You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> on 2016/09/24 10:17:21 UTC
Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans
Incubator Proposal)
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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reuse Maven repository more was: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 5:13 AM, Jaroslav Tulach
<ja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are also the [3rd party binaries used during NetBeans build](http://
> hg.netbeans.org/binaries/) - most of them available from Maven central. I
> already [created a patch](http://hg.netbeans.org/releases/rev/3178d0a561c8) to
> allow such download and it seems to work.
Depends on the license. That should certainly do for GPL'ed artifacts.
I don't foresee cases like Oracle JDBC Drivers, or the like.
Jochen
--
The next time you hear: "Don't reinvent the wheel!"
http://www.keystonedevelopment.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/evolution-of-the-wheel-300x85.jpg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reuse Maven repository more
Posted by Stephen Connolly <st...@gmail.com>.
On Friday 30 September 2016, Jaroslav Tulach <ja...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 28. 9. 2016 v 11:25, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com <javascript:;>>:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Jaroslav Tulach <
> jaroslav.tulach@gmail.com <javascript:;>
> >> wrote:
> >> ...
> >
> >> One idea that keeps puzzling in my mind is to reuse central Maven
> >> repository
> >> more than we used to. If I understand correctly while the Maven central
> is
> >> operated by Sonatype, it is just "leased" to them and still oversight by
> >> Apache.
> >
> >
> > Not so much. We license the "Apache Maven" trademark to them, to provide
> a
> > fantastic service to the Maven community. But Maven Central is *all*
> > Sonatype, and the ASF generally just provides oversight over trademark
> use
> > (rather than operation).
> >
> > To state things another way: the ASF has zero control over what goes onto
> > their platform. Shoot, we have a copy of the software which runs Maven
> > Central, but it is proprietary and we merely hold a license to run it.
> This
> > isn't pillows and unicorns. You will need to make a business case with
> > Sonatype to include stuff beyond artifacts that Apache Maven can consume
> > from their repository.
> >
> > (that is my reasonably-informed understanding; a discussion with Sonatype
> > and the Apache Maven PMC is your best bet)
Not quite true.
Sonatype is running the active hosting of central, but there are
full mirrors of the content that are kept live (modulo a few hours for some
to a few days/weeks for others).
The URL that maven distos now point to is an apache.org URL rather than the
maven.org URL. If there were an issue with the current sonatype provided
service, we *could* switch to the apache mirror hosting on and change the
DNS entry.
The value sonatype currently provides is the artifact on-ramp (aside from
covering the bandwidth charges)
Previously there was a long complex set of rsync rules to pull content from
various sources. That has by and large been replaced by Sonatype Nexus and
some Mexus federation "magic".
We probably could get Artifactory to a place where it could perform the
same functionality but currently there is a gap...
Having said that, I think we are happy with the Sonatype service.
> Thanks Greg for your answer.
>
> On one side of my proposal is cost control for Apache foundation. By
> reusing infrastructure that already exists and is (has to be as the
> trademark is owned by the foundation) friendly, we can eliminate the load
> for extra services (http://plugins.netbeans.org) NetBeans currently has.
> I don't think the increase of the load is going to be any significant - the
> amounts of downloads Apache Maven central has to handle is way bigger than
> NetBeans needs, I assume.
Yeah but you'd want to check with Sonatype before adding that load onto
Central first...
The internal copy of Nexus that hosts repository.apache.org is probably not
sized to handle the netbeans load. Rather it is sized to handle the
deployment be developers, occasional downloads by PMCs testing artifacts
being voted on and the sync to central.
>
> Simplification of the build infrastructure is the other goal. If we use
> only the bits on the Apache Maven central, then we don't need any special
> support infrastructure (http://hg.netbeans.org/binaries). That requires a
> bit of work, but again it could help Apache control the cost of adopting
> NetBeans.
For building netbeans, yes you want to go that route.
>
> The last side is related to legal issues. Any infrastructure that helps to
> distribute 3rd party code is troublesome: viruses, malware, spyware, etc.
> By reusing the same infrastructure as Apache Maven, we align NetBeans with
> existing Apache approved solution. Apache NetBeans would only download what
> Apache Maven can - e.g. The risk of using NetBeans would be the same as
> using Maven. In my view, this should make the foundation OK with
> distributing such software like NetBeans.
>
> I agree with Wade, that all such changes should only happen when NetBeans
> is accepted for the incubation phase. The only reason of my proposal is to
> show that we don't have "insolvable issues". We may have challenging ones,
> but I am sure, we can solve all of them.
>
> Jaroslav Tulach
> NetBeans Platform Architect
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
>
>
--
Sent from my phone
Re: Reuse Maven repository more
Posted by Jaroslav Tulach <ja...@gmail.com>.
28. 9. 2016 v 11:25, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Jaroslav Tulach <jaroslav.tulach@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>> ...
>
>> One idea that keeps puzzling in my mind is to reuse central Maven
>> repository
>> more than we used to. If I understand correctly while the Maven central is
>> operated by Sonatype, it is just "leased" to them and still oversight by
>> Apache.
>
>
> Not so much. We license the "Apache Maven" trademark to them, to provide a
> fantastic service to the Maven community. But Maven Central is *all*
> Sonatype, and the ASF generally just provides oversight over trademark use
> (rather than operation).
>
> To state things another way: the ASF has zero control over what goes onto
> their platform. Shoot, we have a copy of the software which runs Maven
> Central, but it is proprietary and we merely hold a license to run it. This
> isn't pillows and unicorns. You will need to make a business case with
> Sonatype to include stuff beyond artifacts that Apache Maven can consume
> from their repository.
>
> (that is my reasonably-informed understanding; a discussion with Sonatype
> and the Apache Maven PMC is your best bet)
Thanks Greg for your answer.
On one side of my proposal is cost control for Apache foundation. By reusing infrastructure that already exists and is (has to be as the trademark is owned by the foundation) friendly, we can eliminate the load for extra services (http://plugins.netbeans.org) NetBeans currently has. I don't think the increase of the load is going to be any significant - the amounts of downloads Apache Maven central has to handle is way bigger than NetBeans needs, I assume.
Simplification of the build infrastructure is the other goal. If we use only the bits on the Apache Maven central, then we don't need any special support infrastructure (http://hg.netbeans.org/binaries). That requires a bit of work, but again it could help Apache control the cost of adopting NetBeans.
The last side is related to legal issues. Any infrastructure that helps to distribute 3rd party code is troublesome: viruses, malware, spyware, etc. By reusing the same infrastructure as Apache Maven, we align NetBeans with existing Apache approved solution. Apache NetBeans would only download what Apache Maven can - e.g. The risk of using NetBeans would be the same as using Maven. In my view, this should make the foundation OK with distributing such software like NetBeans.
I agree with Wade, that all such changes should only happen when NetBeans is accepted for the incubation phase. The only reason of my proposal is to show that we don't have "insolvable issues". We may have challenging ones, but I am sure, we can solve all of them.
Jaroslav Tulach
NetBeans Platform Architect
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reuse Maven repository more was: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Wade Chandler
<co...@wadechandler.com> wrote:
> ...more later when we get to an incubator...
+1
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Reuse Maven repository more was: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Wade Chandler <co...@wadechandler.com>.
On Sep 28, 2016 5:55 AM, "Sven Reimers" <sv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 2. Use Maven repository as storahe backend for the plugin portal, so that
> only the metadata is hosted at the portal not the module binaries..
>
I think the terminology here is key. A "storage backend" for plugins.n.o.
Thus the current UI continues to work for users who are not perhaps self
hosting their plugins or building them to mvn central. I think plugins.n.o
can then be changed to support artifact coordinates as well, then plugin
authors can register them in multiple ways, and one of them upload and the
other meta-data plus coordinates. It could be future wise an archive type
could be uploaded to house all that extra plugin information or may already
be in the plugin itself...outside of screen shots, then then portal could
take only coordinate references without a version and automatically
reference the various versions over time, and be mostly automatic. We could
even drive more of this from DOAP registration (an Apache thing for those
who don't know) https://projects.apache.org/doap.html. Anyways, more later
when we get to an incubator.
Thanks
Wade
Re: Reuse Maven repository more was: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Sven Reimers <sv...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
if I understood Jaroslav correct he is proposing two changes
1. Download 3rd party binaries needed to build NetBeans from a maven
repository (maven central, jcenter or if you behinf corporate firewalls a
synced self hosted repo using nexus or artifactory)
2. Use Maven repository as storahe backend for the plugin portal, so that
only the metadata is hosted at the portal not the module binaries..
Both ideas seem to be really good enhancements to the way this works now!
Thanks Jaroslav for the great idea and support
Sven
Am 28.09.2016 11:25 schrieb "Greg Stein" <gs...@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Jaroslav Tulach <
> jaroslav.tulach@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >...
