I still think you're putting the cart before the horse. I'm not sure I could name any specialpurpose component that has the two or three active contributors that I think would be necessary to sustain it. If you have only one or two and they go away then what happens to any new comers looking to contribute? Do we just make anyone who comes along a committer? Does the TLP PMC need to monitor a whole bunch of new mailing lists and then support anyone who comes along in the hope they might be able to become committers? If a component had no active committers how long would it be before it broke completely because no one kept it updated? If a security vulnerability is found then who will deal with it?
Without active committers the PMC would need to remain familiar with the code in order to receive contributions and determine their suitability for inclusion. Nothing would be different from now except that the component would be less visible to us, more easily forgotten and we'd have more infrastructure to deal with. You can look only at the best case scenarios because you won't have any responsibility to these sub-projects. The PMC however will still have the burden to do anything that the sub-project committers decide that they themselves no longer want to do. At what point will it be okay by you for us to kill it off? What is it that currently gives you confidence that it won't happen very quickly? I think Jacopo's solution is the best to keep everyone happy (including the vocal minority) but IMO the best approach would be to remove the components from OFBiz altogether, set them up on github or similar, ensure those who want to take ownership have the required access and then advertise the existence of these special purpose components from the OFBiz website. The components are then free to stand or fall as they may. Should any actually survive and thrive, then a subproject would seem like a good idea. It's my opinion though that the vast majority of the components would go dormant and I don't think it makes a difference whether it's as a subproject or as an external project hosted elsewhere. Regards Scott On 8/11/2014, at 9:21 am, Ron Wheeler <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> wrote: > > Taher Alkhateeb raised some valid concerns. > > My take (also as a newcomer) is that there is a high barrier to entry for > people working on the framework and this makes it hard to get new people into > the OFBiz project. > By creating sub-projects that have a much smaller scope and do not have any > affect on the overall robustness of the system, we would allow new people to > take on tasks that have a much narrower scope and are more in-line withtheir > abilities and interests. > > It will also allow OFBiz to attract subject matter experts on certain areas > such as the BIRT language, data analysis, project management or manufacturing > who are not attracted to the framework development tasks. > > The current level of complexity forces the group to be a small band of > dedicated people who have the detailed technical understanding of the > framework and tools used to build and maintain it. > > There is nothing to prevent framework contributors from also joining > sub-projects where they have an interest. > > It would also provide a level of transparency about what is getting supported. > If no one is active in the BIRT sub-project, at least you know that it is not > supported. > At the moment, you have no idea about the interest in supporting BIRT. > If you need it and it is not supported, currently you do not have anyone to > talk to except the framework mailing list. > If it had its own sub-project, you would have a leader and a list of people > who once had an interest in it. > If no one was interested in your BIRT issue, you could always hire someone to > work on the bits that you needed fixed. > If BIRT is completely orphaned,you could take over leadership of the BIRT > sub-project and get it back going. > > I think that the project management and SCRUM projects could probably put > together sub-projects. > > You would have to do a bit of work to get a BIRT group growing. > However, it looks like a good candidate for a separate project since BIRT is > a completely different programming language and a lot of the skills have to > do with business analysis, usability and data analysis rather than Java > coding. > You might find that a BIRT sub-project attracts a number of people who would > not be interested in supporting the framework. > > Sub-project will also reduce the amount of traffic on the dev list and allow > people to focus on what they think matters to them. > They also allow other people to take on leadership roles in these areas which > reduces the burden on the current core contributors. > > Sub-projects are a key part of many Apache projects, so I believe that they > must serve a useful purpose. > I think that this project is really in need of a way to grow the community > without diluting the quality and I see sub-projects as a way to keep the > focus within Apache OFBiz rather than fork the parts into outside open source > projects which is the current direction. > > Ron > > > On 07/11/2014 2:08 PM, Taher Alkhateeb wrote: >> Hi Everyone, >> >> I do not have a long history with the OFBiz project to understand its >> history, but from the last few years I noticed the following: >> >> - The system is huge >> - Documentation is wanting >> - The community is suffering from low number of experienced developers >> >> For example, I use and want to support the BIRT reporting component. Yet >> there are very few committed developers experienced and comfortable enough >> in maintaining it and upgrading with new releases. So, I would imagine >> taking it out as an almost sure death sentence given the already low >> resources. >> >> With all due respect, talking about sub-projects and plans and resources and >> commit access and all of that stuff does not make sense when you barely have >> enough experienced people maintaining the code. I see only a few names over >> and over who are doing the "real" heavy work. >> >> So for my 2 cents, I still strongly encourage the initial suggestion by >> Jacopo. I think other suggestions would probably kill any less heavily >> maintained components. >> >> Taher Alkhateeb >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "Ron Wheeler" <rwhee...