Marketing material approval votes?

[Reza Naghibi <re...@apache.org>]

Im aware that Device Map marketing has happened and continues to happen,
even I gave a presentation a few years back. Would it make sense to hold
votes to approve said material? Presentations would be included here since
they are an effective form of marketing this project. I guess this would
only apply to DeviceMap PMC and committers.

The concern is that as this project evolves, we need to make sure that any
sort of public facing material matches the goals and reality of the
project. I hope having a vote on said material wont present too much of a
hassle but will allow for this project to better control its message.
Thoughts?

I guess if people agree, we can hold a vote on this.

Thanks!

Re: Marketing material approval votes?

["eberhard speer jr." <se...@ducis.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

I think that is a good idea.

esjr
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVGEHvAAoJEOxywXcFLKYc1tAH/RMJ67jlfRLunMlSR32kX3vn
TyrLOmEjBIRyRsjyg4Me2ibCjFxgA/wxTXShtlFzGdZBVjpx1wj9SERAeI9Y8ULm
PdcIMMok2suZ931VQ1Qg/i5lp4SmjiNTs0QfmUrc4ai6nzEgZR47UQHUeAQVmX8i
gxGLTwnIkNm7lM9Fq/OJJ+UtzrQV95fj/W5i7/OwtYZEQD/jMT9fxZHDuLBjcJj1
Yr7fbqpidmO7l68IUybkGlHezCqXmidl45NVR1hxLCErA27ft6oYsfQOKXXZfR8u
eruUKufBCaG/wQNrWOpS/YZ+zaNG3R45aKBnnp9vryGvh+GzxdpcVEz4ju+VvCg=
=kuKK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Marketing material approval votes?

[Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>]

Just on the web technology an important statement from several codemotion
talks I heard in Rome was, that especially Google likes to completely throw
over their own exiting projects and Open Source efforts. Shutting down
Google Code is only a side-effect. AngularJS (something to consider aside
from JVM or other programming languages btw.) 2 will be a drastic breach
with existing Angular 1 and force significant rewrite of exiting code. As
well as re-learning a lot by people working with it right now.

Many Apache projects are well-respected and trusted as foundations of
business-critical apps, not just the Web server that started it all. So
nobody keeps us or other projects from creating several branches, but
unlike the Googles (or WURFLs) we should not throw everything away that was
there or even hide it from existing users.

As for the migration from OpenDDR to DeviceMap it may not yet give the same
number of results in GitHub (12 repositories for "OpenDDR", 5 for
"DeviceMap") but aside from mostly contributions by Radu, there's this
Clojure port/wrapper: https://github.com/timgalebach/clj-devicemap I am
listed for Clojure, when I can I'll give it a try, but especially for
more/new languages we may try to gather support by those who use a language
in question more than some of us. E.g. compared to Java, Groovy or some
.NET I also don't have as many lines of code in say Clojure or Scala under
my belt as others.


Werner

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Reza Naghibi <re...@apache.org> wrote:

> Its not really the technical hurdle of maintaining multiple branches or
> modules, its the management side of it, or more specifically the PMC. Will
> this project be able to properly foster and guide 2.0 to success? We cannot
> deny its been a rollercoaster ride to this point and I think we all share
> blame in not seeing the warning signs. I admit, since becoming heavily
> involved, my agenda has been to move away from the legacy OpenDDR client. I
> can say that I have not been successful in uniting the project around 1.x
> client (either that or we just have an extremely vocal resistance).
>
> Right now there are no new committers since no code for 2.0 has been
> actually written. So point taken Bertrand, my idea to rebuild the PMC is a
> bit premature since there are no obvious candidates right now.
>
> This is kind of my conundrum... is it safe to plow forward with 2.0? In my
> view, nothing has changed.
>
> Will web technology wait for us? Is this a project or a playground? How
> well can a democratic project handle competing goals?
>
> Sorry for the rhetorical questions.
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > At least regarding some who showed their interest and will to contribute
> > like Volkan (who submitted things more than just once on JIRA including
> > patches, etc.) we all as PMC have not followed up on those (probably just
> > one or two) more dedicated prospects. I sent this on the "private"
> mailing
> > list, not sure what happened to the thread, or of anybody (except
> Bertrand
> > maybe) is properly subscribed to that list...?
> >
> > Projects like Tamaya are still taking shape and the API is discussed, but
> > onboarding of one or the other new committer happened a bit more
> smoothly.
> > Developong new ideas and branches next to each other, this happens in
> many
> > projects. Take Tomcat or Commons Config:
> > http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-configuration/
> > The 1.x and 2.x branch exist side by side. Also in SVN btw.
> >
> >
> > Werner
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> > bdelacretaz@apache.org
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Reza Naghibi <re...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > > ...If there was a way to reboot, maybe re-enter the incubator and
> > reform
> > > the
> > > > PMC, I would do that in a second....
> > >
> > > A PMC is formed out of the project's committers, so if you have people
> > > in mind who would help make what you think is right happen, why don't
> > > you ask them to get involved here?
> > >
> > > Also, the way things happen in Apache projects is by creating and
> > > committing code - what prevents you from implementing your ideas? They
> > > can always go to a new module if others want to keep the existing code
> > > as is.
> > >
> > > -Bertrand
> > >
> >
>

Re: Marketing material approval votes?