>
> > One idea that keeps puzzling in my mind is to reuse central Maven
> > repository
> > more than we used to. If I understand correctly while the Maven central
> is
> > operated by Sonatype, it is just "leased" to them and still oversight by
> > Apache.
>
>
> Not so much. We license the "Apache Maven" trademark to them, to provide a
> fantastic service to the Maven community. But Maven Central is *all*
> Sonatype, and the ASF generally just provides oversight over trademark use
> (rather than operation).
>
> To state things another way: the ASF has zero control over what goes onto
> their platform. Shoot, we have a copy of the software which runs Maven
> Central, but it is proprietary and we merely hold a license to run it. This
> isn't pillows and unicorns. You will need to make a business case with
> Sonatype to include stuff beyond artifacts that Apache Maven can consume
> from their repository.
>
> (that is my reasonably-informed understanding; a discussion with Sonatype
> and the Apache Maven PMC is your best bet)
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
Re: Reuse Maven repository more was: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 10:13 PM, Jaroslav Tulach <jaroslav.tulach@gmail.com
> wrote:
>...
> One idea that keeps puzzling in my mind is to reuse central Maven
> repository
> more than we used to. If I understand correctly while the Maven central is
> operated by Sonatype, it is just "leased" to them and still oversight by
> Apache.
Not so much. We license the "Apache Maven" trademark to them, to provide a
fantastic service to the Maven community. But Maven Central is *all*
Sonatype, and the ASF generally just provides oversight over trademark use
(rather than operation).
To state things another way: the ASF has zero control over what goes onto
their platform. Shoot, we have a copy of the software which runs Maven
Central, but it is proprietary and we merely hold a license to run it. This
isn't pillows and unicorns. You will need to make a business case with
Sonatype to include stuff beyond artifacts that Apache Maven can consume
from their repository.
(that is my reasonably-informed understanding; a discussion with Sonatype
and the Apache Maven PMC is your best bet)
Cheers,
-g
Re: Reuse Maven repository more was: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
This would be brilliant. Make it happen!
Gj
On Wednesday, September 28, 2016, Jaroslav Tulach <ja...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On sobota 24. září 2016 12:17:21 CEST, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Hi.
> One idea that keeps puzzling in my mind is to reuse central Maven
> repository
> more than we used to. If I understand correctly while the Maven central is
> operated by Sonatype, it is just "leased" to them and still oversight by
> Apache. As such the Maven central could be a natural place to upload
> NetBeans
> related binaries.
>
> NetBeans already knows how to produce Maven artifacts and there is a
> NetBeans
> Maven repository: http://bits.netbeans.org/nexus/content/groups/netbeans/
>
> In addition to that we could modify the http://plugins.netbeans.org to be
> just
> a catalog over bits available in Maven central.
>
> There are also the [3rd party binaries used during NetBeans build](http://
> hg.netbeans.org/binaries/) - most of them available from Maven central. I
> already [created a patch](http://hg.netbeans.org/releases/rev/3178d0a561c8)
> to
> allow such download and it seems to work.
>
> Would downloading bits from Maven repository address the legal and
> infrastructure issues?
>
> It might, right? Legal issues of hosting bits at maven.org are probably
> well
> understood. The storage capacity is high. Download is instant. Maven
> repository is the natural storage for Apache projects. If my observations
> are
> true, let's start of modifying NetBeans to use Maven central more.
>
> Jaroslav Tulach
> NetBeans Platform Architect
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:;>
>
>
Reuse Maven repository more was: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Jaroslav Tulach <ja...@gmail.com>.
On sobota 24. září 2016 12:17:21 CEST, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> 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.
Hi.
One idea that keeps puzzling in my mind is to reuse central Maven repository
more than we used to. If I understand correctly while the Maven central is
operated by Sonatype, it is just "leased" to them and still oversight by
Apache. As such the Maven central could be a natural place to upload NetBeans
related binaries.
NetBeans already knows how to produce Maven artifacts and there is a NetBeans
Maven repository: http://bits.netbeans.org/nexus/content/groups/netbeans/
In addition to that we could modify the http://plugins.netbeans.org to be just
a catalog over bits available in Maven central.
There are also the [3rd party binaries used during NetBeans build](http://
hg.netbeans.org/binaries/) - most of them available from Maven central. I
already [created a patch](http://hg.netbeans.org/releases/rev/3178d0a561c8) to
allow such download and it seems to work.
Would downloading bits from Maven repository address the legal and
infrastructure issues?
It might, right? Legal issues of hosting bits at maven.org are probably well
understood. The storage capacity is high. Download is instant. Maven
repository is the natural storage for Apache projects. If my observations are
true, let's start of modifying NetBeans to use Maven central more.
Jaroslav Tulach
NetBeans Platform Architect
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 2:27 PM Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.invalid>
wrote:
> +1
>
> This is almsot a worst case calculation.
> I too think that we will be able to cut down costs seriously as we do not
> need 10 servers anymore.
>
> E.g. we can share the OSX box with OpenOffice, the GIT repo will get cut
> down and the traffic is mostly offloaded to github.
>
Last I heard, the OS X box had been decommissioned. There is no OS X
builds for AOO at this time.
> We might be able to offload the plugins hosting to Maven.central and/or
> Bintray, etc
>
Please check our notes vs what Geertjan has proposed.
>
> Of course there will still be resources which are needed, but I don't see
> them as show stopper.
>
>
> I also think the initial committer discussion is resolved.
>
> So what else do we need before starting a VOTE?
> This thread has almost 200 replies, so there seems to be a huge interest...
>
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sunday, 25 September 2016, 19:03, Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> >
> >
> >> My only concern, if you go ahead with a vote before you get an ack, is
> >> that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs.
> >
> >
> > I'd like to reiterate a point I have made earlier: the preliminary
> NetBeans
> > cost findings are based on the current infrastructure of NetBeans in
> > Oracle. In the context of Apache, a number of the services we had before
> we
> > will (1) not need anymore or (2) not have supported by Apache anymore.
> >
> > During incubation, we will work on moving the Oracle NetBeans
> > infrastructure to the Apache NetBeans infrastructure. We are extremely
> > interested in being part of Apache and have wanted this for many years
> > already -- we are going to err on the side of compliance with the Apache
> > Way over the structures we had before. Take a look again at the proposal
> > and notice how many organizations are already involved -- multiple of
> those
> > will be able to provide the services that Apache may not be able to
> provide.
> >
> > We simply want to be an Apache project, we love Apache, we have supported
> > so many Apache projects over the years (Maven, Ant, Groovy, and more) and
> > want to support even more of them and simply be good citizens of the
> Apache
> > community.
> >
> > Gj
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 09/25/2016 06:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> >> > Hi Daniel,
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno
> > <hu...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and
> > the
> >> cliff
> >> >> notes are as follows...
> >> >
> >> > Thanks very much for this - it is useful and I think we should do
> that
> >> > for any "big" podling that comes in, from now on.
> >> >
> >> >> ...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....
> >> >
> >> > I don't think asking for budget is a task of the Incubator PMC, I
> > would
> >> suggest
> >> >
> >> > 1. Incubator PMC/infra estimates the cost of new podlings as you did
> >> > 2. Incubator PMC reports those numbers to ASF infra at regular
> >> > intervals, maybe just include them in their monthly reports
> >> > 3. Infra adds the numbers up and if needed asks for more budget based
> >> > on these podlings
> >>
> >> I think it very much _is_ the job of the IPMC to argue for increased
> >> spending, as any other project would if they required additional funds
> >> for specific requirements. The IPMC (or rather, a part of it) wants to
> >> add NetBeans as a podling, it should be up to the IPMC to argue the
> >> podling's case.
> >>
> >> Infra has already expressed concerns with the costs of the podling
> >> (remember VP Infra started this discussion), it's up to the IPMC to get
> >> an ack that this increased expenditure is okay. I'm not saying this
> >> needs to be voted on by the board (I honestly don't know/care how this
> >> is done), but it should be acked by operations that the added expense
> is
> >> okay.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > For now, considering that the numbers you indicate won't make a
> > big
> >> > dent in the current infra budget [1] and considering that it's the
> >> > first time we do such an analysis I suggest for the infra team to
> >> > accept decoupling the NetBeans acceptance vote from the details of
> >> > these numbers, and we'll sort out the corresponding budget later
> > at
> >> > the board / infra level.
> >>
> >> Infra doesn't decide which podlings the IPMC lets into the fold, but it
> >> may say "sorry, we're not going to offer you the services you
> > require"
> >> if there's no acknowledgement that an increased expense is okay.
