expectations because we are counting on people's generosity to move > them forward. > >> > >> Simplifying moving parts and streamlining the process will lead to > >> more contribution because there is less barriers to entry. This one > >> reason why I struggle to see the value in Jira as it is used today. I > >> personally don't understand what value it is giving us that the > >> github PRs and Issues don't solve. > >> > >> I will remain open minded and will follow along with what people > >> think is best, but I think it is worth understanding what we are > >> trying to solve for and simplify our approach in solving it so we can > >> get better systems in place. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Jun 29, 2017 9:17 AM, "Ron Wheeler" > >> <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> As a real outsider, IMHO Paul is right. > >>> > >>> At times it seems that Cloudstack is a coding hobby rather than a > >>> project or a production quality product. > >>> > >>> Who decides what goes into a release? How does this affect the > >>> release schedule? > >>> Who is responsible for meeting the "published" roadmap (of which > >>> there seem to be many) of releases? > >>> > >>> How is a system admin that is not part of the project supposed to > >>> plan for upgrade windows? > >>> How does one know when a feature, bug fix or release will be available? > >>> > >>> How does the PMC manage function creep in a release, maintain > >>> quality and consistency, reject changes that hurt the overall vision > >>> or add too much complexity? > >>> > >>> No one seems to care about documentation but if someone did, how > >>> would they stop undocumented features or features that contradict > >>> the documentation from being incorporated? > >>> Who makes sure that the documentation is correct at the time of the > >>> release? > >>> Release notes are not much help for someone doing a new install or > >>> evaluating Cloudstack. > >>> > >>> Without a JIRA entry, how does an end-user who encounters a problem > >>> know that it has been fixed already in the next release? > >>> > >>> Without a JIRA entry, how does the community comment on a proposed > >>> change before it gets coded? > >>> > >>> If changes are going to be accepted without a JIRA, is there a > >>> definition of a minor fix that does not require a JIRA? > >>> - does not change functionality? > >>> - only affects an "edge case" or cleans up an exception that is not > >>> properly handled? > >>> - only improves code readability or future extensibility? > >>> - does not affect documentation? > >>> > >>> Apache projects that are popular and enjoy wide support do have > >>> strong management. > >>> > >>> There are other examples where great Apache software is failing to > >>> get recognized because the PMC is not paying attention to the > >>> product management side of things. > >>> I use Apache Jackrabbit which is a quality product with a strong > >>> technical team supporting it. > >>> It has very little following because the documentation and marketing > >>> collateral is very poor. > >>> It gets by because the audience for it is largely software > >>> developers who can read code and can test features to work out the > functionality. > >>> It would get a lot more attention if they paid attention to the > >>> product management side of the project. > >>> > >>> Cloudstack needs to avoid this situation and unfortunately this > >>> takes effort and some discipline. > >>> > >>> > >>> Ron > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 29/06/2017 8:03 AM, Will Stevens wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Why are we still using jira instead of the PRs for that > >>>> communication? Can we not use issues in github now instead of jira > >>>> if someone needs to open an issue but does not yet have code to > >>>> contribute. If not, jira could still be used for that. > >>>> > >>>> I think duplicating data between jira and the PR is kind of > >>>> pointless. I feel like the github PRs and the cide going in should > >>>> be the source of truth, not a random third party tool. > >>>> > >>>> For the 4.9 release notes, i built a tool to generate the release > >>>> notes from the PRs merged in that release. I think that is easier > >>>> and more accurate than depending on jira since it does not track > >>>> the actual code tree. > >>>> > >>>> Thats my 0.02$. > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 29, 2017 5:25 AM, "Paul Angus" <paul.an...@shapeblue.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Such a view of CloudStack is what holds CloudStack back. > >>>> It stops users/operators from having any chance of understanding > >>>> what CloudStack does and how it does it. > >>>> Code for code's sake is no use to anyone. > >>>> Jira is about communication between developers and to everyone else. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Kind regards, > >>>> > >>>> Paul Angus > >>>> > >>>> paul.an...@shapeblue.com > >>>> www.shapeblue.com > >>>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Daan Hoogland [mailto:daan.hoogl...@gmail.com] > >>>> Sent: 29 June 2017 10:14 > >>>> To: dev <dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > >>>> Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Paul Angus > >>>> <paul.an...@shapeblue.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> + Release notes will be impossible to create without a proper Jira > >>>>> > >>>> history. > >>>> > >>>>> And no one will know what has gone into CloudStack. > >>>>> > >>>> No they are not mr Grumpy. they should be base on the code anyway, > >>>> hence on git, not jira. I do not appose to the use of Jira but it > >>>> is not required for good coding practices and as we are not and > >>>> will not function as a corporation, jira is an extra for those that > >>>> grave for it. not a requirement. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Daan > >>>> > >>>> > >>> -- > >>> Ron Wheeler > >>> President > >>> Artifact Software Inc > >>> email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com > >>> skype: ronaldmwheeler > >>> phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 > >>> > >>> > > > > -- > > Ron Wheeler > > President > > Artifact Software Inc > > email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com > > skype: ronaldmwheeler > > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 > > > > -- Rafael Weingärtner
