As an outsider, I can see what is bothering the ASF.
The voting out process is Apache's way of ensuring that the PMC and
contributors are putting their stamp of approval on the release.
It is the last chance to raise an objection about some bug/deficiency
before you put the warranty on the box.
By voting +1, you are saying that you are putting your professional
reputation on the quality of the release including all of code,
documentation and testing done by everyone.
This is the foundation of the reputation that Apache has built.
This is why PMC membership is based on a meritocracy.
As a PMC member, your name and reputation is tied to the votes of the
PMC in making the release.
It is publicly recorded and visible to all.
They may never see your code or great design work but they can see how
you voted.
It is not very clear what the PMC actually thinks( as a collective
group) that it is producing.
What is the product that gets released?
The "public" needs to know what it is that the project is supporting.
It has to be easy to get that thing and do something useful with it.
The product has to be described fully on the website and wiki.
What is the warranty that comes with it?
The "public" needs to know the project's commitment to that release.
It needs to know that it has a support plan and some idea about where
this fits in the long-term roadmap(EOS and EOL).
The OFBiz team is asking a company to commit to running a business based
on this product.
They need to know what they are getting into; implementation costs,
future costs.
They need to be able to make a due diligence on the risks involved with
adopting this product.
Is the documentation sufficient, correct and well-written?
This is the starting point for any new adopter.
If the docs are shoddy, then the code is probably worse since it is
harder to code.
If you can't describe how it works, how can you code it properly.
If it is described incorrectly, an outside person can not make it work
and has to invest in reverse engineering the docs from code.
What is the roadmap?
They need to know what the PMC has as a clear vision of where they want
the product to go over the next 5 years or even the next 2 years?
They need to be comfortable that they are making the right choice for a
key part of their business's infrastructure.
Who is actually using the product OOTB?
It is getting clear to me that none of the PMC members actually use
OFBiz as it is released.
This is a big problem.
If even the people closest to the product can't use it, how can an
outside person have any hope of success with it.
This can be fixed but it is going to take some changes in mindset within
the PMC.
What I am seeing is some really talented people who have great skills at
design and coding.
I see companies supporting the project but only interested in forking it
to make their own commercial offerings.
The PMC is having trouble with transparency partly because they are not
willing (or have not been asked) to commit to a team effort.
This makes it hard for the PMC to make statements about the future.
Even a volunteer organization has to agree on goals and agree to put
personal interest aside once a goal is agreed upon.
If every committer is free to do whatever they want to the product and
feels no obligation to work on team goals, the PMC has a hard time
coming up with the things that a user needs.
It appears that the latest Bug Crush is a counterexample to my point.
For that goal, it appears that the community made some decisions about
what need to be done and people actually put in a huge effort to work
together to achieve the goal.
So we know that it can be done.
I am only a new person here, so you can take my points with a grain of salt.
These are the main reasons why I have not yet made the decision to use
OFBiz to run my little business.
I can not afford to get into a situation where I can not manage because
of the ERP choice.
If running OFBiz is going to take all of my time, I have to look elsewhere.
I want something that installs and works OOTB and does the "advertised"
ERP functions with no additional work on my side and something that can
be expanded (I hope in conjunction with others with similar needs) as I
support more business functions using OFBiz.
I want to see an organization capable of supporting the product in the
long term.
I am willing to contribute but I need to see some leadership in the PMC
in addressing these concerns.
This discussion is a good sign to me that the problem is getting exposed
and the key players are starting to put their cards on the table.
Ron
On 13/11/2014 6:38 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
In the past the ASF Board asked to the OFBiz PMC to fix the release
strategy of the project by providing officially voted release files thru
the ASF mirrors: at that time we were pushing the users to get the trunk.
Officially asking the user to use a release branch would be better than the
trunk but would bring back similar concerns: an official vote is required
to publish a product to the outside of the project in order to guarantee
License free issues etc...
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:38 AM, Jacques Le Roux <
jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote:
Hi,
In a recent user ML thread http://markmail.org/message/ivjocjr2ull7lwqe I
suggested we could propose our users to use a release branch strategy
rather than downloaded packages.
And that we could expose this way of doing in our download page, or maybe
better with a link to an explaining page (in details) in the wiki.
I know it's not the recommended way of doing at the ASF. But we all know
the OFBiz differences when compared with other TLPs which are mostly libs,
and even mostly jars.
Most of us are actually using this way in their custom projects and I have
a feeling it would not only help our users but also us to support them.
What do you think?
Jacques
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: rwhee...@artifact-software.com
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