> >>
> >> The IPMC is, for all I care, free to hold a vote, in which people may
> >> vote -1 if they don't think the budget is sound/warranted. Infra
> > doesn't
> >> have binding votes there :)
> >>
> >> My only concern, if you go ahead with a vote before you get an ack, is
> >> that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs.
> >>
> >> With regards,
> >> Daniel.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > -Bertrand
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/
> >> 2015/board_minutes_2015_04_22.txt
> >> > for example
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
+1
This is almsot a worst case calculation.
I too think that we will be able to cut down costs seriously as we do not need 10 servers anymore.
E.g. we can share the OSX box with OpenOffice, the GIT repo will get cut down and the traffic is mostly offloaded to github.
We might be able to offload the plugins hosting to Maven.central and/or Bintray, etc
Of course there will still be resources which are needed, but I don't see them as show stopper.
I also think the initial committer discussion is resolved.
So what else do we need before starting a VOTE?
This thread has almost 200 replies, so there seems to be a huge interest...
LieGrue,
strub
> On Sunday, 25 September 2016, 19:03, Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
>
>
>> My only concern, if you go ahead with a vote before you get an ack, is
>> that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs.
>
>
> I'd like to reiterate a point I have made earlier: the preliminary NetBeans
> cost findings are based on the current infrastructure of NetBeans in
> Oracle. In the context of Apache, a number of the services we had before we
> will (1) not need anymore or (2) not have supported by Apache anymore.
>
> During incubation, we will work on moving the Oracle NetBeans
> infrastructure to the Apache NetBeans infrastructure. We are extremely
> interested in being part of Apache and have wanted this for many years
> already -- we are going to err on the side of compliance with the Apache
> Way over the structures we had before. Take a look again at the proposal
> and notice how many organizations are already involved -- multiple of those
> will be able to provide the services that Apache may not be able to provide.
>
> We simply want to be an Apache project, we love Apache, we have supported
> so many Apache projects over the years (Maven, Ant, Groovy, and more) and
> want to support even more of them and simply be good citizens of the Apache
> community.
>
> Gj
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/25/2016 06:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>> > Hi Daniel,
>> >
>> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno
> <hu...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >> ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and
> the
>> cliff
>> >> notes are as follows...
>> >
>> > Thanks very much for this - it is useful and I think we should do that
>> > for any "big" podling that comes in, from now on.
>> >
>> >> ...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....
>> >
>> > I don't think asking for budget is a task of the Incubator PMC, I
> would
>> suggest
>> >
>> > 1. Incubator PMC/infra estimates the cost of new podlings as you did
>> > 2. Incubator PMC reports those numbers to ASF infra at regular
>> > intervals, maybe just include them in their monthly reports
>> > 3. Infra adds the numbers up and if needed asks for more budget based
>> > on these podlings
>>
>> I think it very much _is_ the job of the IPMC to argue for increased
>> spending, as any other project would if they required additional funds
>> for specific requirements. The IPMC (or rather, a part of it) wants to
>> add NetBeans as a podling, it should be up to the IPMC to argue the
>> podling's case.
>>
>> Infra has already expressed concerns with the costs of the podling
>> (remember VP Infra started this discussion), it's up to the IPMC to get
>> an ack that this increased expenditure is okay. I'm not saying this
>> needs to be voted on by the board (I honestly don't know/care how this
>> is done), but it should be acked by operations that the added expense is
>> okay.
>>
>> >
>> > For now, considering that the numbers you indicate won't make a
> big
>> > dent in the current infra budget [1] and considering that it's the
>> > first time we do such an analysis I suggest for the infra team to
>> > accept decoupling the NetBeans acceptance vote from the details of
>> > these numbers, and we'll sort out the corresponding budget later
> at
>> > the board / infra level.
>>
>> Infra doesn't decide which podlings the IPMC lets into the fold, but it
>> may say "sorry, we're not going to offer you the services you
> require"
>> if there's no acknowledgement that an increased expense is okay.
>>
>> The IPMC is, for all I care, free to hold a vote, in which people may
>> vote -1 if they don't think the budget is sound/warranted. Infra
> doesn't
>> have binding votes there :)
>>
>> My only concern, if you go ahead with a vote before you get an ack, is
>> that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs.
>>
>> With regards,
>> Daniel.
>>
>> >
>> > -Bertrand
>> >
>> > [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/
>> 2015/board_minutes_2015_04_22.txt
>> > for example
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Gruno wrote:
> My only concern, if you go ahead with a vote before you get an ack, is
> that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs.
I'd like to reiterate a point I have made earlier: the preliminary NetBeans
cost findings are based on the current infrastructure of NetBeans in
Oracle. In the context of Apache, a number of the services we had before we
will (1) not need anymore or (2) not have supported by Apache anymore.
During incubation, we will work on moving the Oracle NetBeans
infrastructure to the Apache NetBeans infrastructure. We are extremely
interested in being part of Apache and have wanted this for many years
already -- we are going to err on the side of compliance with the Apache
Way over the structures we had before. Take a look again at the proposal
and notice how many organizations are already involved -- multiple of those
will be able to provide the services that Apache may not be able to provide.
We simply want to be an Apache project, we love Apache, we have supported
so many Apache projects over the years (Maven, Ant, Groovy, and more) and
want to support even more of them and simply be good citizens of the Apache
community.
Gj
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 09/25/2016 06:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >> ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the
> cliff
> >> notes are as follows...
> >
> > Thanks very much for this - it is useful and I think we should do that
> > for any "big" podling that comes in, from now on.
> >
> >> ...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....
> >
> > I don't think asking for budget is a task of the Incubator PMC, I would
> suggest
> >
> > 1. Incubator PMC/infra estimates the cost of new podlings as you did
> > 2. Incubator PMC reports those numbers to ASF infra at regular
> > intervals, maybe just include them in their monthly reports
> > 3. Infra adds the numbers up and if needed asks for more budget based
> > on these podlings
>
> I think it very much _is_ the job of the IPMC to argue for increased
> spending, as any other project would if they required additional funds
> for specific requirements. The IPMC (or rather, a part of it) wants to
> add NetBeans as a podling, it should be up to the IPMC to argue the
> podling's case.
>
> Infra has already expressed concerns with the costs of the podling
> (remember VP Infra started this discussion), it's up to the IPMC to get
> an ack that this increased expenditure is okay. I'm not saying this
> needs to be voted on by the board (I honestly don't know/care how this
> is done), but it should be acked by operations that the added expense is
> okay.
>
> >
> > For now, considering that the numbers you indicate won't make a big
> > dent in the current infra budget [1] and considering that it's the
> > first time we do such an analysis I suggest for the infra team to
> > accept decoupling the NetBeans acceptance vote from the details of
> > these numbers, and we'll sort out the corresponding budget later at
> > the board / infra level.
>
> Infra doesn't decide which podlings the IPMC lets into the fold, but it
> may say "sorry, we're not going to offer you the services you require"
> if there's no acknowledgement that an increased expense is okay.
>
> The IPMC is, for all I care, free to hold a vote, in which people may
> vote -1 if they don't think the budget is sound/warranted. Infra doesn't
> have binding votes there :)
>
> My only concern, if you go ahead with a vote before you get an ack, is
> that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs.
>
> With regards,
> Daniel.
>
> >
> > -Bertrand
> >
> > [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/
> 2015/board_minutes_2015_04_22.txt
> > for example
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>.
On 09/25/2016 06:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
>> ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff
>> notes are as follows...
>
> Thanks very much for this - it is useful and I think we should do that
> for any "big" podling that comes in, from now on.
>
>> ...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....
>
> I don't think asking for budget is a task of the Incubator PMC, I would suggest
>
> 1. Incubator PMC/infra estimates the cost of new podlings as you did
> 2. Incubator PMC reports those numbers to ASF infra at regular
> intervals, maybe just include them in their monthly reports
> 3. Infra adds the numbers up and if needed asks for more budget based
> on these podlings
I think it very much _is_ the job of the IPMC to argue for increased
spending, as any other project would if they required additional funds
for specific requirements. The IPMC (or rather, a part of it) wants to
add NetBeans as a podling, it should be up to the IPMC to argue the
podling's case.
Infra has already expressed concerns with the costs of the podling
(remember VP Infra started this discussion), it's up to the IPMC to get
an ack that this increased expenditure is okay. I'm not saying this
needs to be voted on by the board (I honestly don't know/care how this
is done), but it should be acked by operations that the added expense is
okay.
>
> For now, considering that the numbers you indicate won't make a big
> dent in the current infra budget [1] and considering that it's the
> first time we do such an analysis I suggest for the infra team to
> accept decoupling the NetBeans acceptance vote from the details of
> these numbers, and we'll sort out the corresponding budget later at
> the board / infra level.
Infra doesn't decide which podlings the IPMC lets into the fold, but it
may say "sorry, we're not going to offer you the services you require"
if there's no acknowledgement that an increased expense is okay.