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Reza Naghibi <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...is it safe to plow forward with 2.0? In my view, nothing has changed....

I have no idea if it's safe in terms of your involvement or of taking
over the world, but if you're willing to make 2.0 happen here, go for
it!

If others want to work on different modules, ex-OpenDDR stuff or
whatever, there are ways for these things to live their own parallel
or divergent trajectories here.

-Bertrand

Re: Marketing material approval votes?

[Reza Naghibi <re...@apache.org>]

Its not really the technical hurdle of maintaining multiple branches or
modules, its the management side of it, or more specifically the PMC. Will
this project be able to properly foster and guide 2.0 to success? We cannot
deny its been a rollercoaster ride to this point and I think we all share
blame in not seeing the warning signs. I admit, since becoming heavily
involved, my agenda has been to move away from the legacy OpenDDR client. I
can say that I have not been successful in uniting the project around 1.x
client (either that or we just have an extremely vocal resistance).

Right now there are no new committers since no code for 2.0 has been
actually written. So point taken Bertrand, my idea to rebuild the PMC is a
bit premature since there are no obvious candidates right now.

This is kind of my conundrum... is it safe to plow forward with 2.0? In my
view, nothing has changed.

Will web technology wait for us? Is this a project or a playground? How
well can a democratic project handle competing goals?

Sorry for the rhetorical questions.


On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> At least regarding some who showed their interest and will to contribute
> like Volkan (who submitted things more than just once on JIRA including
> patches, etc.) we all as PMC have not followed up on those (probably just
> one or two) more dedicated prospects. I sent this on the "private" mailing
> list, not sure what happened to the thread, or of anybody (except Bertrand
> maybe) is properly subscribed to that list...?
>
> Projects like Tamaya are still taking shape and the API is discussed, but
> onboarding of one or the other new committer happened a bit more smoothly.
> Developong new ideas and branches next to each other, this happens in many
> projects. Take Tomcat or Commons Config:
> http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-configuration/
> The 1.x and 2.x branch exist side by side. Also in SVN btw.
>
>
> Werner
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
> bdelacretaz@apache.org
> > wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Reza Naghibi <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > ...If there was a way to reboot, maybe re-enter the incubator and
> reform
> > the
> > > PMC, I would do that in a second....
> >
> > A PMC is formed out of the project's committers, so if you have people
> > in mind who would help make what you think is right happen, why don't
> > you ask them to get involved here?
> >
> > Also, the way things happen in Apache projects is by creating and
> > committing code - what prevents you from implementing your ideas? They
> > can always go to a new module if others want to keep the existing code
> > as is.
> >
> > -Bertrand
> >
>

Re: Marketing material approval votes?

[Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>]

Hi,

At least regarding some who showed their interest and will to contribute
like Volkan (who submitted things more than just once on JIRA including
patches, etc.) we all as PMC have not followed up on those (probably just
one or two) more dedicated prospects. I sent this on the "private" mailing
list, not sure what happened to the thread, or of anybody (except Bertrand
maybe) is properly subscribed to that list...?

Projects like Tamaya are still taking shape and the API is discussed, but
onboarding of one or the other new committer happened a bit more smoothly.
Developong new ideas and branches next to each other, this happens in many
projects. Take Tomcat or Commons Config:
http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-configuration/
The 1.x and 2.x branch exist side by side. Also in SVN btw.


Werner

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Reza Naghibi <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> > ...If there was a way to reboot, maybe re-enter the incubator and reform
> the
> > PMC, I would do that in a second....
>
> A PMC is formed out of the project's committers, so if you have people
> in mind who would help make what you think is right happen, why don't
> you ask them to get involved here?
>
> Also, the way things happen in Apache projects is by creating and
> committing code - what prevents you from implementing your ideas? They
> can always go to a new module if others want to keep the existing code
> as is.
>
> -Bertrand
>

Re: Marketing material approval votes?

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

Hi,

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 7:23 PM, Reza Naghibi <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...If there was a way to reboot, maybe re-enter the incubator and reform the
> PMC, I would do that in a second....

A PMC is formed out of the project's committers, so if you have people
in mind who would help make what you think is right happen, why don't
you ask them to get involved here?

Also, the way things happen in Apache projects is by creating and
committing code - what prevents you from implementing your ideas? They
can always go to a new module if others want to keep the existing code
as is.

-Bertrand

Re: Marketing material approval votes?

[Reza Naghibi <re...@apache.org>]

I understand and I am in total agreement with your points above. I think we
definitely need more visibility into the marketing aspect of DeviceMap
presentations.

So on another note, maybe I should lay out some of my frustrations which
led to this thread...

