ApacheForge

[Paul Hammant <Pa...@yahoo.com>]

Folks,

*Management summary*

Apache create ApacheForge. It has rules on IP and decision making, but 
is completely open to entrants.

*Long winded desc*

The Free Software Foundation were peeved that SourceForge forked their 
site source internally.  So upset in fact they mounted their own site - 
http://savannah.gnu.org/ for the hosting of projects using 'Free' (read 
their definition - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html )  This 
specifically precludes Apache licensed developments (and 100 perfectly 
good other ones).  The software they are maintaining to run the site ( 
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/savannah/ ) has no such restrictions on 
use.  I.e. the eligibility is determined by FSF management upon 
application.  The software - like the SF base it came from - can be used 
for anything.

I propose we mount a server that runs this software, with completely 
separate user-ids to cvs.apache.org that actively invites projects to 
form there.  No project mounted there would be listed on Apache "front 
pages", nor would the committers be allowed to leverage the the Apache 
name ("XYZ is a an Apache project" should be "XYZ is an ApacheForge 
project").  At a point of maturity, the project team could be approached 
for a lising and presence at jakarta.apache.org itself.  I.e. it is, in 
a sense, a proving ground.

Reason?  I see us as being too selective.  We should be inviting as many 
as possible to license their code as Apache.  Some could argue that 
SourceForge already provide this possibility, but we do not *market* our 
license in the same way that the FSF markets theirs.  Many (mostly 
newbies) consider the GPL as the only choice of license.  We all come 
accross them at work or in the pub.  The dogma is so entrenched, we feel 
that any engaging in conversation on the topic is pointless.

Reason2?  Projects largely arrive here from the outside.  If some thing 
starts here as small thing taped to some larger project, it is easier to 
to take it away and market it freshly at Source Forge than try to build 
a comminity around it here and push for project status.  If we had our 
own proving ground, then this would not feel such a bizarre route to 
project status.

I do not think that something like "commons" is the answer.  The admin 
overhead and risks from rogue committers to high security projects (like 
Apache Web Server itself) are too great for cvs.apache.org.  Also the 
mail lists become unusable the more projects coexisting in there.

I like the idea of a seperate, but endorsed ApacheForge site.  It would 
give i) Encouragement ii) Independance but also iii) Community.  I think 
it is a good and safe solution to what I think is the catch-22 situation 
of trying to get a project hosted at Apache.

Regards,

- Paul H


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: ApacheForge

[Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>]

Vladimir Bossicard wrote:
> 
> > Apache is and has always been selective for a reason: we value
> > communities more than software and it takes a lot of energy to build a
> > community solid enough to build good enough software to pay back Apache
> > for the risk of diluting the brand each time a new effort is added.
> 
> The question is: what comes first?  Do you first need a good software
> and then build a community around it or the opposite?

In my experience, OSS communities never develop without software and
without one individual to step to the plate and make things happening.

> Apache.org value communities and that's fine.  But how do you build such
> a strong community when you just start a new project?  You have no
> functional application, no developers and no users.

Ask Linus, ask Larry, ask Guido, ask every single individual who was
able to create a community out of its own energy.

And look at Log4j, look at POI, look at BCEL, look at Lucene, look at
FOP, look at XIndice, just to name a few: they were all able to build a
community on their own, thus they were entitled to get in.

Apache is not an ivory tower, Paul, is just seriously concerned about
the balance between energy that goes *to* a project and energy that
comes *back*.

In order cross-pollinate between communities and in order for them to
scale (in size and number), we must be *very* concerned about this
balance, between social energy that we have to give to the project to
bootstrap and how much of this comes back, possibly amplified.

Sourceforge (and GNU, for what matters) don't care if projects die, we
do. In fact, it's a rare event that a software project hosted under
Apache dies out.