The IPMC is, for all I care, free to hold a vote, in which people may
vote -1 if they don't think the budget is sound/warranted. Infra doesn't
have binding votes there :)
My only concern, if you go ahead with a vote before you get an ack, is
that you vote in a podling that may not get the resources it needs.
With regards,
Daniel.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2015/board_minutes_2015_04_22.txt
> for example
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
I never said comparative use.
---
Twitter: @rgardler
________________________________
From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 1:47:38 PM
To: Incubator General
Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Le 25 sept. 2016 18:50, "Geertjan Wielenga" <
geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> a écrit :
>... In all fairness, it's simply impossible to prove the comparative usage
of
> one development tool over another.
>
> I'm also concerned that this is a discussion point at all in this
context....
So am I. The ASF exists to provide a space for our projects to exist, not
to compete against others.
Bertrand
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Le 25 sept. 2016 18:50, "Geertjan Wielenga" <
geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> a écrit :
>... In all fairness, it's simply impossible to prove the comparative usage
of
> one development tool over another.
>
> I'm also concerned that this is a discussion point at all in this
context....
So am I. The ASF exists to provide a space for our projects to exist, not
to compete against others.
Bertrand
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> 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.
This is the first I've heard of this.
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.
Here's my thoughts on that survey:
https://blogs.oracle.com/geertjan/entry/adding_some_color_to_the
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.
In all fairness, it's simply impossible to prove the comparative usage of
one development tool over another.
I'm also concerned that this is a discussion point at all in this context.
Thanks,
Geertjan
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff
> > notes are as follows...
>
> Thanks very much for this - it is useful and I think we should do that
> for any "big" podling that comes in, from now on.
>
> > ...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....
>
> I don't think asking for budget is a task of the Incubator PMC, I would
> suggest
>
> 1. Incubator PMC/infra estimates the cost of new podlings as you did
> 2. Incubator PMC reports those numbers to ASF infra at regular
> intervals, maybe just include them in their monthly reports
> 3. Infra adds the numbers up and if needed asks for more budget based
> on these podlings
>
> For now, considering that the numbers you indicate won't make a big
> dent in the current infra budget [1] and considering that it's the
> first time we do such an analysis I suggest for the infra team to
> accept decoupling the NetBeans acceptance vote from the details of
> these numbers, and we'll sort out the corresponding budget later at
> the board / infra level.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> [1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/
> 2015/board_minutes_2015_04_22.txt
> for example
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi Daniel,
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Daniel Gruno <hu...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the cliff
> notes are as follows...
Thanks very much for this - it is useful and I think we should do that
for any "big" podling that comes in, from now on.
> ...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....
I don't think asking for budget is a task of the Incubator PMC, I would suggest
1. Incubator PMC/infra estimates the cost of new podlings as you did
2. Incubator PMC reports those numbers to ASF infra at regular
intervals, maybe just include them in their monthly reports
3. Infra adds the numbers up and if needed asks for more budget based
on these podlings
For now, considering that the numbers you indicate won't make a big
dent in the current infra budget [1] and considering that it's the
first time we do such an analysis I suggest for the infra team to
accept decoupling the NetBeans acceptance vote from the details of
these numbers, and we'll sort out the corresponding budget later at
the board / infra level.
-Bertrand
[1] https://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2015/board_minutes_2015_04_22.txt
for example
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
>
> My guess is that the first 6 months is the most expensive as it
> involves a lot of time from infrastructure to migrate resources or
> figure out alternatives. My guess is, based on Daniels estimate, that
> first year is 13-30k - each year thereafter is 3-10k per year in costs
> (whether those be monetary, staff time, or in-kind)
> Any service that we stand up and migrate I assume is staying forever
> or only growing larger.
The preliminary NetBeans cost findings cover monetary costs only. Staff
time is not covered. I am not sure what "in-kind" means, though it is not
covered either. I can definitely imagine that indeed there will (and has
already been, e.g., in the drawing up of the preliminary cost findings) be
staff time costs, i.e., from Apache infra side, in moving NetBeans to
Apache.
The preliminary NetBeans cost findings have determined that of the existing
NetBeans services, the ones that carry a monetary burden for Apache are (1)
plugins.netbeans.org, which will not be going to Apache, (2)
statistics.netbeans.org, which will not be going to Apache, and (3) the
MacOS build machines. In fact, the cost findings clearly estimate that only
the MacOS build machines will be a cost factor for Apache.
Gj
Gj
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:57 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>
> wrote:
> > Excellent cliff notes, and I'm really glad to see us surfacing the
> > issues - and costs - of incubating such a large podling.
> >
> > Question: do you have a rough forecast of how long this expense/extra
> > infra burden will last? I.e. is this likely something we'll bear for
> > 3-4 years and then we'll have migrated everything to a better home, or
> > is this a long-term cost due to how big it all is?
> >
>
> My guess is that the first 6 months is the most expensive as it
> involves a lot of time from infrastructure to migrate resources or
> figure out alternatives. My guess is, based on Daniels estimate, that
> first year is 13-30k - each year thereafter is 3-10k per year in costs
> (whether those be monetary, staff time, or in-kind)
> Any service that we stand up and migrate I assume is staying forever
> or only growing larger.
>
> --David
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Ate Douma wrote:
If can send out the vote mail in about an hour or so if everyone is OK.
>
Bottom line -- we've discussed a lot already and we'll be discussing a lot
more during incubation.
The NetBeans community is large and diverse. Some might have less of an
understanding of this process and its consequences than others.
That is not a problem because any services and any assumptions that Apache
is unable to meet can be carried by one or more organizations -- after due
discussion and legal handling etc with Apache -- from which one or more
individual contributors will come into Apache NetBeans.
There is a lot at stake on both ends, I think -- i.e., at the end of this
process Apache gets the NetBeans codebase, domains, trademarks, and
everything else. On the other end, NetBeans gets the home its always
wanted. It's a completely equal match and will work out for everyone to the
benefit of all.
There are several precarious sliding pieces though the end goal will unite
everything.
Gj
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu> wrote:
> On 2016-09-27 18:12, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
>> <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> ...I think for a lot of (NetBeans) folks lurking in these threads, it
>>> will be
>>> useful to know what voting means, who can vote, what 'binding votes' are,
>>> etc etc...
>>>
>>
>> Ok we can add that info in concise form once the vote thread starts.
>> Basically, only Incubator PMC members votes are binding (meaning
>> "legally valid" as far as the ASF is concerned), people shouldn't
>> hijack the VOTE thread for discussions (start new threads if needed)
>> and that's a majority vote that lasts >= 72 hours.
>>
>> Votes from other people are welcome as an indication of peoples
>> enthusiasm (or lack thereof).
>>
>> Geertjan, are you ok with starting the vote?
>>
>> I'm currently at a conference with little time, if another mentor
>> wants to start it that's fine with me. Make sure to include the text
>> of https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal
>>
>
> If can send out the vote mail in about an hour or so if everyone is OK.
>
> Ate
>
>
>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>.
On 2016-09-27 18:12, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> ...I think for a lot of (NetBeans) folks lurking in these threads, it will be
>> useful to know what voting means, who can vote, what 'binding votes' are,
>> etc etc...
>
> Ok we can add that info in concise form once the vote thread starts.
> Basically, only Incubator PMC members votes are binding (meaning
> "legally valid" as far as the ASF is concerned), people shouldn't
> hijack the VOTE thread for discussions (start new threads if needed)
> and that's a majority vote that lasts >= 72 hours.
>
> Votes from other people are welcome as an indication of peoples
> enthusiasm (or lack thereof).
>
> Geertjan, are you ok with starting the vote?
>
> I'm currently at a conference with little time, if another mentor
> wants to start it that's fine with me. Make sure to include the text
> of https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal
If can send out the vote mail in about an hour or so if everyone is OK.
Ate
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
I'm very OK with starting the vote. I'd recommend leaving this to the
Apache community as much as possible, everyone from NetBeans is extremely
positive about all this so let's be reticent in this specific process, and
enable the Apache community to work through all this. That would be my
advise at this point.
Gj
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
> <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > ...I think for a lot of (NetBeans) folks lurking in these threads, it
> will be
> > useful to know what voting means, who can vote, what 'binding votes' are,
> > etc etc...
>
> Ok we can add that info in concise form once the vote thread starts.
> Basically, only Incubator PMC members votes are binding (meaning
> "legally valid" as far as the ASF is concerned), people shouldn't
> hijack the VOTE thread for discussions (start new threads if needed)
> and that's a majority vote that lasts >= 72 hours.
>
> Votes from other people are welcome as an indication of peoples
> enthusiasm (or lack thereof).
>
> Geertjan, are you ok with starting the vote?
