I have concerns about the proposal, but not with the ones you raise. If you're right about the costs, they not going to hit from day one - as the initial effort will be in building the community and building something that can be released and very little needed in terms of end users - and the ASF has more than enough resources to cope with that. The ASF has IMO a great track record in fund raising and is not without resources (see the latest treasurers report[1]) and if this project succeeds here I wouldn't be surprised to see its success bring in an increase in ASF funding. If the project failed, then I also doubt that we would have incurred that much expenditure.
Needing a large community, being able to cope with an IBM pullout & releasing lots of binaries are all things this project would need to demonstrate they can deal with before graduating. If they can't then they wouldn't become an official ASF project. I also don't think the user support and the ASF lack of experience is that big a deal. It will take more hardware and consume more time from the infra engineers - but we already have pretty impressive infra thats on a pretty big scale. The OOo project will need to build the community of volunteers to support the end users and the experience that requires - that will be a task that needs to start in incubation - if not complete. That will be a difficult task - but IMO thats not a reason not to try and lack of experience in that area is not a reason not to accept the proposal. Niall [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2011/board_minutes_2011_02_16.txt On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Marvin Humphrey <mar...@rectangular.com> wrote: > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
