[OpenAFS] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] An open letter from the OpenAFS Council of Elders
[snip] > To that end, the OpenAFS Council of Elders has proposed the incorporation > of a not-for-profit foundation to perform tasks necessary to sustain and > further the development of the OpenAFS product and user community. > > We would like your feedback on this proposal, and suggest community > discourse on the openafs-info@openafs.org mailing list. You are also > welcome to bring specific concerns to the attention of the Elders via the > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list. I fully agree that the creation of a non-for-profit foundation is absolutely necessary. I would like to suggest that the foundation adopt an open membership structure like many electric co-op and other types of co-ops. ( http://www.weci.org/principles.html http://mea.coop/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=98 ) If you think about it, a filesystem is a lot like an electric utility.. You never notice it when it's working. But if anything goes wrong, everything stops. It's a critical piece of infrastructure that few people understand, but everyone depends on. Membership should be open to both individuals, as well as corporations and organizations. I would be happy to individually pay between $5 and $25 a year membership dues to support OpenAFS. I also think that anyone contributing code should be granted membership without a fee. Corporate or large organization dues should be substantially larger, and have some sort of marketing/branding/trademark benefits associated with it. Finally, from a developer point of view, I believe it is quite important that the first project of the new foundation be to migrate from the existing CVS source code repository to a distributed open-source based version control system. (This would mostly likely be either Git or Mercrial.. once in either one of these formats, conversions any other source control system of choice should be a lot easier) ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] An open letter from the OpenAFS Council of Elders
> > Finally, from a developer point of view, I believe it is quite important > that the first project of the new foundation be to migrate from the > existing CVS source code repository to a distributed open-source based > version control system. (This would mostly likely be either Git or > Mercrial.. once in either one of these formats, conversions any other > source control system of choice should be a lot easier) If any of you know the Tailor developers, it would be very helpful if, say, their list weren't moderated (or they approved messages to it from list members) and/or their bug tracking system allowed bugs to be submitted. That's all I'll say on the topic of VC migration at this time. ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] An open letter from the OpenAFS Council of Elders
On May 8, 2008, at 5:11 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: Finally, from a developer point of view, I believe it is quite important that the first project of the new foundation be to migrate from the existing CVS source code repository to a distributed open-source based version control system. I believe you meant to say "from a political point of view..." /dale ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] An open letter from the OpenAFS Council of Elders
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 04:11:40PM -0500, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > Membership should be open to both individuals, as well as corporations > and organizations. I would be happy to individually pay between $5 and > $25 a year membership dues to support OpenAFS. I also think that anyone > contributing code should be granted membership without a fee. > > Corporate or large organization dues should be substantially larger, and > have some sort of marketing/branding/trademark benefits associated with > it. I think it would be a great idea to have some sort of membership option in an OpenAFS non-profit organization. OpenAFS has been asking for donations, but unfortunately, Argonne and a number of other organizations (mostly government and academic) simply can't donate money without any benefit back to our organization. We could contract with some of the folks providing AFS support if there was a feature we needed, but it's simply out of the question for us to be able to just donate to AFS. With a membership option, however, it would allow us to make a case for giving money to OpenAFS since we do get something tangible - the membership. I don't know what a membership would give you, but a newsletter, maybe a "members only" section of the website (although honestly I can't see that giving any benefit over the mailing list - this is possibly one of the most useful mailing lists I'm on), or a discount to the OpenAFS Workshop, etc. I am definitely in favor of OpenAFS incorporating as a non-profit. Brian -- Brian Sebby ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | Unix and Operation Services Phone: +1 630.252.9935| Computing and Information Systems Fax: +1 630.252.4601| Argonne National Laboratory ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] An open letter from the OpenAFS Council of Elders