>
> I'm currently at a conference with little time, if another mentor
> wants to start it that's fine with me. Make sure to include the text
> of https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
<ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> ...I think for a lot of (NetBeans) folks lurking in these threads, it will be
> useful to know what voting means, who can vote, what 'binding votes' are,
> etc etc...
Ok we can add that info in concise form once the vote thread starts.
Basically, only Incubator PMC members votes are binding (meaning
"legally valid" as far as the ASF is concerned), people shouldn't
hijack the VOTE thread for discussions (start new threads if needed)
and that's a majority vote that lasts >= 72 hours.
Votes from other people are welcome as an indication of peoples
enthusiasm (or lack thereof).
Geertjan, are you ok with starting the vote?
I'm currently at a conference with little time, if another mentor
wants to start it that's fine with me. Make sure to include the text
of https://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NetBeansProposal
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
I think for a lot of (NetBeans) folks lurking in these threads, it will be
useful to know what voting means, who can vote, what 'binding votes' are,
etc etc. From the NetBeans side of things, we're a large community and lots
of us are following all this and maybe someone can point us Apache newbies
to the precise context in which we're currently finding ourselves in right
now.
Gj
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu> wrote:
> +1
> Ate
>
>
>
> On 2016-09-27 14:23, Mark Struberg wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, 27 September 2016, 14:11, Bertrand Delacretaz <
>>> bdelacretaz@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:06 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sooo.... does anyone feel that this needs to wait longer before
>>>> starting a
>>>> vote?..
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm +1 for starting the vote.
>>>
>>> -Bertrand
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>.
+1
Ate
On 2016-09-27 14:23, Mark Struberg wrote:
> +1
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Tuesday, 27 September 2016, 14:11, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:06 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sooo.... does anyone feel that this needs to wait longer before starting a
>>> vote?..
>>
>> I'm +1 for starting the vote.
>>
>> -Bertrand
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
+1
LieGrue,
strub
> On Tuesday, 27 September 2016, 14:11, Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:06 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Sooo.... does anyone feel that this needs to wait longer before starting a
>> vote?..
>
> I'm +1 for starting the vote.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:06 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Sooo.... does anyone feel that this needs to wait longer before starting a
> vote?..
I'm +1 for starting the vote.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
Sooo.... does anyone feel that this needs to wait longer before starting a
vote?
John
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 7:06 AM Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:35 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > I see moving plugins.netbeans.org out of Oracle control as being a
> > graduation goal, not a start incubation goal.
> >
>
> Agreed, with both my IPMC and InfraAdmin "hats" on my head.
>
> I see these issues having time within incubation to be sorted out. I also
> see a high likelihood that the community will succeed in those efforts.
> Further, I think over time (several years of rollout), we can get NetBeans
> better integrated into the kinds of workflow and bits-hosting approaches
> that work well for us, and possibly reduce external dependencies.
>
> One of the "big" cost items is MacOS build boxes. We can/will look into
> those, and see about cost-sharing those with other PMCs who want them. But
> *if* push comes to shove, we just won't do it. That will hurt, yes. And
> then we can all start fighting :-) ... Seriously tho ... who is gonna block
> NetBeans coming to the ASF on the potential of not having MacOS build
> slaves?
>
> Thus, the three big-hit items (plugins, stats, macos) all seem to be
> reasonably solved, or at least workable.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:35 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org> wrote:
> I see moving plugins.netbeans.org out of Oracle control as being a
> graduation goal, not a start incubation goal.
+1
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:35 PM, John D. Ament <jo...@apache.org>
wrote:
> I see moving plugins.netbeans.org out of Oracle control as being a
> graduation goal, not a start incubation goal.
>
Agreed, with both my IPMC and InfraAdmin "hats" on my head.
I see these issues having time within incubation to be sorted out. I also
see a high likelihood that the community will succeed in those efforts.
Further, I think over time (several years of rollout), we can get NetBeans
better integrated into the kinds of workflow and bits-hosting approaches
that work well for us, and possibly reduce external dependencies.
One of the "big" cost items is MacOS build boxes. We can/will look into
those, and see about cost-sharing those with other PMCs who want them. But
*if* push comes to shove, we just won't do it. That will hurt, yes. And
then we can all start fighting :-) ... Seriously tho ... who is gonna block
NetBeans coming to the ASF on the potential of not having MacOS build
slaves?
Thus, the three big-hit items (plugins, stats, macos) all seem to be
reasonably solved, or at least workable.
Cheers,
-g
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by "John D. Ament" <jo...@apache.org>.
I see moving plugins.netbeans.org out of Oracle control as being a
graduation goal, not a start incubation goal.
John
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:28 PM Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>
>
> > won't plugins.netbeans.org run for another few months with Oracle
> > infrastructure? If it does, is it urgent enough to block incubation? For
> me
> > it does not look that way.
>
>
> Indeed, this is not an urgent issue from the point of view of NetBeans. I
> feel it is an urgent point for some of those in this discussion who want to
> be sure there won't be frustration later down the line when it turns out
> that Apache will not be hosting the NetBeans plugins. Let me reiterate --
> in the same way as Maven plugins are not hosted by Apache, the NetBeans
> community is under no assumption that Apache will be hosting NetBeans
> plugins.
>
> And we will find a solution, we are working on it actively right now,
> though there is no big immediate rush for this.
>
> Gj
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On 26.09.2016 17:04, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> b) We vote on the NetBeans proposal without waiting, and the podling
> >> assumes the risk of having to wait for budget or technical solutions
> >> to run plugins.netbeans.org at or via the ASF.
> >>
> >
> > won't plugins.netbeans.org run for another few months with Oracle
> > infrastructure? If it does, is it urgent enough to block incubation? For
> me
> > it does not look that way.
> >
> > bye Jochen
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> won't plugins.netbeans.org run for another few months with Oracle
> infrastructure? If it does, is it urgent enough to block incubation? For me
> it does not look that way.
Indeed, this is not an urgent issue from the point of view of NetBeans. I
feel it is an urgent point for some of those in this discussion who want to
be sure there won't be frustration later down the line when it turns out
that Apache will not be hosting the NetBeans plugins. Let me reiterate --
in the same way as Maven plugins are not hosted by Apache, the NetBeans
community is under no assumption that Apache will be hosting NetBeans
plugins.
And we will find a solution, we are working on it actively right now,
though there is no big immediate rush for this.
Gj
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org> wrote:
> On 26.09.2016 17:04, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> [...]
>
>> b) We vote on the NetBeans proposal without waiting, and the podling
>> assumes the risk of having to wait for budget or technical solutions
>> to run plugins.netbeans.org at or via the ASF.
>>
>
> won't plugins.netbeans.org run for another few months with Oracle
> infrastructure? If it does, is it urgent enough to block incubation? For me
> it does not look that way.
>
> bye Jochen
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>.
On 26.09.2016 17:04, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
[...]
> b) We vote on the NetBeans proposal without waiting, and the podling
> assumes the risk of having to wait for budget or technical solutions
> to run plugins.netbeans.org at or via the ASF.
won't plugins.netbeans.org run for another few months with Oracle
infrastructure? If it does, is it urgent enough to block incubation? For
me it does not look that way.
bye Jochen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:40 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:52 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>> <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> ...my suggestion is for infra (David or Greg) to give us their ok to
>>> proceed with the vote...
>
>> ...The Office of the President doesn't have any oversight over PMCs, so
>> strictly speaking the IPMC can proceed with this however it likes on
>> whatever timetable it sees fit...
>
> My intention as the NetBeans champion is to be collaborative, so even
> though you guys have no formal power w.r.t voting the podling in I
> think it's worth agreeing on how we proceed.
Yep, my paragraph was primarily directed at those who are new and
might confuse titles with authority.
>
>> ...With my VP Infra/member/IPMC member hats on, I'd prefer seeing the
>> plan for plugins.nb.o in place before you consider this....
>
> I see two options then:
>
> a) We don't vote on the NetBeans proposal until the current NetBeans
> team + mentors have worked with infra (on this list I assume) on a
> plan for plugins.netbeans.org once NetBeans moves to the ASF. I
> suspect this can easily take two weeks.
>
This is my personal leaning, I am sure Greg and Daniel can help
provide attention in sussing out potential issues.
> b) We vote on the NetBeans proposal without waiting, and the podling
> assumes the risk of having to wait for budget or technical solutions
> to run plugins.netbeans.org at or via the ASF.
>
> Do people agree that these options make sense, and Geertjan which one
> is your and your team's favorite?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Jaroslav Tulach <ja...@gmail.com>.
On úterý 27. září 2016 11:27:29 CEST, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
>
> <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > ...Together with Bertrand and the organizations volunteering to
> > host this service, we'll need to find terms of agreement -- which I think
> > we should try to model on those of Sonatype in relation to Apache Maven...
