On 2016-09-25 17:45, Ross Gardler wrote:
You seem to have taken my comment as an indication that I have concerns one
way or the other. That is not the case.
What I'm saying is that to make a
case for extra budget there needs to be solid justification that a move to
ASF will help the community grow.
Ross, can you elaborate further on this?
Your statement is rather confusing and AFAIK such a justification has never
been put forward as a criteria for entering the ASF.
The fact that NetBeans might need extra budget clearly makes it different
than most other podlings, and as such it definitely requires extra attention.
If you mean: expected grow of more active committers and more diversity among
them, then that hardly looks like a problem to me.
If anything, that *is* one of the primary reasons to move to the ASF.
And while I agree with Geertjan that just looking at the Zeroturnaround
productivity report is not a proper nor realistic measurement, if anything
it shows there is still more than enough community using NetBeans today
that we should not have to worry about a lack of that at all.
I'd say on the contrary: it shows there is plenty to gain, and moving to
the ASF can (and IMO will) be a great help in that direction.
The ASF is not a magic bullet, there needs
to be a plan coming from the incoming project.
IMO the NetBeans proposal already provides the needed details for that plan.
Including sound reasoning why they (and I) think the move to the ASF will
benefit the project as well as the community.
Nor have I have seen one single argument to the contrary.
Regards, Ate
The costings here are more
than we usually get when a new podling is considered. This is a very good
start.
The data I refer to is only one data point. If you have data that contradicts
it then provide it in your request for funds (yes this has been discussed to
some extent across the main discuss thread, but it needs to be packaged up
nicely for VP Infra, Prez and finally Board to consider.
My one data point is
http://pages.zeroturnaround.com/RebelLabs-Developer-Productivity-Report-2016.html?utm_source=rebellabs_allreports&utm_medium=rebellabs&utm_campaign=rebellabs
(requires sign in). That reports shows a decline from 14% in 2012 to 10%
today. To be fair that has been steady since 2014.
The reason for my explicit request is that the foundation is currently
running at a significant deficit. That's not a problem since we have many
years of cash in the bank at the current deficit. However, we do need to plan
for the future. So any new budget requests need to be fully justified. That's
all I'm asking for. A "just because" is not sufficient. Like you and others
have said there needs to be evidence to back up claims, simply adopting the
apache way does not mean that NetBeans will be successful as an Apache
project. If my data (limited to the above single data point) is
inaccurate/invalid/not representative then you should have no problem
providing evidence to the contrary when you ask for this budget.
One final note, back in Jan 2015 the board approved a limited experiment with
directed sponsorship to help alleviate issues like this. Maybe this would be
useful to the NetBeans community. See presidents report here:
http://apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2015/board_minutes_2015_01_21.txt
Ross
-----Original Message----- From: m...@wadechandler.com
[mailto:m...@wadechandler.com] On Behalf Of Wade Chandler Sent: Saturday,
September 24, 2016 8:04 PM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re:
Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans
Incubator Proposal)
First, I think we need to see the data you are referring to. Anecdotally
the NB community seems to be growing. We are certainly competing with more
projects such as VS Code and others in recent years. However, given
reviews over the past many years of Java IDEs, NB has consistently been in
the top 3. IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate is not an open source project by the way,
so I suggest any comparisons to it, especially in the context of an
organization such as Apache, is not relevant. Money being one thing, and
everything else another, including OSS versus sort of OSS, I think it a
fair question, but I hope not a subjective and biased one.
Has moving to Apache ever reversed trends which you are referring? For
instance, does Apache champion it's own model over others? Why should a
project move to the Apache way? Us in the NB community have pushed Oracle
to move to a more open and community focused model for years. This sounded
like it was about to happen, and many were excited to hear Apache, but I
don't know what goal post this is, and if realistic, and if this email is
to be viewed negatively or not.
It doesn't seem oriented towards analyzing statements of cost to be applied
in support of other projects, or a way forward based on cost reduction or
code sharing given the initial estimate, but instead focuses on a seemingly
nebulous decline of NetBeans which is the first news I have seen of this.
Are there ways to cut the cost estimates? GoDaddy (surely others) has some
nice plans with unlimited storage and bandwidth, and some rewrites of some
systems with PHP, could make some things more viable. What about cost
share across projects with similar needs? Do no other Apache projects have
plugins or distribution needs? Other than build servers, what can't be
consolidated? What about monetary donations to projects or specific Apache
line items? Has there been any such talk?
How many other OSS Java IDEs are their? Seem only 2 at the Eclipse and
NetBeans level. Having them both exist makes the entire ecosystem
healthier in my opinion. It would be a shame to not have one of the real
open source Java IDEs exist as an Apache project IMO.
Thanks
Wade
On Sep 24, 2016 7:16 PM, "Ross Gardler" <ross.gard...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
The ASF need to justify spending an extra $10k per year in this one
project at the expense of that $10k going to other projects.
Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a move
of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest that NetBeans
is seeing.
It may sound trivial, but we can support three "traditional" ASF projects
for NetBeans budget. As a charity we need to think carefully about how we
spend our money. A solid argument that this would reverse the downward
trend for NetBeans will go a long way to reassuring me (as one member,
but also as the person ultimately responsible for paying such a budget
request to the board).
Ross
--- Twitter: @rgardler
________________________________ From: Ted Dunning
<ted.dunn...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM To:
general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost
findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a
coop request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus)
and incubator (who cause the problem).
Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.
I will work with the board to determine the best form.
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann <mattm...@apache.org>
wrote:
Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
Chris
On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" <humbed...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi folks,
I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure,
it's
ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the
cliff
notes are as follows:
- 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins) - 8-13
machines/VMS are required - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and
$10k per year,
depending
on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close we
come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working with
is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in
case.
- The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site,
CI,
new build machines) and the project (services, plugins,
statistics),
which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra
time
spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial
phase.
Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving
the
go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people willing to
host this.
Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering
their assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the
case
from
the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine costs may
be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.
Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board
for a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as
well
as
the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and
utilize
the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in the
coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
approving NetBeans as a new podling.
With regards, Daniel.
------------------------------------------------------------
---------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