At 06:50 PM 5/9/2008, Brian Sebby wrote: I think it would be a great idea to have some sort of membership option in an OpenAFS non-profit organization. OpenAFS has been asking for donations, but unfortunately, Argonne and a number of other organizations (mostly government and academic) simply can't donate money without any benefit back to our organization. We could contract with some of the folks providing AFS support if there was a feature we needed, but it's simply out of the question for us to be able to just donate to AFS. Your "benefit back" is the continual improvement and debugging of OpenAFS. You should have already contracted with either "Secure Endpoints" http://www.secure-endpoints.com, or "Sine Nomine" http://www.sinenomine.net/openafs/ for a "maintenance contract". We have one, and it has served us well. Since OpenAFS is essentially "free", the "maintenance contract" is more of a consulting contract really, but it serves the same function. Talk to Jeffrey Altman about these arrangments at the workshop, or call him directly. I'm sure he would be happy to work with you. If you care about whether OpenAFS sees a future or not, then you NEED to do this. Rodney Rodney M. Dyer Operations and Systems (Specialist) Mosaic Computing Group William States Lee College of Engineering University of North Carolina at Charlotte Email: rmdyer(a)uncc.edu Web: http://www.coe.uncc.edu/~rmdyer Phone: (704)687-3518 Help Desk Line: (704)687-3150 FAX: (704)687-2352 Office: Cameron Hall, Room 232 ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] An open letter from the OpenAFS Council of Elders
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Rodney M. Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your "benefit back" is the continual improvement and debugging of OpenAFS. > You should have already contracted with either "Secure Endpoints" > http://www.secure-endpoints.com, or "Sine Nomine" > http://www.sinenomine.net/openafs/ for a "maintenance contract". We have > one, and it has served us well. Since OpenAFS is essentially "free", the > "maintenance contract" is more of a consulting contract really, but it > serves the same function. Talk to Jeffrey Altman about these arrangments at > the workshop, or call him directly. I'm sure he would be happy to work with > you. > > If you care about whether OpenAFS sees a future or not, then you NEED to do > this. With no disrespect intended toward Sine Nomine or Secure Endpoints -- both do tons of fine work and contribute back to the OpenAFS community, I recommend contracts with them highly for those who need help with support, training and development -- there's something to be said for being able to contribute directly to OpenAFS. There have been mechanisms in the past to directly fund OpenAFS; the AFS & Kerberos Best Practices Workshop raises money for OpenAFS, and there is a fund through Usenix, to take advantage of it being a 501c3. As it's own 501c3 corporation OpenAFS would be able to accept donations without a third party, something that would probably make it easier -- and more comfortable -- for many sites to do. Additionally, there are resources that neither company can always directly provide, especially things like hardware. Moose Disclaimer: I have worked for Sine Nomine Associates. Nothing stated here reflects the opinion of them or any other current or past employer. Or probably myself... ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] An open letter from the OpenAFS Council of Elders
At 11:42 AM 5/11/2008, Esther Filderman wrote: There have been mechanisms in the past to directly fund OpenAFS; the AFS & Kerberos Best Practices Workshop raises money for OpenAFS, and there is a fund through Usenix, to take advantage of it being a 501c3. As it's own 501c3 corporation OpenAFS would be able to accept donations without a third party, something that would probably make it easier -- and more comfortable -- for many sites to do. Additionally, there are resources that neither company can always directly provide, especially things like hardware. I have personally donated to OpenAFS, but quite simply, as I am not independently wealthy, my donation isn't worth more than a few hours of consulting. My point was that if any IT shops are like ours, we can't just "donate" money. Especially as a state funded institution, we can only "buy" products or services that fulfill our needs. When it comes to OpenAFS consulting, we actually need to create a justification. OpenAFS, as open source software, is competing against commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software, the traditional "cost" in IT computing. Maintenance contracts are typically purchased with the COTS software which is implied justification. Consulting costs are much easier to push through purchasing channels in most companies than donations. Rodney ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] An open letter from the OpenAFS Council of Elders