@artifact-software.com> >> To: dev@ofbiz.apache.org >> Sent: Friday, 7 November, 2014 9:29:05 PM >> Subject: Re: How to use ProjectMgr in 13.07 >> >> I was trying to find some Apache docs about what is involved. >> Separating the SCM controls so that the sub-projects can have their own >> committers is an important task. >> Any idea about what else is required? >> >> In any case, it would be the people who want to support the sub-project >> to do the paperwork. >> >> There is clearly nothing to stop a fork of any part of OFBiz but there >> is some advantage to keeping OZBiz in one piece. >> The most important thing is that it allows the sub-project to use the >> OFBiz name and Apache branding in its "marketing" material and >> documentation. >> It also builds the pool of potential contributors and committers for the >> core. >> >> >> Ron >> >> On 07/11/2014 11:44 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>> I am fine with the idea of encouraging the growth of an ecosystem of >>> *projects* about OFBiz (not necessarily all within the ASF) but I disagree >>> that they should be *sub-projects* of OFBiz, mostly because sub-projects >>> just add complexity within the OFBiz community (with more paperwork >>> required). >>> >>> Jacopo >>> >>> On Nov 7, 2014, at 5:32 PM, Adrian Crum >>> <adrian.c...@sandglass-software.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I agree with a separate community approach, for these reasons: >>>> >>>> The special purpose components started out as little demonstrations of how >>>> OFBiz can be extended to role-specific applications. Since then, some of >>>> those components have expanded into full-featured applications - so the >>>> overhead of maintaining them has increased beyond what we expected >>>> initially. >>>> >>>> Some special purpose components were included as the result of a community >>>> discussion and effort, but others were simply "dumped" into the repository >>>> without any discussion or community participation - and as a result they >>>> receive little support. >>>> >>>> Some special purpose components were created and initially supported by >>>> community members who are not around any more. >>>> >>>> As a result of all of these things, the special purpose components are not >>>> well maintained. >>>> >>>> From my perspective, if anyone believes a component needs more attention >>>> and would like to develop it further, then they should spin it off to a >>>> separate project. >>>> >>>> So, instead of having a conversation about how the OFBiz community can >>>> better support the Project Manager component, maybe we should have a >>>> conversation about how to spin it off to a separate community. >>>> >>>> Opentaps started off that way. Initially, it was OFBiz plus additional >>>> components: Financials, CRM, and Warehousing. >>>> >>>> I think the OFBiz community would benefit if we stopped trying to be all >>>> things to all people, and instead focus on providing a sound and flexible >>>> data model - combined with robust, reliable services. Special purpose >>>> applications, and even presentation layer details can be left to other >>>> communities. >>>> >>>> Adrian Crum >>>> Sandglass Software >>>> www.sandglass-software.com >>>> >>>> On 11/7/2014 4:02 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote: >>>>> I may be beating a dead horse but what Jacopo is proposing and the >>>>> concern that Jacques raised about resources would seem to fit very well >>>>> into a sub-project structure. >>>>> Split these modules out of the main line into their own OFBiz >>>>> sub-projects where they could attract their own resources (committers >>>>> even) and would be responsible for delivering modules that worked with >>>>> the various OFBiz cores that exist. >>>>> >>>>> Let the sub-projects worry about their own relationship to OFBiz >>>>> releases and release branches. >>>>> They might just support the released 13.07.xx version, if that is what >>>>> the sub-project's user community can support or they might maintain 2 >>>>> versions 13.07 and a 14.xx. that works with a recent version of the trunk. >>>>> In any case, it would no longer be a problem for the OFBiz core >>>>> developers and they could release just the OFBiz components that are >>>>> officially part of the core. >>>>> Clearly good communication between the core project and the sub-project >>>>> about release plans would help everyone but the core group would be >>>>> basically free to release the core as they want and the sub-projects >>>>> would have to communicate to their uses communities what impact this >>>>> would have on the users of the modules. >>>>> >>>>> If a sub-project needs a change to the core to implement some feature, >>>>> they would have to file an enhancement JIRA issue and convince someone >>>>> to add it (unless they are a committer on the core). >>>>> If two sub-projects had a compatibility issue, they would at least know >>>>> who to talk to get a solution. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ron >>>>> >>>>> On 07/11/2014 7:04 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>> On Nov 7, 2014, at 12:36 PM, Jacques Le Roux >>>>>> <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This will no longer work for some components (scrum for instance) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe we could be reintroduce some specialpurpose component in >>>>>>> next release, >>>>>> There is a difference between including them in a release branch and >>>>>> including them in the releases: I would be more inclined to include >>>>>> (all of them) in the release branches but exclude them from the >>>>>> releases; this would simplify the work required to keep them in synch >>>>>> and would also help end users to integrate them. >>>>>> However the specialpurpose components should be disabled in order to >>>>>> avoid the users to get a default ootb release/branch with enabled >>>>>> special purpose functionalities that may override the more general >>>>>> purpose ones offered by the core applications. >>>>>> We should still consider the idea of providing separate products for >>>>>> the specialpurpose components (and having them in the branch would >>>>>> help this process). >>>>>> If the idea I am proposing here (include the specialpurpose components >>>>>> in the branch but not in the releases) we could re-add them (as >>>>>> disabled) also to the 13.07 branch but exclude them from all the >>>>>> releases (13.07.02 etc...): this will protect all the stabilization >>>>>> work we did on the branch (and also from some licensing issues that >>>>>> may affects some of the artifacts in some of the specialpurpose >>>>>> components) . >>>>>> >>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>> >>>>>>> as long as they are backed by some efforts, come to mind >>>>>>> project manager (Pierre Smits?) >>>>>>> scrum (Hans?) >>>>>>> examples and ext (at least me) >>>>>>> myportal (French people use portals, not sure for myportal?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Other components? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IRRW Jacopo said he was not against a new discussion on this subject >>>>>>> (I could not find his message), what do you think? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 21/10/2014 09:06, gil portenseigne a écrit : >>>>>>>> I've never used svn external property, just discovering. That sounds >>>>>>>> usefull and i'll try it out ! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the advice ! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gil >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 20/10/2014 19:08, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>>>>> I use svn external in the stable demo, already explained that in >>>>>>>>> the MLs: see >>>>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/ofbiz/trunk/tools/demo-backup/branch13.7-demo.patch?view=markup >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You can use the same to keep in sync, only consider projectmgr in >>>>>>>>> your case. Since there is no projectmgr in R13.07 the risk of >>>>>>>>> gettins conflicts or build issue is extremely low >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le 20/10/2014 17:28, gil portenseigne a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> Hi Jacopo, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ok then, i will have to re-synchronize new trunk devs each time >>>>>>>>>> i'll feel it necessary. My fear is about incompatibility between >>>>>>>>>> 13.07 and trunk technologies, but that won't happen soon, or i >>>>>>>>>> might backport the evolution into my local environment. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That will do the job ! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Gil >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 20/10/2014 16:36, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Gil, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest to check it out from the trunk to the hot-deploy >>>>>>>>>>> folder of 13.07: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> cd hot-deploy >>>>>>>>>>> svn co >>>>>>>>>>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose/projectmgr >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jacopo >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 20, 2014, at 4:11 PM, gil portenseigne >>>>>>>>>>> <gil.portensei...@nereide.fr> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want to relaunch the debate around including the >>>>>>>>>>>> projectMgmt component into the 13.07 release, but i have a >>>>>>>>>>>> question : >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> What is the best way to import the projectMgr component in my >>>>>>>>>>>> local 13.07 checkout environment, to start using it in a real >>>>>>>>>>>> project and to contribute on upgrading it for trunk and/or the >>>>>>>>>>>> 13.07 release ? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Trunk technical evolution might be a problem if a want to stick >>>>>>>>>>>> to 13.07 release with projectMgmt features. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Should I use trunk instead ? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gil >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> <siteon0.jpg> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Gil Portenseigne >>>>>>>>>>>> Consultant ERP OFBiz >>>>>>>>>>>> Société Néréide >>>>>>>>>>>> 3b Les isles >>>>>>>>>>>> 37270 Veretz >>>>>>>>>>>> Tel : 09 74 53 46 09, puis 1, poste 61 >>>>>>>>>>>> Mob : 06 82 740 444 >>>>>>>>>>>> www.nereide.fr >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> <Mail Attachment.jpeg> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gil Portenseigne >>>>>>>> Consultant ERP OFBiz >>>>>>>> Société Néréide >>>>>>>> 3b Les isles >>>>>>>> 37270 Veretz >>>>>>>> Tel : 09 74 53 46 09, puis 1, poste 61 >>>>>>>> Mob : 06 82 740 444 >>>>>>>> www.nereide.fr >> > > > -- > Ron Wheeler > President > Artifact Software Inc > email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com > skype: ronaldmwheeler > phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102 >
