Yes, ASF "central" has no strong opinion on the matter and delegates this totally to the PMCs.
It is useful that this kind of feedback reaches ComDev, so projects learn from each other and can make informed decisions. Cheers Niclas On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 12:43 AM, Raul Kripalani <ra...@apache.org> wrote: > At Apache Camel we use camel-extras to host Camel components/modules that > depend on 3rd party dependencies that are incompatible with ASLv2. > > After briefly discussing with some committers / contributors on our mailing > lists, I get the impression that most folks would prefer to migrate > camel-extras to Github rather than SF. Since enabling the ASF Camel Github > mirror, we have processed 600+ pull requests and I'd venture a guess that > our generous contributors prefer the Github model for collaborating. In > fact, some of our most engaged camel-extras committers have expressed their > dislike for SF – so imposing SF to camel-extras will be like delivering a > deathblow to the project, as we'll be risking losing those contributors. > > Therefore, my question is: are projects obliged to host their extras on the > ASF's selected platform (Sourceforge)? By reading [1] my conclusion is > 'no', as extras projects don't belong to the ASF nor do they have to follow > the ASF organisational model or policies. I'm pretty sure that a VOTE on > our list would yield Github as the preferred new home. > > [1] https://community.apache.org/apache-extras/faq.html > > Thanks, > > *Raúl Kripalani* > Apache Camel PMC Member & Committer | Enterprise Architect, Open Source > Integration specialist > http://about.me/raulkripalani | http://www.linkedin.com/in/raulkripalani > http://blog.raulkr.net | twitter: @raulvk > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Victor NOËL <victor.n...@linagora.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I come in a bit late on the discussion (I hope I won't break the mail > > threading, I don't have a message to answer to…). > > We were discussing the subject on camel-users and I was wondering if you > > were aware of the very problematic behaviour of SourceForge? > > > > I am referring to the following story with the Gimp project: > > > > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/08/gimp_dumps_sourceforge_over_dodgy_ads_and_installer/ > > > > Basically, they started putting adware and spyware in installers of > > opensource projects without their consent. > > After Gimp removed themselves from SourceForge, they continued by > > impersonating them, see: > > > > > https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list/2015-May/msg00097.html > > > https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list/2015-May/msg00098.html > > > > Do we really want apache extra to be hosted by an organisation like that? > > > > Just my 2cents… sorry for arriving so late in the discussion. > > > > Victor > > -- > > > > > > Vous utilisez la version libre et gratuite d'OBM, développée et supportée > > par Linagora. > > Contribuez à la R&D du produit en souscrivant à une offre entreprise. > > http://pro.obm.org/ - http://www.linagora.com > > > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