Rodney M. Dyer wrote: At 11:42 AM 5/11/2008, Esther Filderman wrote: There have been mechanisms in the past to directly fund OpenAFS; the AFS & Kerberos Best Practices Workshop raises money for OpenAFS, and there is a fund through Usenix, to take advantage of it being a 501c3. As it's own 501c3 corporation OpenAFS would be able to accept donations without a third party, something that would probably make it easier -- and more comfortable -- for many sites to do. Additionally, there are resources that neither company can always directly provide, especially things like hardware. I have personally donated to OpenAFS, but quite simply, as I am not independently wealthy, my donation isn't worth more than a few hours of consulting. My point was that if any IT shops are like ours, we can't just "donate" money. Especially as a state funded institution, we can only "buy" products or services that fulfill our needs. When it comes to OpenAFS consulting, we actually need to create a justification. OpenAFS, as open source software, is competing against commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software, the traditional "cost" in IT computing. Maintenance contracts are typically purchased with the COTS software which is implied justification. Consulting costs are much easier to push through purchasing channels in most companies than donations. I think there is a subtle but important difference in the two cases described. 1. There are some sites that want maintenance or support contracts, but others may want to have support contracts for the support and to help OpenAFS. Some of these sites, as Rodney described, cannot make donations for the sake of donating. 2. There are other organizations like google that can and do give straight donations. This is the case where the OpenAFS consortium would make things easier. For support and maintenance contracts, I would think that sites would continue to contract directly with Secure Endpoints, Sine Nomine, or someone else, unless the contracts were too big and needed the OpenAFS non-profit to sign the contract and subcontract the work to both Sine Nomine & Secure Endpoints. In addition to donations, the non-profit would also help as a central place to consolidate shared resources like hard ware, the website, and trademarks. This saves individuals from taking the burden on themselves of hosting these resources. Jason ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] An open letter from the OpenAFS Council of Elders
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 11:46:00AM -0500, Todd T. Fries wrote: > Penned by Troy Benjegerdes on 20080508 16:11.40, we have: > [..] > | Finally, from a developer point of view, I believe it is quite important > | that the first project of the new foundation be to migrate from the > | existing CVS source code repository to a distributed open-source based > | version control system. (This would mostly likely be either Git or > | Mercrial.. once in either one of these formats, conversions any other > | source control system of choice should be a lot easier) > > I suspect that cvs would be finely distributed if the /afs/openafs.org cell > were still active. > > That being said, it is clear you have an agenda and preferances with code > version control software. > > Perhaps rather than stating the conslusion, you could state the problem > you are trying to solve? > > :-) The problem I am trying to solve is allowing a occasional developer (like me) who should NOT have commit access to CVS to be able to make a local branch in a local repository, do some development, and then easily be able to merge it into the latest upstream development, so that I can make some changes, test them for awhile, then submit a patch against the latest equivalent of CVSHEAD. I would get most of this functionality if /afs/openafs.org were still active, and then importing the CVS into mercurial. But that's still a fundamentally different development model than what is possible with distributed source control systems. If I had an easy, supported way to pull in the latest HEAD branch to my local changes, it would be a lot easier for me to submit patches fixing all the warnings that scroll by. We don't need to re-invent a better source control system.. Bitkeeper, Git, darcs, monotone, mercurial have all already tried that. I would just like openafs to pick one and go with it. ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] An open letter from the OpenAFS Council of Elders