>
> As Mark suggested earlier there's also the option to distribute the
> binaries via Maven Central and the much smaller metadata via the
> Apache mirroring system. This would require no changes to existing
> agreements, assuming the extra load is acceptable for Maven Central.
I see. My previous email is then at least 17 hours too late. I beg your
pardon.
-jt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Geertjan Wielenga
<ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> ...Together with Bertrand and the organizations volunteering to
> host this service, we'll need to find terms of agreement -- which I think
> we should try to model on those of Sonatype in relation to Apache Maven...
As Mark suggested earlier there's also the option to distribute the
binaries via Maven Central and the much smaller metadata via the
Apache mirroring system. This would require no changes to existing
agreements, assuming the extra load is acceptable for Maven Central.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
PS: GitHub may be an option too, though right now we're working with two or
three different organizations, to see which would be the best home for
plugins.netbeans.org.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Yup. For sure. Together with Bertrand and the organizations volunteering
> to host this service, we'll need to find terms of agreement -- which I
> think we should try to model on those of Sonatype in relation to Apache
> Maven.
>
> However, there are many many months of incubation ahead -- I believe that
> in those months these kinds of arrangements can be made. I am not in a
> hurry to have the vote on the proposal done. On the other hand, I don't
> believe that the finding of a home for plugins.netbeans.org should be a
> blocker for that, given that everyone recognizes the importance of
> plugins.netbeans.org and the range of organizations available who could
> be the host of that service and the fact that we are already exploring this
> with some of them.
>
> Just my 2c on this.
>
> Gj
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:11 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
>> <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > We're actively discussing with various organizations about the future
>> home
>> > of plugins.netbeans.org. We'd certainly not want to go into the future
>> > without our Plugin Portal and plugins, there's no point in pointing out
>> to
>> > the NetBeans community the importance of its plugins. :-) I am
>> comfortable
>> > that we'll find a home for them in one organization or another. We have
>> no
>> > intention nor any expectation that Apache will be the future home for
>> > plugins.netbeans.org, in the same way as Maven's plugins etc are also
>> not
>> > hosted on Apache.
>> >
>> > Hope the above helps,
>> >
>>
>> It helps, but ultimately, if the project is going to come to the ASF,
>> the Foundation will have to sign off on the terms of any such
>> agreement once it comes to the ASF. I know what we have a bit of a
>> chicken-egg situation[1] , so I'd urge you to have someone involved
>> from the ASF side - your champion looks to be in an ideal place to
>> help there.
>>
>>
>> [1] http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/a+chicken+and+egg+situation
>>
>>
>> --David
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
Yup. For sure. Together with Bertrand and the organizations volunteering to
host this service, we'll need to find terms of agreement -- which I think
we should try to model on those of Sonatype in relation to Apache Maven.
However, there are many many months of incubation ahead -- I believe that
in those months these kinds of arrangements can be made. I am not in a
hurry to have the vote on the proposal done. On the other hand, I don't
believe that the finding of a home for plugins.netbeans.org should be a
blocker for that, given that everyone recognizes the importance of
plugins.netbeans.org and the range of organizations available who could be
the host of that service and the fact that we are already exploring this
with some of them.
Just my 2c on this.
Gj
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 6:11 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
> <ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > We're actively discussing with various organizations about the future
> home
> > of plugins.netbeans.org. We'd certainly not want to go into the future
> > without our Plugin Portal and plugins, there's no point in pointing out
> to
> > the NetBeans community the importance of its plugins. :-) I am
> comfortable
> > that we'll find a home for them in one organization or another. We have
> no
> > intention nor any expectation that Apache will be the future home for
> > plugins.netbeans.org, in the same way as Maven's plugins etc are also
> not
> > hosted on Apache.
> >
> > Hope the above helps,
> >
>
> It helps, but ultimately, if the project is going to come to the ASF,
> the Foundation will have to sign off on the terms of any such
> agreement once it comes to the ASF. I know what we have a bit of a
> chicken-egg situation[1] , so I'd urge you to have someone involved
> from the ASF side - your champion looks to be in an ideal place to
> help there.
>
>
> [1] http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/a+chicken+and+egg+situation
>
>
> --David
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Geertjan Wielenga
<ge...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> We're actively discussing with various organizations about the future home
> of plugins.netbeans.org. We'd certainly not want to go into the future
> without our Plugin Portal and plugins, there's no point in pointing out to
> the NetBeans community the importance of its plugins. :-) I am comfortable
> that we'll find a home for them in one organization or another. We have no
> intention nor any expectation that Apache will be the future home for
> plugins.netbeans.org, in the same way as Maven's plugins etc are also not
> hosted on Apache.
>
> Hope the above helps,
>
It helps, but ultimately, if the project is going to come to the ASF,
the Foundation will have to sign off on the terms of any such
agreement once it comes to the ASF. I know what we have a bit of a
chicken-egg situation[1] , so I'd urge you to have someone involved
from the ASF side - your champion looks to be in an ideal place to
help there.
[1] http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/a+chicken+and+egg+situation
--David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
We're actively discussing with various organizations about the future home
of plugins.netbeans.org. We'd certainly not want to go into the future
without our Plugin Portal and plugins, there's no point in pointing out to
the NetBeans community the importance of its plugins. :-) I am comfortable
that we'll find a home for them in one organization or another. We have no
intention nor any expectation that Apache will be the future home for
plugins.netbeans.org, in the same way as Maven's plugins etc are also not
hosted on Apache.
Hope the above helps,
Geertjan
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:40 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:52 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> > <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> ...my suggestion is for infra (David or Greg) to give us their ok to
> >> proceed with the vote...
>
> > ...The Office of the President doesn't have any oversight over PMCs, so
> > strictly speaking the IPMC can proceed with this however it likes on
> > whatever timetable it sees fit...
>
> My intention as the NetBeans champion is to be collaborative, so even
> though you guys have no formal power w.r.t voting the podling in I
> think it's worth agreeing on how we proceed.
>
> > ...With my VP Infra/member/IPMC member hats on, I'd prefer seeing the
> > plan for plugins.nb.o in place before you consider this....
>
> I see two options then:
>
> a) We don't vote on the NetBeans proposal until the current NetBeans
> team + mentors have worked with infra (on this list I assume) on a
> plan for plugins.netbeans.org once NetBeans moves to the ASF. I
> suspect this can easily take two weeks.
>
> b) We vote on the NetBeans proposal without waiting, and the podling
> assumes the risk of having to wait for budget or technical solutions
> to run plugins.netbeans.org at or via the ASF.
>
> Do people agree that these options make sense, and Geertjan which one
> is your and your team's favorite?
>
> -Bertrand
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:40 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:52 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
> <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> ...my suggestion is for infra (David or Greg) to give us their ok to
>> proceed with the vote...
> ...The Office of the President doesn't have any oversight over PMCs, so
> strictly speaking the IPMC can proceed with this however it likes on
> whatever timetable it sees fit...
My intention as the NetBeans champion is to be collaborative, so even
though you guys have no formal power w.r.t voting the podling in I
think it's worth agreeing on how we proceed.
> ...With my VP Infra/member/IPMC member hats on, I'd prefer seeing the
> plan for plugins.nb.o in place before you consider this....
I see two options then:
a) We don't vote on the NetBeans proposal until the current NetBeans
team + mentors have worked with infra (on this list I assume) on a
plan for plugins.netbeans.org once NetBeans moves to the ASF. I
suspect this can easily take two weeks.
b) We vote on the NetBeans proposal without waiting, and the podling
assumes the risk of having to wait for budget or technical solutions
to run plugins.netbeans.org at or via the ASF.
Do people agree that these options make sense, and Geertjan which one
is your and your team's favorite?
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:52 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz
<bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:57 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>> ...My guess is, based on Daniels estimate, that
>> first year is 13-30k - each year thereafter is 3-10k per year in costs..
>
> Are these estimates sufficient for our infra team to give us their ok
> to proceed with the NetBeans vote, or do you guys need more time?
>
> I'm asking because
>
> a) discussions about the current proposal are currently going into all
> kinds of side tracks which are not really useful as far as informing
> the NetBeans vote decision, IMO
>
> and b) as it's the first time we do such an assessment for an incoming
> podling, IMO we shouldn't make NetBeans wait more than strictly
> needed, while we refine this costing thing internally.
>
> So my suggestion is for infra (David or Greg) to give us their ok to
> proceed with the vote if you guys agree, and sort out the (important)
> budget details internally in parallel.
>
The Office of the President doesn't have any oversight over PMCs, so
strictly speaking the IPMC can proceed with this however it likes on
whatever timetable it sees fit. However, please don't be surprised
if/when we deny requests to Infrastructure because they exceed what we
have available in time/staff/money; we're also likely to push a number
of tasks down to the podling itself.
