Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 12, 2012, at 6:18 PM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com> wrote: > On 12 January 2012 19:01, Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net> wrote: >> 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. > > Thanks Dave. Just so I'm absolutely clear does this change the > proposal other than the precise domain names allocated? I'm not sure > this distinction had been made before. > > Specifically is the SF proposal to take both the site and the service? They would be hosting the service domain at extensions.services.oo.o. The ASF hosts extensions.oo.o within www.oo.o/extensions/ Your second mention of e.oo.o makes sense the others should use the services URL. Try the two urls to see what I mean Regards, Dave > > Ross > > >> >> 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 > > > > -- > Ross Gardler (@rgardler) > Programme Leader (Open Development) > OpenDirective http://opendirective.com
