All, I've gone through the entire thread and I am going to make an attempt at summarizing this conversation to flush out the most burning and critical issues around this discussion. I've summarized what I believe the high-level argument to be. Please everyone review the list below (you will find many of your concerns), and confirm that this captures everyone's concerns for now. Try framing any uncovered concerns into the categories below. If there's nothing more to add I believe we should move towards both:
- Seriously exploring solutions to the problems that don't involve not creating two organizations - Seriously trying to address the problems that would come with moving to a new organization. Hope this works for everyone to move the conversation to the next stage. Thanks, Simon Developing (as newbie or veteran) is difficult/cumbersome for the following reasons: - Developing involves a huge number of github repositories with inconsistent branching structure. - The repositories contain a ton of cruft, as partially documented here: http://crowbar.sync.in/crowbar-repos - Developing requires learning a complex new tool [dev-tool] - Documentation is scattered across multiple locations, and is frequently duplicated and/or out of date. We want to make it easier and attract more people to help with the project so we want to: - collect Barclamps into larger "workload" repos (so the dev tool won't be needed anymore) - engage in a re-branding exercise on the organization name (OpenCrowbar vs. Crowbar) We can't do this without creating another Organization because: - We need to avoid the clutter of Crowbar's current organization - It will be very hard to disambiguate CB1 information that's - accumulated and will be highly confusing for people trying to learn either version - We shouldn't/cannot touch the CB1 repos without a major investment in validation that I think it wasted effort - There's risk of the cleanup messing with 1.x releases - Adding more repos in the Crowbar org will only add to the "mess" because we'll have that many more places for people to get lost - We need to counter the "isn't Crowbar a Dell-only project"-argument. Therefore it's a good idea to embrace the OpenCrowbar project name.. much as SUSE is recognized by OpenSUSE We believe potential benefits outweigh the risks: - Doubling the number of places issues can be tracked - Causing confusion over which wiki should be used - Which repo should host the website - Doubling the number of (push) access lists and subscriptions to be managed - Not actually resolving any of the "newbie" confusion or even aggregating the confusion on documentation - search engine indexes not directing people properly From: crowbar-bounces On Behalf Of Rai, Sakvinder Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2013 3:40 PM To: crowbar Subject: Re: [Crowbar] Crowbar 2 Hack Report Dell - Internal Use - Confidential +1 A more structured and clean environment will aide in future development as well as testing, it's a definite need. Sak -----Original Message----- From: crowbar-bounces On Behalf Of Adam Spiers Sent: 20 November 2013 17:31 To: crowbar Subject: Re: [Crowbar] Crowbar 2 Hack Report John Terpstra (john_terps...@dell.com<mailto:john_terps...@dell.com>) wrote: > The fact that Crowbar has a high barrier to new participants is > undeniable. It is of utmost importance to the future of the project > that the obstacles to entry of new developers must be removed. Agreed! > The positive steps to remove barriers should result in: > > a) Greater recognition that Crowbar is an Open Source and > Community-driven project Right. Recognition will come only if the project becomes truly community-driven. > b) Ability to readily identify the exact code repositories that make up > all components of the Crowbar project Yes. Architecture quickstarts, reduction in the number of repos, and simplification / elimination of a monolithic dev tool would address this. > c) Improved information - Ready ability to find and locate all essential > documentation (web as well as documents) Yes! > d) Ease of getting from start to effective and efficient code > development/production Yes! > e) Easy to get new organizations on board in support of the project Yes! > Achievement of these achievements (in my opinion) validates any > challenges of efforts required. Agreed! > The new information resources should point to all the old Crowbar 1.x > code and documentation. I don't understand the logic behind this last statement. Currently we have one set of crufty docs. Creating another set which points back to it is going to hinder not help the above goals. _______________________________________________ Crowbar mailing list Crowbar@dell.com<mailto:Crowbar@dell.com> https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/crowbar For more information: http://crowbar.github.com/ Dell Corporation Limited is registered in England and Wales. Company Registration Number: 2081369 Registered address: Dell House, The Boulevard, Cain Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 1LF, UK. Company details for other Dell UK entities can be found on www.dell.co.uk<http://www.dell.co.uk>.
_______________________________________________ Crowbar mailing list Crowbar@dell.com https://lists.us.dell.com/mailman/listinfo/crowbar For more information: http://crowbar.github.com/
