https://www.apache.org/foundation/contributing.html says:
"If you have a specific target or project that you wish to directly
support, pleasecontact us
<https://www.apache.org/foundation/contributing.html#Fundraising>and we
will do our best to satisfy your wishes."
1) Is Apache willing to allow projects to set up their own foundations?
I doubt but someone would need to check this out.
Does the PMC have the project charter or the agreement that was signed
when Cloudstack moved.
2) Has anyone tried to contact Apache about directing support to Cloudstack.
I am not convinced that lack of paid staff is the issue.
This discussion reminded me of this.
Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb ?
A: Only one, but the lightbulb must want to change
http://www.lightbulbjokes.com/directory/p.html
Ron
On 30/06/2017 6:48 AM, Alex Hitchins wrote:
As per Giles's comment to the previous thread, I thought I would start a
discussion on the subject to canvas peoples thoughts, opinions and fears.
My question for discussion, is there is any mileage in someone creating a
"CloudStack Foundation" as a non-profit entity, funded largely by key
CloudStack players with the sole function of employing dedicated resource (part or full
time) to handle all releases and other essential 'back office' functions. The idea being
it's in everyone's interest to chip in a little each to fund core project and release
management.
The idea might be utterly irrelevant, pointless and/or straight up daft. I urge
you all to let me know.
Something for you all to think over this weekend.
Alexander Hitchins
------------------------
E: a...@alexhitchins.com
W: alexhitchins.com
M: 07788 423 969
T: 01892 523 587
-----Original Message-----
From: Giles Sirett [mailto:giles.sir...@shapeblue.com]
Sent: 30 June 2017 09:51
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: JIRA - PLEASE READ
All
This thread seems to have turned into 2 quite different discussions:
1. The use (or not) of Jira - which was the original discussion
2. Ways/means of encouraging (and paying for more structured contributors)
I know that it could be argued that these are related. Could I suggest opening up a
thread on "release and project management and funding it" and keeping this
thread to the original discussion
(I will weigh in on both of these at some stage)
Kind regards
Giles
giles.sir...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Hitchins [mailto:a...@alexhitchins.com]
Sent: 29 June 2017 18:49
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
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
