Sorry to top post. A distinction exists between extensions.oo.o and extensions.services.oo.o.
The first is part of the OOo-site and the second is the service. Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone On Jan 12, 2012, at 9:34 AM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: > I'm attempting to summarise this thread and thus I'm top-posting on > the orginal opening thread. > > I will send the below text to the board for consideration. I'll > feedback here after the next board meeting (18th) or sooner if > possible. > > Dear Board, > > The Apache Open Office project needs to stabilise the hosting of their > extensions.openoffice.org service. The code needs updating and > bandwidth requirements need to be addressed. > > Gav, on behalf of the infra team, has offered to move the server to > ASF hardware and stabilise the code. Longer term Gav indicated that > his desire was to turn the service into a meta-data hosting service > whereby extensions could be discovered via extensions.openoffice.,org > but hosted in third party locations. > > This plan requires the hosting non-apache software (including closed > source) on ASF hardware. This was approved by the board with > responsibility for resolving the IP issues being delegated to the IPMC > (http://s.apache.org/fO - members only link). > > In the meantime Sourceforge have offered to help, initially through an > approach to Rob Weir of the AOO project and then through myself. I > took this proposal (via infra@ who requested the PPMC bring it to the > boards attention) to the AOO dev project for discussion. The thread > can be found at http://s.apache.org/sz6 (public) - the first post in > that thread includes the proposal from Jeff Drobnick (President and > CEO of Geeknet media, it also includes a number of clarifications from > Roberto Gallopini of Geeknet. I've tried to summarise for you here. > > After a long discussion the AOO podling has reached a consensus that > the best way forward would be to accept the proposal from Sourceforge > as a short term solution whilst working towards the meta-data site for > the long term. The PPMC feels that moving the service to a non-ASF > host now will minimise disruption for extensions developers and > end-users who are unwilling or unable to conform to ASF policy in the > long term. Similarly the PPMC feels there is a sufficiently large > number of edge cases to make changes in policy more complex than is > necessary since it is the PPMCs desire to provide an "approved" list > of extensions which are expected to conform to existing ASF IP > policies, whilst also enabling third parties to host their own > extensions sites that users can choose to access via a meta-data > service. > > We have assurances from SF that they are not interested in locking the > AOO project to their hosted services. Members of the AOO PPMC will > have shell access to the system and no attempt will be made by SF to > own any of the IP involved. > > SF reserve the right to serve advertising on the downloads site (and > possibly on the extensions site, this needs to be clarified). > Downloads would be served from the existing SF mirror network. > > It is possible for AOO to point to an intermediate page giving users > the option of visiting other extensions sites if required. That is > extensions.openoffice.org could point to an ASF hosted web page > listing multiple third party sites, one of which would be the SF > hosted service. Consequently, if necessary it is possible for the PPMC > to move hosting to a SF but not to point extensions.openoffice.org > there. > > It is hoped that later releases of AOO will include the ability to > search for extensions via a meta-data service managed by the AOO > project. At this point extensions.openoffice.org would return to ASF > hardware. It is expected that the SF hosted extensions repository will > continue to exist and will be one of the first repositories from which > users will be able to download non-ASF extensions. > > This proposal raises a few interesting policy questions. Therefore I > would like to ask for guidance on how best to help the AOO project > realise this objective. A few questions that come to mind are: > > Will it be necessary to draw up an MoU with SF? If so what are the key > points the board would like to see covered? > > Will it be sufficient for the PPMC to work with SF to ensure the > extensions site they provide respects the existing trademark policy? > (bearing in mind that we will eventually be moving > extensions.openoffice.org back to ASF hardware) > > Would the board prefer it if extensions.openoffice.org were to > redirection to foo.sourceforge.net? (either automatically or via an > information page) If so would this change the answer to the MoU > question above? > > Will this simplify the AOO ability to address IP and fundraising > concerns generated by non-ASF code and donations requests found on > extensions.apache.org? > > Does the board have any concerns about advertising appearing on > extensions.openoffice.org? Would this concern be mitigated by refusing > permission to serve advertising from extensions.openoffice.org but > allowing it on the download pages on an sf.net domain? > > If the board would like to discuss this at the next board meeting I > will try and be on the call to answer an questions. In the meantime > I'm here on this list. > > Ross > > On 3 January 2012 15:51, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: >> As the community know Gav, in his role at infrastructure@ has >> undertaken to stabilise and migrate the AOO extensions code to ASF >> infrastructure. His work has been progressing and he remains committed >> to completing this. >> >> However, as some know Sourceforge made an offer to help via our >> private list. At the time they did not want to discuss this topic in >> public for a number of reasons. I've had a couple of chats with >> Roberto Gallopini and Jeff Drobick in order to help them understand >> why the ASF prefers to host all services for its projects. In response >> SF have tailored their offer of support. >> >> I relayed the outline of our conversations to the infrastructure team >> who have asked me to have the AOO project provide some feedback, via a >> board report, on what problems the AOO project forsee for the >> extensions site and what options are available, if possible a >> recommendation for an optimal solution should also be made. Note that >> we can submit something out of cycle if we want, the next full report >> is not due till March. >> >> The reason infra@ have escalated to board@ is probably that we need to >> figure out a long term solution for the AOO project and that solution >> is heavily influenced by ASF policy. Any solution that we are >> currently considering will have an impact on the AOO extensions