Agree with most of the ideas expressed. On 24 Mar 2015 3:17 PM, "Pierre Smits" <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Miscellaneous is just another classification, for sure worse than 'special > purpose'. > > Yes, some got more love in the past by the committers at that time (some > left). It is a given that each contributor (and committers are > contributors) has the freedom to work on what he/she desires to work on. > We, the community as a whole and thus each of, can not direct that. We can > only ask for commitment. Through JIRA issues, through plans. > > And foremost the commitment should be/is towards the project. That is not > commitment to a specific application or component. Although it is ok with > me if a few contributors (committers) would say that they focusses on e.g. > humanres, or documentation. Such statements are good, because then the > community knows to whom to turn to in the case of questions and/or > suggestions for improvement. And our project (in terms of diversity in > works) is large enough to enable such specialisation. A project can never > have something as to many contributors and committers. > > In the past statements have been made that contributors must have certain > traits shown before they can be considered committer grade by the PMC. > Those statements came down to: the potential must be/have the same as the > existing! The same qualities and skills as the existing have. And the > implied reasoning behind it was: if they are not the same they can't be > trusted with our commits, they wreck the code and project. > > Yet, given the diversity of the works there should be room in the project > to have the same diversity in its committer base. And more than just 1 per > focus area (documentation, specific apps, etc). So that in each area the > workload can be shared, etc. > > More committers leads to more contributions persisted (in code/descriptive > pages), more bugs fixed, more improvements implemented. Leading to a better > documentation, to more adoption. It also leads to more scrutiny, more > reflection on having the right thing in at the right time, in stead of > being fast and having to do the do-over. > > We all don't have to be same. We just have to have understanding of the > position of the other and collaborate. The project is large enough for > more. > > Best regards, > > > Pierre Smits > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > Based Manufacturing, Professional > Services and Retail & Trade > http://www.orrtiz.com > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Gavin, > > > > As we do cloud based multi-tenancy, almost everything we have in our > value > > proposition is special purpose (it is just a classifaction). It depends > on > > use within the domains of the customer. And we have movedl from the > special > > purpose folder to more appropriate places (ldap to framework, most to > > hot-deploy) and have much more configurability. > > > > What we try to avoid as much as possible is to expose the base registers > > (apps like ordermgr, partymgr, workeffort) to users, because these either > > so overcrowded with clickables (partymgr) that they deliver the opposite > of > > a good user experience, or they are so basic in user functionality that > > they aren't worth exposing (workeffort). > > > > For others we have our own additions/replacements. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Pierre Smits > > > > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > > Based Manufacturing, Professional > > Services and Retail & Trade > > http://www.orrtiz.com > > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Gavin Mabie <kwikst...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Hi Pierre > >> > >> I'm not sure where we're going with this discussion. My original input > was > >> to suggest that OAuth2 might not fit into the "special purpose" category > >> and that it should rather be considered a tool/utility. As it > transpires, > >> there seems to be divergent opinions (at least between you and me) as to > >> what "special purpose" in fact is. Frankly, this is a moot point with > its > >> relevance perhaps limited to how the project (Ofbiz) presents the > system. > >> The system is flexible enough for developers to place application > >> components into folders as they wish. A developer might well decide to > >> place manufacturing in the "special purpose" folder. Nothing wrong with > >> that. > >> > >> However ,the theme that emerges from this and other discussions on the > >> topic is that the "special purpose" folder is at times viewed as a > folder > >> for miscellaneous. Miscellaneous in this instance includes components > that > >> are (a) not well supported in terms of committer contributions and (b) > >> where there is a perceived better alternative in the open source market. > >> My initial point was simply that we, from a project point of view, > should > >> have some clarity as to how we categorise components.There are > references > >> on the Ofbiz wiki to "special purpose" components as "process-or > >> role-oriented > >> < > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBADMIN/Announcement+for+new+release+Apache+OFBiz+09.04.01 > >> >". > >> There is also reference to the requirement that "special purpose" > >> components should not be interdependent > >> < > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OFBIZ/Component+and+Component+Set+Dependencies > >> >. > >> I agree with both points, but I must add that to use it for "all-else" > >> would not be well-founded/well