On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 11:58:53PM -0400, Dale Ghent wrote: > On May 8, 2008, at 5:11 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: > > >Finally, from a developer point of view, I believe it is quite > >important > >that the first project of the new foundation be to migrate from the > >existing CVS source code repository to a distributed open-source based > >version control system. > > I believe you meant to say "from a political point of view..." I think the politics of funding a foundation might be better served by continuing the relatively closed-access CVS repo. I probably should have said "From an ocassional Openafs code contributor point of view". I'd just like to use tools that git/mercurial have to merge my changes up to the latest release. That being said, a distributed source control system could still be kept under pretty tight control if the politics demanded it. ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] An open letter from the OpenAFS Council of Elders
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Troy, Your wish is granted. Derrick is working on migration of the CVS repository to git. Matt Troy Benjegerdes wrote: | | We don't need to re-invent a better source control system.. Bitkeeper, | Git, darcs, monotone, mercurial have all already tried that. I would | just like openafs to pick one and go with it. | ___ | OpenAFS-info mailing list | OpenAFS-info@openafs.org | https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info - -- Matt Benjamin The Linux Box 206 South Fifth Ave. Suite 150 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 http://linuxbox.com tel. 734-761-4689 fax. 734-769-8938 cel. 734-216-5309 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIJ0OeJiSUUSaRdSURCLh0AKCKREc1Hsi09oXFwTgdRYLqHlGykACeKs9E uW0QjhwZIgIE06KeD1sCNu0= =IoHQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] An open letter from the OpenAFS Council of Elders
Troy Benjegerdes wrote: We don't need to re-invent a better source control system.. Bitkeeper, Git, darcs, monotone, mercurial have all already tried that. I would just like openafs to pick one and go with it. Troy: The OpenAFS gatekeepers use a set of development tools for managing DELTAs and pullups which were built on top of cvs. The migration of the history of these tools and the conversion of these tools into any other source control system has proven extremely difficult and time consuming. OpenAFS also requires source control on Windows as well as UNIX. This provides another set of complications. We are well aware of the need for improving access to the repository. However, the incorporation of the Foundation will not make the conversion to a new system happen any faster or slower than it is already going. Jeffrey Altman smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [OpenAFS] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] An open letter from the OpenAFS Council of Elders
On May 11, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Rodney M. Dyer wrote: At 11:42 AM 5/11/2008, Esther Filderman wrote: As it's own 501c3 corporation OpenAFS would be able to accept donations without a third party, something that would probably make it easier -- and more comfortable -- for many sites to do. Additionally, there are resources that neither company can always directly provide, especially things like hardware. I have personally donated to OpenAFS, but quite simply, as I am not independently wealthy, my donation isn't worth more than a few hours of consulting. My point was that if any IT shops are like ours, we can't just "donate" money. Especially as a state funded institution, we can only "buy" products or services that fulfill our needs. We're a state-funded institution as well, so 501c(3) for OpenAFS doesn't mean that much to us. But it can make a big, big difference for corporations or individuals donating funds or equipment. If I had enough bucks in my pocket to pay for, say, the native windows client implementation, I'd save 35% by giving to the foundation rather than paying SN/etc. As a corporation (say, Sun, IBM, HP) I'd get pretty much nothing by giving hardware to SN or an individual. By donating it to the 501, I can deduct the cost. Ditto for donating my proprietary OS software that I'd like to have AFS work correctly on. Steve ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] An open letter from the OpenAFS Council of Elders
Steve Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
> We're a state-funded institution as well, so 501c(3) for OpenAFS
> doesn't mean that much to us.
...
501c3 doesn't mean anything directly to us. We're certainly not going to
see a tax break. However, in the funny world of grants and donations,
it can still matter a lot. It is very often the case that equipment
the university gets for various grants and proposals have particular
restrictions on them - commonly at the end of the grant it can be either
kept, sold for what it's worth, or donated ("transferred") to certain
types of 'qualifying' organizations. 501c3 is one possible qualification.
There are various less tangible ways in which it's easier (or at least
different) for the university to work with 501c3 organizations. I'm not
an expert on what those ways are, but that could matter if somebody here
were to decide to get into the business of applying for government grants
to work on AFS.