I guess I still have lingering concerns regarding this project. I have been
thinking about them more and more and I will continue to think about them
in the coming months. Basically, do we have the right PMC in place to
properly foster and guide this project? This has more to do with the future
and 2.0 than it does our current releases and path.

For me, in my mind, 2.0 is a big step forward and finally a chance to get
things correct (this summer will be 4 years of working on OpenDDR and
DeviceMap). Having this clean separation between pattern data and pattern
matching is key and will open the door to many great things. But as the
pieces for 2.0 are coming together, Im seeing the problems. Would we really
be getting things correct if we ignored something as important as the
project foundation?

If there was a way to reboot, maybe re-enter the incubator and reform the
PMC, I would do that in a second. Just not sure what is feasible given the
effort it took to get to this point. Maybe spin off a new project? Will
this project stay on Apache? These are all possibilities in my mind.

As for the examples of why I have these concerns, just look at JIRA,
mailing list, SVN, etc... I just see problems. Focus, technology, software
practices, direction. Rarely can any future looking statement be left alone
without some kind of comment saying that the old way is better. Maybe im
just tired and seeing things, who knows.

Anyway, I have some more thinking to do and hopefully by the time 1.0.3
gets released, it will be more clear what direction 2.0 will take.


On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacretaz@apache.org
> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Reza Naghibi <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> > ...The concern is that as this project evolves, we need to make sure
> that any
> > sort of public facing material matches the goals and reality of the
> > project....
>
> It's the same with all Apache projects, what's important when talking
> about them publicly is to clearly separate between one's own opinion
> and the project's "official direction", whatever that is.
>
> In general no one represents Apache projects officially in public, we
> all just give our own opinion about what we are doing or planning to
> do in the projects. I would argue that Apache projects don't have an
> official opinion, they are just the sum of their community member's
> opinions.
>
> This is similar to the foundation not having a technical strategy or
> plan and "just" providing a space for its projects to exist - our
> projects provide a space for committers to do good stuff, but exactly
> what that good stuff is might not be known before it happens.
>
> More concretely, what DeviceMap can do is
>
> a) agree on a set of goals and maybe a roadmap, and publish that at
> http://devicemap.apache.org/
>
> b) maintain a list of links to talks, blog posts etc. that the project
> agree go in the right direction, also at http://devicemap.apache.org/
>
> c) make sure no one makes promises in the name of DeviceMap, which I
> think is not realistic. Once we have a) people are free to point at it
> however, so having that is a big plus.
>
> Note that I don't mention any votes in these three items, the best is
> if all this can happen by natural consensus, but if people want to
> vote on things to make the consensus clearer that's also ok.
>
> -Bertrand
>

Re: Marketing material approval votes?

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

Hi,

On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 4:58 PM, Reza Naghibi <re...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...The concern is that as this project evolves, we need to make sure that any
> sort of public facing material matches the goals and reality of the
> project....

It's the same with all Apache projects, what's important when talking
about them publicly is to clearly separate between one's own opinion
and the project's "official direction", whatever that is.

In general no one represents Apache projects officially in public, we
all just give our own opinion about what we are doing or planning to
do in the projects. I would argue that Apache projects don't have an
official opinion, they are just the sum of their community member's
opinions.

This is similar to the foundation not having a technical strategy or
plan and "just" providing a space for its projects to exist - our
projects provide a space for committers to do good stuff, but exactly
what that good stuff is might not be known before it happens.

More concretely, what DeviceMap can do is

a) agree on a set of goals and maybe a roadmap, and publish that at
http://devicemap.apache.org/

b) maintain a list of links to talks, blog posts etc. that the project
agree go in the right direction, also at http://devicemap.apache.org/

c) make sure no one makes promises in the name of DeviceMap, which I
think is not realistic. Once we have a) people are free to point at it
however, so having that is a big plus.

Note that I don't mention any votes in these three items, the best is
if all this can happen by natural consensus, but if people want to
vote on things to make the consensus clearer that's also ok.

-Bertrand

Re: Marketing material approval votes?

[Werner Keil <we...@gmail.com>]

The most official one would be ApacheCon talks of course. Where approval
came by the wider community (program committee of ApacheCon;-)
Do you mean linking to existing slide decks like SlideShare or adding e.g.
PDFs to download.
Happy to share at the very least the ACE slides. Codemotion ones evolved,
e.g. DeviCeMap now graduated but a large portion of slides is not so
different.
Am 29.03.2015 16:58 schrieb "Reza Naghibi" <re...@apache.org>:

> Im aware that Device Map marketing has happened and continues to happen,
> even I gave a presentation a few years back. Would it make sense to hold
> votes to approve said material? Presentations would be included here since
> they are an effective form of marketing this project. I guess this would
> only apply to DeviceMap PMC and committers.
>
> The concern is that as this project evolves, we need to make sure that any
> sort of public facing material matches the goals and reality of the
> project. I hope having a vote on said material wont present too much of a
> hassle but will allow for this project to better control its message.
> Thoughts?
>
> I guess if people agree, we can hold a vote on this.
>
> Thanks!
>