Rafael, I agree. I am not saying move away from Apache.. I am saying setup a "foundation" to handle donations and even development management..
Regards, Marty Godsey Principal Engineer nSource Solutions, LLC -----Original Message----- From: Rafael Weingärtner [mailto:rafaelweingart...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 3:28 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: JIRA - PLEASE READ 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