-Marcus Watts
___
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] An open letter from the OpenAFS Council of Elders
On May 11, 2008, at 2:54 PM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: I think the politics of funding a foundation might be better served by continuing the relatively closed-access CVS repo. I think the two issues are pretty much independent. ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] An open letter from the OpenAFS Council of Elders
Steve Simmons wrote: We're a state-funded institution as well, so 501c(3) for OpenAFS doesn't mean that much to us. But it can make a big, big difference for corporations or individuals donating funds or equipment. If I had enough bucks in my pocket to pay for, say, the native windows client implementation, I'd save 35% by giving to the foundation rather than paying SN/etc. As a corporation (say, Sun, IBM, HP) I'd get pretty much nothing by giving hardware to SN or an individual. By donating it to the 501, I can deduct the cost. Ditto for donating my proprietary OS software that I'd like to have AFS work correctly on. Steve: I think you are overstating the benefit. A corporation that deducts the cost of OpenAFS development in full as a business expense will receive a larger tax write-off than by donating cash to the Foundation. Hardware that has been fully depreciated prior to donation also has no value from the perspective of the corporation taxes. The Foundation has a need to demonstrate that it is publicly supported. As a result contributions of cash, copyrights which were purchased through development contracts with commercial development houses, donations of new hardware, donations of OS or DevTool licenses, etc., anything that has a market price can help demonstrate public support. Copyright contributions that are not the result of a market purchase have no value according to the IRS because the value cannot be fairly determined. Jeffrey Altman smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [OpenAFS] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] An open letter from the OpenAFS Council of Elders
On May 13, 2008, at 9:31 AM, Jeffrey Altman wrote: Steve Simmons wrote: We're a state-funded institution as well, so 501c(3) for OpenAFS doesn't mean that much to us. But it can make a big, big difference for corporations or individuals donating funds or equipment. If I had enough bucks in my pocket to pay for, say, the native windows client implementation, I'd save 35% by giving to the foundation rather than paying SN/etc. As a corporation (say, Sun, IBM, HP) I'd get pretty much nothing by giving hardware to SN or an individual. By donating it to the 501, I can deduct the cost. Ditto for donating my proprietary OS software that I'd like to have AFS work correctly on. Steve: I think you are overstating the benefit. A corporation that deducts the cost of OpenAFS development in full as a business expense will receive a larger tax write-off than by donating cash to the Foundation. Hardware that has been fully depreciated prior to donation also has no value from the perspective of the corporation taxes. Correct. On the other hand, having software developed by donating avoids a number of, er, interesting corporate issues. You don't have to develop the internal expertise needed before beginning the work, you don't encumber an existing employee nor hire another, ya-da, ya-da. If you have a feature- specific need, donation can be cheaper and easier than getting a contractor. And I was kind of hoping companies would donate their relatively new stuff to make sure AFS runs on it, not fully depreciated stuff. Something running the newest iteration of SPARC, etc. There's definitely a deduction for the company in such a case, tho nothing like the full retail value. I've not looked in a few years, but full depreciation used to take three to four years, depending on which schedule you use. At that point there's some question as to if we'd even want it. The Foundation has a need to demonstrate that it is publicly supported. As a result contributions of cash, copyrights which were purchased through development contracts with commercial development houses, donations of new hardware, donations of OS or DevTool licenses, etc., anything that has a market price can help demonstrate public support. Copyright contributions that are not the result of a market purchase have no value according to the IRS because the value cannot be fairly determined. True. I was thinking of 'donating my proprietary OS software' in the sense of HP giving the Foundation new copies of HP/UX as it comes out, Microsoft donating various software they'd like AFS to run on, etc. Licenses and installable stuff, not source. ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] Re: [OpenAFS-devel] An open letter from the OpenAFS Council of Elders
Penned by Troy Benjegerdes on 20080508 16:11.40, we have: [..] | Finally, from a developer point of view, I believe it is quite important | that the first project of the new foundation be to migrate from the | existing CVS source code repository to a distributed open-source based | version control system. (This would mostly likely be either Git or | Mercrial.. once in either one of these formats, conversions any other | source control system of choice should be a lot easier) I suspect that cvs would be finely distributed if the /afs/openafs.org cell were still active. That being said, it is clear you have an agenda and preferances with code version control software. Perhaps rather than stating the conslusion, you could state the problem you are trying to solve? :-) -- Todd Fries .. [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ | \ 1.636.410.0632 (voice) | Free Daemon Consulting, LLC \ 1.405.227.9094 (voice) | http://FreeDaemonConsulting.com \ 1.866.792.3418 (FAX) | "..in support of free software solutions." \ 1.700.227.9094 (IAXTEL) | \ 250797 (FWD) \\ 37E7 D3EB 74D0 8D66 A68D B866 0326 204E 3F42 004A http://todd.fries.net/pgp.txt ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