site >> and/or on ASF policy. >> >> The current situation, as I understand it, is that the board have >> given permission for the extensions site to be managed by infra during >> incubation. The problem of distributing content under licences other >> than Apache is not seen to be a problem during the incubation process. >> Beyond incubation the board has delegated responsibility to the >> Incubator PMC. I don't believe that particular discussion has been >> started yet. >> >> Gav tells us that he has been thinking about making the extensions >> site an index site, thus allowing the extensions to be housed >> elsewhere (apache-extras, sourceforge, google code, github, FooBar >> corporation or wherever). This would neatly bypass the licence >> problem. Open source extensions needing hosting could go to >> apache-extras while commercially licensed extensions would need to >> provide their own hosting. >> >> An alternative is to work with a third party willing to help. I've >> copied below the text of a mail outlining the SF proposal. You will >> note that they are keen to ensure that we don't get locked into the SF >> services. Nevertheless, one of the reasons the ASF hosts its own >> services is to avoid exposing us to unmanageable risk. >> >> I have no reason to believe SourceForge have anything other than good >> intentions in making this offer. SF has been supporting open source >> for a very long time. It is backed at the highest level (Jeff is >> President and CEO) and I believe Roberto is known within the >> OpenOffce.org community. However, many aspects of this will be outside >> of the control of the AOO project, despite SFs real attempts to >> mitigate our concerns relating to this. >> >> Please note that the timescales Jeff outlines are unrealistic given >> that we need to seek board input before being able to ensure the AOO >> project makes the right decision. SF want to move quickly, but I >> don't think we need to be rushed into making a decision. >> >> Once you've digested and debated the offer from Sourceforge the >> community needs to come up with a couple of paragraphs indicating a >> desired route forwards and reasons for it. I will try and attend the >> appropriate board meeting in order to answer any questions that arise. >> >> Please be imaginative in your planning for the future. The optimal >> solution might be some combination of ASF and SF offerings. >> >> Note Roberto Gallopini has joined this list and is ready to make any >> clarifications necessary. I've also made Gav aware of this post so >> that he can answer any questions we have about what infra@ are able to >> do. >> >> Thanks, >> Ross >> >> --- COPIED PROPOSAL --- >> >> I'm glad we had a chance to talk last week - exciting times for Open >> Office as the product and community transition into the ASF. >> >> For over a decade, SourceForge has been committed to advancing the >> open source software community. We host over 300,000 projects and are >> visited by over 40 MM users per month for free, secure, and fast >> downloads of open source software. Trusted and reliable download >> delivery is an important part of our service, with over 4 million >> downloads per day and 2 PB from our mirror network each month. We are >> committed to helping OSS projects scale and grow. >> >> Based on our discussions, we understand there are a few things you are >> solving for as part of the Open Office Incubation effort: >> Supporting a diverse licensing terms for Open Office extensions, that >> may not all comply with the Apache OSS policy; >> Stabilizing your Drupal OO Extensions site and ensuring high >> availability and download bandwidth without cost >> Expanding both the developer base who will move into working on the >> Apache framework as well as adoption of the Open Office product and >> extensions. >> We think we can help and that there would be mutual benefit. To that >> end, we propose the following for your consideration: >> >> 1.) Stabilize the your OO Extensions Drupal instance by moving the it >> and all services to SourceForge. Our Site Operations team will do teh >> work and oversee the operations for you as we do other services. To >> your community the directory will look the same and extension and >> template files will move to SourceForge's globally-distributed >> download mirror network where we can ensure reliable, scalable >> delivery. Drupal will be hosted on our project web service, serving >> your existing domain via a VHOST. Standard infrastructure >> (monitoring, backups, etc.) and service levels (99.9% availability >> target) apply. >> >> These SourceForge services will be provided gratis, and without >> lock-in -- you are open to change your mind later. We anticipate this >> migration would involve a week of planning and preparation, followed >> by a week of migration and pre/post-migration communications. We're >> prepared to commence this work the next week if provided your approval >> and support. >> >> 2.) Once stabilized, we will work with you on a timeline to evaluate >> and execute a migration from Drupal 5 to Drupal 7. >> >> Allowing us to host the Extensions community will solve the license >> challenges - or at least give you time to work through a longer term >> solution. We would also be able to cross promote the software titles >> to the development community as well - so perhaps expand not only your >> user base but developers. >> >> Roberto (our Sr. Director of Business Development) has been involved >> in the OpenOffice.org community for many years -- he will continue to >> be your point-of-contact. If we secure the go-ahead this week, we >> will start on Tuesday next week and expect to be complete by 1/15 with >> step 1. I have asked our head of Site Ops to oversee the >> implementation and he'll partner up with your technical folks to >> ensure the hosting transition goes well. >> >> Our motivation here is quite simple, it is all part of our mission to >> help Open Source Software initiatives succeed. To that end, >> SourceForge and Geeknet Media are able to fund these services and make >> them free to the community through advertising largely on the download >> and directory pages. So there won't ever be a charge back to your >> community and we are able to reinvest in R&D on our developer tools as >> well. >> >> We look forward to hearing back from you this week if possible. Feel >> free to forward this on to whomever you would like in terms of getting >> to an aligned decision. >> >> I wish you a happy new year! >> >> -- >> Thank you, >> Jeff >> >> --- End of copied text --- >> -- >> Ross Gardler (@rgardler) >> Programme Leader (Open Development) >> OpenDirective http://opendirective.com > > > > -- > Ross Gardler (@rgardler) > Programme Leader (Open Development) > OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