With my VP Infra/member/IPMC member hats on, I'd prefer seeing the
plan for plugins.nb.o in place before you consider this. As Greg said
elsewhere, I don't think that piece can be ignored - it's vital to the
community, and any agreement would need to be formally agreed to by
the foundation (similar to the contract we have with Sonatype) if the
project moved here. I'd also point out the comments from Ross to the
IPMC about budget and get that squared away before you proceed.
--David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:57 AM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
> ...My guess is, based on Daniels estimate, that
> first year is 13-30k - each year thereafter is 3-10k per year in costs..
Are these estimates sufficient for our infra team to give us their ok
to proceed with the NetBeans vote, or do you guys need more time?
I'm asking because
a) discussions about the current proposal are currently going into all
kinds of side tracks which are not really useful as far as informing
the NetBeans vote decision, IMO
and b) as it's the first time we do such an assessment for an incoming
podling, IMO we shouldn't make NetBeans wait more than strictly
needed, while we refine this costing thing internally.
So my suggestion is for infra (David or Greg) to give us their ok to
proceed with the vote if you guys agree, and sort out the (important)
budget details internally in parallel.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>.
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> Excellent cliff notes, and I'm really glad to see us surfacing the
> issues - and costs - of incubating such a large podling.
>
> Question: do you have a rough forecast of how long this expense/extra
> infra burden will last? I.e. is this likely something we'll bear for
> 3-4 years and then we'll have migrated everything to a better home, or
> is this a long-term cost due to how big it all is?
>
My guess is that the first 6 months is the most expensive as it
involves a lot of time from infrastructure to migrate resources or
figure out alternatives. My guess is, based on Daniels estimate, that
first year is 13-30k - each year thereafter is 3-10k per year in costs
(whether those be monetary, staff time, or in-kind)
Any service that we stand up and migrate I assume is staying forever
or only growing larger.
--David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
Daniel, this is excellent. Thank you. When we brought AOO in we offset some costs, such as bandwidth, through our arrangement with SourceForge. Can we do the same here? (I imagine this has already been discussed, I'm behind of those threads, I'm just looking for a short summary).
Shane, if the project continues at the current scale then the costs below continue indefinitely. If it grows/shrinks many of the costs grow/shrink with it (e.g. Bandwidth) others will remain constant (e.g. Build farms)
---
Twitter: @rgardler
_____________________________
From: Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>>
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>>
Excellent cliff notes, and I'm really glad to see us surfacing the
issues - and costs - of incubating such a large podling.
Question: do you have a rough forecast of how long this expense/extra
infra burden will last? I.e. is this likely something we'll bear for
3-4 years and then we'll have migrated everything to a better home, or
is this a long-term cost due to how big it all is?
- Shane
Daniel Gruno wrote on 9/24/16 6:17 AM:
> 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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org<ma...@incubator.apache.org>
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
Excellent cliff notes, and I'm really glad to see us surfacing the
issues - and costs - of incubating such a large podling.
Question: do you have a rough forecast of how long this expense/extra
infra burden will last? I.e. is this likely something we'll bear for
3-4 years and then we'll have migrated everything to a better home, or
is this a long-term cost due to how big it all is?
- Shane
Daniel Gruno wrote on 9/24/16 6:17 AM:
> 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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Sep 25, 2016 01:18, "Justin Mclean" <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > E.g., no forums in Apache, for example.
>
> A mailing list can be mirrored to a nibble forum if it helps [1] I know
of several projects who do that.
The asf has a service - lists.apache.org -which does exactly this.
Automatically. For every project. Running an additional service for this
is unnecessary extra work/expense.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> 1. http://n4.nabble.com/archive-your-mailing-list.html
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> E.g., no forums in Apache, for example.
A mailing list can be mirrored to a nibble forum if it helps [1] I know of several projects who do that.
Thanks,
Justin
1. http://n4.nabble.com/archive-your-mailing-list.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
Geertjan Wielenga wrote on 9/25/16 6:05 PM:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>
>
>> Having a third party run a service under an Apache brand requires working
>> with VP Brand.
>
>
> Indeed, this is something we're going to need to do. I.e., there will be
> existing NetBeans services that Apache will not be hosting. The clearest
> case of this will be plugins.netbeans.org. That is a service that one or
> more individual contributors will take on, making use of the infrastructure
> of an organization they work for.
These are all solvable questions, but the podling will need to work
closely with your mentors and others at the ASF to ensure they're done
in a way that still allows the future Apache NetBeans project to operate
fully independently of specific corporate influence.
http://community.apache.org/projectIndependence.html
We don't need to go through the details on this discuss thread, but both
*who* will be hosting these specific services as well as *how* they're
portrayed to the world will be things the podling needs to track.
It needs to be clear that development decisions on the podling are done
by the individual committers doing the work on the podling. We also
need to ensure that if any external provider decides to drop the
service, that we have some way to keep the committer community working
on the NetBeans code itself still moving forward.
From how the various NetBeans folks are describing things, this will be
complicated, but we should definitely be able to figure it all out
during the incubation process. I'm also expecting that it will take
work on the image side to show the world that Oracle truly is giving up
control to the community, but again, it certainly sounds like you've got
the right people here to make that happen.
- Shane
>
> I.e., if Apache is not going to host one or more services currently hosted
> by Oracle, and if those services are needed by NetBeans, something will
> need to be done to resolve the situation, which will be that the service
> will be hosted by someone else. An individual contributor could host
> plugins.netbeans.org on their own private server, of course, though an
> organization volunteering this service is a more likely and stable
> scenario. I am sure other Apache projects have similar arrangements and
> this will not be new for Apache in any way.
>
> Gj
...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by toki <to...@gmail.com>.
Greg wrote:
>Second big example is SourceForge.net hosting the AOO binaries.
If you are going to cite AOo as an example, then
http://templates.services.openoffice.org/ provides an example of how
easily things spin out of control,
when third parties take primary responsibility for distribution of
artefacts related to an Apache Software Project.
jonathon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com> wrote:
>...
> scenario. I am sure other Apache projects have similar arrangements and
> this will not be new for Apache in any way.
>
Yeup. The most obvious example being repo.maven.apache.org pointing to
Maven Central, hosted by SonaType (in conjunction with / permission of the
Apache Maven PMC).
Second big example is SourceForge.net hosting the AOO binaries.
Cheers,
-g
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> Having a third party run a service under an Apache brand requires working
> with VP Brand.
Indeed, this is something we're going to need to do. I.e., there will be
existing NetBeans services that Apache will not be hosting. The clearest
case of this will be plugins.netbeans.org. That is a service that one or
more individual contributors will take on, making use of the infrastructure
of an organization they work for.
I.e., if Apache is not going to host one or more services currently hosted
by Oracle, and if those services are needed by NetBeans, something will
need to be done to resolve the situation, which will be that the service
will be hosted by someone else. An individual contributor could host
plugins.netbeans.org on their own private server, of course, though an
organization volunteering this service is a more likely and stable
scenario. I am sure other Apache projects have similar arrangements and
this will not be new for Apache in any way.
Gj
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2016 23:08, "Geertjan Wielenga" <geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.
> com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, excellent work and many thanks for the time taken on this, Daniel.
> For
> > anyone reading this -- do note that these are preliminary findings based
> on
> > the current infrastructure of NetBeans, which is going to be very
> different
> > under Apache, e.g., plugins.netbeans.org looks like it will be hosted
> > somewhere else by one of the companies involved in Apache NetBeans.
>
> A couple of reminders:
>
> Individuals, not companies, are involved in Apache projects.
>
> Having a third party run a service under an Apache brand requires working
> with VP Brand.
>
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > 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 <ma...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" <hu...@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.
> org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On Sep 24, 2016 23:08, "Geertjan Wielenga" <ge...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
>
> Yes, excellent work and many thanks for the time taken on this, Daniel.
For
> anyone reading this -- do note that these are preliminary findings based
on
> the current infrastructure of NetBeans, which is going to be very
different
> under Apache, e.g., plugins.netbeans.org looks like it will be hosted
> somewhere else by one of the companies involved in Apache NetBeans.
A couple of reminders:
Individuals, not companies, are involved in Apache projects.
Having a third party run a service under an Apache brand requires working
with VP Brand.
>
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > 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 <ma...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" <hu...@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
Yes, excellent work and many thanks for the time taken on this, Daniel. For
anyone reading this -- do note that these are preliminary findings based on
the current infrastructure of NetBeans, which is going to be very different
under Apache, e.g., plugins.netbeans.org looks like it will be hosted
somewhere else by one of the companies involved in Apache NetBeans. The
question will be how much of the current NetBeans infrastructure will be
needed under Apache, which is something we can work on concretely during
incubation. Whatever costs have been identified in this phase can only in
the end be lower than the estimate, since we will have less in Apache than
we currently have in NetBeans. E.g., no forums in Apache, for example.
