Greetings, After a long period of reflection, I have accumulated many serious concerns about the viability of the proposed OOo podling. There are a lot of unknowns which make it hard to predict whether the project will become self-sustaining -- but while the grand experiment plays out, it is going to put a great deal of strain on the ASF's resources, institutions, and community.
First, it has been pointed out that the ASF does not have significant experience with end-user applications. We will have to thrash out how to do end-user support well, and I expect many painful mistakes along the way which damage the goodwill associated with the Apache brand. Second, others have noted that the ASF is accustomed to making source releases, that figuring out how to release thousands of binaries is going to be hard, that our current QA resources and traditions are nowhere near adequate, and that it is doubtful that our network of mirrors is up to the task of distribution. Third, everyone acknowledges that this huge, complex, old code base is going to require a very large community to sustain it on an ongoing basis. I am satisfied that the current list of initial committers achieves a minimum of diversity to suggest that the podling has a shot, but we are way, way, way away from what it would take to graduate and become a healthy top-level Apache project. Unfortunately, given the sordid history of OpenOffice.org, expanding the community is going to be difficult. A lot of volunteers who have worked hard to achieve proficiency with the software are committed to the competing LibreOffice fork, which has a divergent codebase. A second crucial talent pool -- Oracle's employees -- also appears to be off-limits, except in managing the transition. We are left with IBM to provide the bulk of the core dev expertise -- which would ordinarily be fine for an Incubator podling, but the scope of this project makes it a special case. Sadly, in my opinion early outreach has been hampered by a sustained series of impolitic communiques on the part of certain project personnel, which continued even after repeated guidance from ASF veterans. Improving understanding of open source culture is part of incubation and there is always time for redemption, but the fumbled launch of the recruitment effort which is so vital to this podling's survival has dealt it a cruel setback. The proposed podling also has to be prepared for the pullout of IBM at any moment, Harmony-style. Business is business, and this is what the ASF signs up for by being a commercial-friendly organization -- we need to be wary and hedge our bets. An OOo podling/project is necessarily going to be extraordinarily reliant on the expertise of paid developers. The ASF has ample experience with the instability of such arrangements, and it should read negatively on this proposal. Given all these challenges, I believe that the proposal needs substantial improvement, and that it will have to be IBM who steps up. First, we need to see a lot of bodies. By necessity, these will come from IBM to start with, and I see that there are now five individuals on the wiki listing IBM as their affilication. My seat-of-the-pants target is that the initial committer ranks should clear what is necessary to publish and support a first consumer release by a wide margin. Second, we need to see a lot of money. I would like to see a budget drafted with the assistance of the Infrastructure team spec'ing out machines, bandwidth, etc, which should exceed the predicted requirements by a comfortable multiple (3x-10x), and in a configuration which caters to the expertise of existing Infrastructure staff. I would then like to see a binding committment from IBM to fund this budget -- with cash, not hardware donations. It seems to me that proceeding in phases would be fine, but the ASF must be ahead of the game at all times to account for a potential podling-killing IBM withdrawal announcement. It also seems to me that an increased donation from IBM to the ASF general fund would be appropriate, considering the administrative, PR, legal, and project-management costs of swallowing this enormous beast and all the bitterness that has attached to it over time. Lastly, I would like to see the proposal's backers comment on the possibility of setting an early goal to deliver an IP-clean ALv2 source-dump release -- basically, the cleaned-up code dump that Greg Stein has pondered (which may prove trickier to deliver than we anticipate -- are there shortcuts to rewriting around problematic dependencies?). I think there's a substantial chance that this podling will not make it through to graduation, and it may not even make it through to a successful consumer release depending on IBM's stamina and business interests. If it doesn't make it, I don't want the ASF to have absorbed mammoth opportunity costs and volunteer time without getting anything in return. Thus, in my mind it would be good to see the podling prioritize the publication of an IP-clean source dump which can be strip-mined by IBM, TDF, me, you, or anybody else under the terms of the ALv2. It would be nice if it built and ran, but to my mind that's a lower priority than just putting something out there that people can scavenge with confidence. Once that's done, then we shall see if the podling can muster the heroic endurance that will be needed to launch a successful consumer release, and do it in a timely manner -- but with the source-dump release in the podling's back pocket, we can still be pleased with what has been accomplished even if the end-user effort stalls. For reasons articulated by Ralph Goers[1] and Bill Rowe[2], I generally favor giving the OOo proposal a chance, but I also believe that it is accompanied by exceptional costs and risks to the Foundation which need to be taken into account. In theory, I would like to see companies such as Oracle encouraged to open-source valuable software through us under a permissive license, but I'm displeased that we're to take ownership of something stained by buckets of bad blood, and it doesn't make sense to accept the gift at any cost. I also want to say "yes!" when companies such as IBM propose to work within our framework, but I hope that if we say to them that while we greatly value our existing working relationships with IBM employees on other Apache projects, this one is so messy, costly, and risky that must decline, they will understand. Therefore, if those three concerns -- bodies, money, and a source-dump release -- cannot be addressed, I will regretfully vote -1 to deny the OOo podling entry into the Incubator. Marvin Humphrey [1] http://markmail.org/message/op7svuogunsmkyvz [2] http://markmail.org/message/dgzovrdcheeo3dhd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