thought-through. > >> > >> More directly to some of your specific questions: > >> > >> > But what is your answer ( your value proposition of OFBiz), when a > >> > potential user comes to you and says: 'I want OFBiz for my > manufacturing > >> > setup and I don't want any excess'.? > >> > >> 1. Firstly,I would be elated that the customer "wants" Ofbiz in the > first > >> place. > >> 2. Secondly, I would inquire as to why the customer only wants Ofbiz's > >> manufacturing functionality? > >> Responses to this question will undoubtedly be interesting - but its > >> certainly an opportunity for up-selling the system as a whole. > >> > >> I don't define what the 'OFBiz Value Proposition' is. We all do that. > And > >> > what is it? What is yours? > >> > >> Shortly, OOTB Ofbiz's biggest value is that, as a business process > >> management system, it provides an organisation with the software to > manage > >> business functions through an integrated set of applications built on > >> robust open source technologies. Just my opinion. > >> > >> Hope I wasn't too long-winded. > >> > >> Gavin > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Pierre Smits <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > Hi All, Gavin, > >> > > >> > Starting a new thread. For the build up, see > >> > > >> > > >> > http://ofbiz.markmail.org/message/pf7lnzjwow4g4igj?q=passport+oauth2+order:date-forward > >> > > >> > Our current homepage states as the value proposition the following: > >> > > >> > Apache OFBiz™ is an open source product for the automation of > enterprise > >> > processes that includes framework components and business applications > >> for > >> > ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning), CRM (Customer Relationship > >> Management), > >> > E-Business / E-Commerce, SCM (Supply Chain Management), MRP > >> (Manufacturing > >> > Resource Planning), MMS/EAM (Maintenance Management System/Enterprise > >> Asset > >> > Management), POS (Point Of Sale). > >> > > >> > > >> > That is the starting point of the value proposition, and it includes > >> most > >> > applications (but not all in special purpose). The webpage also > states: > >> > > >> > Use it out-of-the-box, customize it or use it as a framework to > >> implement > >> > your most challenging business needs. > >> > > >> > > >> > Meaning that it can be adjusted to be part of whatever your value > >> > proposition is. > >> > > >> > Gavin, you asked what it would that value proposition is in the > >> > hypothetical scenario of it being used in combination of everything > >> coming > >> > from third parties (see below). You should ask that the proponents of > a > >> > framework only solution. They are better at it, I surmise. > >> > > >> > But what is your answer ( your value proposition of OFBiz), when a > >> > potential user comes to you and says: 'I want OFBiz for my > manufacturing > >> > setup and I don't want any excess'.? > >> > > >> > And I would suspect it to be: great, that is feasible, but when you > >> > download it, you get, +humanres + ecommerce (and more) > >> > > >> > And what is when someone comes to you and told you: 'I want to do > >> project > >> > mgt, and I want it integrated with my fico and hr solutions. > >> > > >> > That answer would be: Excellent, but when you download it, you get > that > >> + > >> > accounting + humanres + manufacturing + 3rd party payment integration > >> > solutions + 3rd party shipment integration solutions + ecommerce > (plus > >> a > >> > whole lot more) > >> > > >> > And then you'll probably say: but it can all be removed. So that > >> potential > >> > customer might, and probably will think: so if I don't want parts I > >> don't > >> > need, I am going to pay through the nose to get it removed. And if I > >> leave > >> > it in, who knows what it will do. > >> > > >> > Yes there are parts that a good value proposition can't do without > >> > (framework components, some components in applications). The rest are > >> just > >> > layer on top of the base of the cake. Options that makes the OFBiz > Value > >> > Proposition the right one for any specific potential adopter. > >> > > >> > I don't define what the 'OFBiz Value Proposition' is. We all do that. > >> And > >> > what is it? What is yours? > >> > > >> > Best regards, > >> > > >> > Pierre Smits > >> > > >> > *ORRTIZ.COM <http://www.orrtiz.com>* > >> > Services & Solutions for Cloud- > >> > Based Manufacturing, Professional > >> > Services and Retail & Trade > >> > http://www.orrtiz.com > >> > > >> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Jacques Le Roux < > >> > jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Le 22/03/2015 08:46, Gavin Mabie a écrit : > >> > > > >> > >> Hi Pierre > >> > >> > >> > >> If you use a 3rd party crm solution you wouldn't use the sfa > >> > application. > >> > >> > >> > >>> If you use a 3rd party HRM solution, you wouldn't use humanres. > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> Following this line of thinking, let's consider this ridiculous > >> > >> hypothetical scenario: > >> > >> > >> > >> - 3rd Party Accounting App; > >> > >> - 3rd Party HR; > >> > >> - 3rd Party SFA; > >> > >> - 3rd Party Catalog Management; > >> > >> - 3rd Party CMS; > >> > >> - etc > >> > >> > >> > >> What would be Ofbiz's Value Proposition in this case? There are > core > >> > >> applications that users expect to find in an ERP OOTB. > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > Good point Gavin :D > >> > > > >> > > Jacques > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