Gj
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 <ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" <hu...@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Jochen Theodorou <bl...@gmx.org>.
Hi Wade,
first of all, don't worry too much at this point, having discussions and
trying to grasp the scope and what we get into is very normal at this
point.
more comments inline...
On 25.09.2016 05:03, Wade Chandler wrote:
[...]
>Do no other Apache projects have plugins or distribution needs?
* open office which actually gets helped here by sourceforge
* maven with maven central, which also not hosted at hte ASF
* ??
> 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?
You can donate to the ASF, not a specific project.. unless the project
sets something up on its own.
> How many other OSS Java IDEs are their? Seem only 2 at the Eclipse and
> NetBeans level.
VS Code not? Sorry haven't really looked at it
> Having them both exist makes the entire ecosystem healthier
> in my opinion.
especially with hte bad mood towards eclipse these days
> It would be a shame to not have one of the real open source
> Java IDEs exist as an Apache project IMO.
It would be good to find a possible solution on the downloads. I mean
(Groovy project) do have most of our downloads outside ASF to save cost
(and to handle our somewhat complicated release logic) as well... and of
course Netbeans has even more downloads
bye Jochen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Posted by Ate Douma <at...@douma.nu>.
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: me@wadechandler.com
>> [mailto:me@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" <Ro...@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
>>> <te...@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 <ma...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" <hu...@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For
>>>> additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For
>>>> additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To
> unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional
> commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
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. The ASF is not a magic bullet, there needs to be a plan coming from the incoming project. 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: me@wadechandler.com [mailto:me@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" <Ro...@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 <te...@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 <ma...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" <hu...@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Posted by Wade Chandler <co...@wadechandler.com>.
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" <Ro...@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 <te...@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 <ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" <hu...@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>...
> alone could pull in ads the cost of infrastructure (although ASF might have
> a policy against ads, etc, etc)
>
We never run ads. Ever.
Just hang on a day or two, for us to *really* review these costs. Look at
Daniel's subject: "Preliminary". No need to get too hung up right now.
Thanks,
-g
RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
I do not sign the check, but I am responsible for the budgets of the foundation. I'm not saying I would not consider such a request (and you could go straight to the board if I did). I'm saying a case needs to be made rather than a simple request for cash (see other mail).
As for the numbers, user numbers are irrelevant. If that were the metric of success for an open source project then Open Office would be thriving.
Ross
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Emilian Bold [mailto:emilian.bold@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 2:09 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans
> Incubator Proposal)
>
> Ross Gardler is the current president of the ASF so in a way he does sign the
> check and should be worried about these things.
>
> Still, the number of Java developers is only growing and they need an IDE and
> NetBeans is a major IDE with 1.5 million individual users! This number is
> probably conservative since it excludes all the people behind
> (corporate) firewalls.
>
> Helping NetBeans would be for the public good and it really does help the
> other Apache properties such as Ant, Maven, Tomcat, Groovy, etc.
>
> Business wise, NetBeans is a great deal for Apache. The netbeans.org domain
> alone could pull in ads the cost of infrastructure (although ASF might have a
> policy against ads, etc, etc)
>
>
> --emi
>
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com');>> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > OK, we do need to see the basis for that assertion. I think the only
> > thing that cannot be tolerated is assertions without basis. Where is
> > the evidence of "the decline in interest that NetBeans is seeing"?
> > Because, speaking on behalf of the NetBeans community, we are not
> > seeing that, at all. That evidence is not there or, if it is, we need to know
> what it is.
> >
> > Gj
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler
> > <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Ross.Gardler@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.dunning@gmail.com
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ted.dunning@gmail.com');>>
> > > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM
> > > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <mattmann@apache.org
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mattmann@apache.org');>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" <humbedooh@apache.org
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','humbedooh@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > ');>
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','general-help@incubator.apache.org');>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > ');>
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','general-help@incubator.apache.org');>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> --emi
RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
My last sentence below is too terse... I know NetBeans is a different project to AOO. I should not draw a direct comparis0on between the two projects. I hope we can avoid a long thread on how Net Beans is more attractive to developers than other end user projects. However, my more general point of user numbers not being a good indicator is remains.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Gardler
> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 8:48 AM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
> NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
>
> I do not sign the check, but I am responsible for the budgets of the foundation.
> I'm not saying I would not consider such a request (and you could go straight
> to the board if I did). I'm saying a case needs to be made rather than a simple
> request for cash (see other mail).
>
> As for the numbers, user numbers are irrelevant. If that were the metric of
> success for an open source project then Open Office would be thriving.
>
> Ross
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Emilian Bold [mailto:emilian.bold@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 2:09 AM
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
> > NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
> >
> > Ross Gardler is the current president of the ASF so in a way he does
> > sign the check and should be worried about these things.
> >
> > Still, the number of Java developers is only growing and they need an
> > IDE and NetBeans is a major IDE with 1.5 million individual users!
> > This number is probably conservative since it excludes all the people
> > behind
> > (corporate) firewalls.
> >
> > Helping NetBeans would be for the public good and it really does help
> > the other Apache properties such as Ant, Maven, Tomcat, Groovy, etc.
> >
> > Business wise, NetBeans is a great deal for Apache. The netbeans.org
> > domain alone could pull in ads the cost of infrastructure (although
> > ASF might have a policy against ads, etc, etc)
> >
> >
> > --emi
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
> > geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com
> > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com');>>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > OK, we do need to see the basis for that assertion. I think the only
> > > thing that cannot be tolerated is assertions without basis. Where is
> > > the evidence of "the decline in interest that NetBeans is seeing"?
> > > Because, speaking on behalf of the NetBeans community, we are not
> > > seeing that, at all. That evidence is not there or, if it is, we
> > > need to know
> > what it is.
> > >
> > > Gj
> > >
> > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler
> > > <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com
> > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Ross.Gardler@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.dunning@gmail.com
> > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ted.dunning@gmail.com');>>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM
> > > > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> > > > <mattmann@apache.org
> > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mattmann@apache.org');>>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" <humbedooh@apache.org
> > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','humbedooh@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.o
> > > rg
> > > ');>
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > > general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','general-help@incubator.apache.org');>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > --
> > > > > --- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > > general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.o
> > > rg
> > > ');>
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > > general-help@incubator.apache.org
> > > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','general-help@incubator.apache.org');>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > --emi
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans
Incubator Proposal)
Posted by Emilian Bold <em...@gmail.com>.
Ross Gardler is the current president of the ASF so in a way he does sign
the check and should be worried about these things.
Still, the number of Java developers is only growing and they need an IDE
and NetBeans is a major IDE with 1.5 million individual users! This number
is probably conservative since it excludes all the people behind
(corporate) firewalls.
Helping NetBeans would be for the public good and it really does help the
other Apache properties such as Ant, Maven, Tomcat, Groovy, etc.
Business wise, NetBeans is a great deal for Apache. The netbeans.org domain
alone could pull in ads the cost of infrastructure (although ASF might have
a policy against ads, etc, etc)
--emi
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Geertjan Wielenga <
geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','geertjan.wielenga@googlemail.com');>> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> OK, we do need to see the basis for that assertion. I think the only thing
> that cannot be tolerated is assertions without basis. Where is the evidence
> of "the decline in interest that NetBeans is seeing"? Because, speaking on
> behalf of the NetBeans community, we are not seeing that, at all. That
> evidence is not there or, if it is, we need to know what it is.
>
> Gj
>
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler <Ross.Gardler@microsoft.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Ross.Gardler@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.dunning@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ted.dunning@gmail.com');>>
> > Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM
> > To: general@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <mattmann@apache.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mattmann@apache.org');>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" <humbedooh@apache.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','humbedooh@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org');>
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','general-help@incubator.apache.org');>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org');>
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','general-help@incubator.apache.org');>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
--
--emi
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Posted by Geertjan Wielenga <ge...@googlemail.com>.
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
>
> 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.
OK, we do need to see the basis for that assertion. I think the only thing
that cannot be tolerated is assertions without basis. Where is the evidence
of "the decline in interest that NetBeans is seeing"? Because, speaking on
behalf of the NetBeans community, we are not seeing that, at all. That
evidence is not there or, if it is, we need to know what it is.
Gj
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 1:16 AM, Ross Gardler <Ro...@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 <te...@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 <ma...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
> >
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" <hu...@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Posted by Ross Gardler <Ro...@microsoft.com>.
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 <te...@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 <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
>
> Chris
>
>
> On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" <hu...@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
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 <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
>
> Chris
>
>
> On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" <hu...@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache
NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
Chris
On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" <hu...@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-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org