> I think that SourceForge is a real great tool if you want to start
> something new without knowing if it's a good idea, if it will be used
> and supported by other developers.  If it fails... well you have at
> least tried.  But SourceForge is not a community where people can
> exchange advises and experiences.  It's basically "do all mistakes
> yourself".
> 
> You cannot start a serious project without having CVS, ML, bug tracking
> and release directory and SourceForge offers that for free, without
> having to ask for an Apache account (it will be rejected due to the lack
> of developers/users anyway).
> 
> If Apache wants to attract more projects/developers, I think that it can
> use SourceForge's ressources (CVS...) and play more a mentoring/advisor
> role.

Using Jon's terms: thansk for volunteering.

In case you didn't notice, mentoring/advising is a very time-intensive
role.

What you say is perfect: there is room for something in between Apache
and SourceForge and ApacheForge would fit that role.

But the lack of *resources*, expecially human resources (even if the
technical ones will be very hard to find too, believe me!), will destroy
the issue from day one.

So:

 *if* we had the human resources
 *if* we had a way to protect the brand (with a different domain name so
that people have @apacheforge.org accounts and not @apache.org which are
a different thing)
 *if* we had the technical resources
 *if* we had a serious rating system that would indicate when a project
is *healthy* enough to be brought to apache.org
 *if* we thought this was valuable to the entire ASF effort

then apacheforge.org would be a good idea.

Unfortunately, not a single of those *if* is satisfied.
 
> If you're a hockey team, you need farm teams to let young players make
> their experiences.  But young players need coaches.

And coaches have families, need to eat, sleep and have a life.

And a few coaches can't mentor a thousand projects effectively.

So, we choose to stay at the window and do recruiting as the big teams
do, instead of using our scarce resources to build our 'incubating'
teams.

Painting this as an ivory tower is, IMHO, a clear misunderstanding of
the Apache spirit.

-- 
Stefano Mazzocchi      One must still have chaos in oneself to be
                          able to give birth to a dancing star.
<st...@apache.org>                             Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: ApacheForge

[Vladimir Bossicard <vl...@bossicard.com>]

> Apache is and has always been selective for a reason: we value
> communities more than software and it takes a lot of energy to build a
> community solid enough to build good enough software to pay back Apache
> for the risk of diluting the brand each time a new effort is added.


The question is: what comes first?  Do you first need a good software 
and then build a community around it or the opposite?

Apache.org value communities and that's fine.  But how do you build such 
a strong community when you just start a new project?  You have no 
functional application, no developers and no users.

I think that SourceForge is a real great tool if you want to start 
something new without knowing if it's a good idea, if it will be used 
and supported by other developers.  If it fails... well you have at 
least tried.  But SourceForge is not a community where people can 
exchange advises and experiences.  It's basically "do all mistakes 
yourself".

You cannot start a serious project without having CVS, ML, bug tracking 
and release directory and SourceForge offers that for free, without 
having to ask for an Apache account (it will be rejected due to the lack 
of developers/users anyway).

If Apache wants to attract more projects/developers, I think that it can 
use SourceForge's ressources (CVS...) and play more a mentoring/advisor 
role.

If you're a hockey team, you need farm teams to let young players make 
their experiences.  But young players need coaches.

Just my $0.02

-Vladimir

-- 
Vladimir Bossicard
www.bossicard.com


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>

Re: ApacheForge

[Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>]

Paul Hammant wrote:

> Apache create ApacheForge. It has rules on IP and decision making, but
> is completely open to entrants.

-1

Apache is and has always been selective for a reason: we value
communities more than software and it takes a lot of energy to build a
community solid enough to build good enough software to pay back Apache
for the risk of diluting the brand each time a new effort is added.

*this* is the reason why lots of efforts are left out

*this* is the reason why not a single Apache member wants to see this
changing

Also, doing a parallel with the FSF doesn't help: they are focused on
code (the more code is covered by the GPL, the better), we are focused
on the people and on their collaboration (the more people follow the
Apache spirit, the better).

For anything else there is sourceforge.

-- 
Stefano Mazzocchi      One must still have chaos in oneself to be
                          able to give birth to a dancing star.
<st...@apache.org>                             Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>