Community, Releasing and Forking... oh my! (was Re: OFBiz in Canada?)

[David E Jones <de...@me.com>]

Anyone can certainly create a forked project at any time. Some have  
even done so, with varying levels of success. BTW, if you look at the  
actual experiences of projects that have forked from OFBiz, be careful  
to recognize what is marketing material intended to attract users, and  
what represents actual happenings in the projects.

In any case, I hope not to beat a dead horse... but it sounds like  
this proposal is for those who are not currently contributing much to  
OFBiz and who are not happy with how certain things are to split off  
and work on what they think is important... plus take on everything  
else that the current OFBiz community does.

Wouldn't it be easier to work with others in the community so that you  
can focus on contributing in areas that you think are most important?  
If anyone doesn't think that's easier, then by all means try the  
approach you think is easier, and just commit to revisiting the  
question in 2-3 years after you've had a chance to really get into it.

If after reading this you (whoever is reading this) is still  
interested in my opinion, here is a blog post from a while back that I  
think is directly relevant:

http://osofbiz.blogspot.com/2008/01/glass-cathedrals-and-community-versus.html

-David


On Nov 13, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote:

> Michael,
>
> why do you think it is time for a fork? It seems to me a crazy  
> conversation...
>
> Jacopo
>
> On Nov 13, 2009, at 3:51 PM, Michael Xu (xudong) wrote:
>
>> hi Ruth,
>>
>> I do agree with you that it is time for a fork in the road. But  
>> before that,
>> maybe it is better to split ofbiz into subprojects, like framework,  
>> BI, etc.
>> Then we can choose where to fork. And also the future merge should be
>> easier.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Michael Xu (xudong)
>> www.wizitsoft.com | Office: (8610) 6267 0615 ext 806 | Mobile: (86)  
>> 135 0135
>> 9807 | Fax: (8610) 62670096
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Ruth Hoffman  
>> <rh...@aesolves.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Chris:
>>>
>>> IMHO: Having watched the project for a long time now, I think it  
>>> is time
>>> for a fork in the road. There are too many competing interests  
>>> here. This
>>> sort of reminds me of Unix before AT& T let BSD birth. No? And  
>>> look what
>>> that spawned :-)
>>>
>>> Ruth
>>>
>>>
>>> Christopher Snow wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks BJ - that's the conclusion I'm starting to reach.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps it would be worth some of us like minded people to getting
>>>> together?
>>>>
>>>> BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I had the same complaint at one time.
>>>>> I now keep my own version under a different brand name.
>>>>> That is about all you can do.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Christopher Snow sent the following on 11/13/2009 2:40 AM:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 13, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Christopher Snow wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was thinking about your comment of leaving the components  
>>>>>>>> in place
>>>>>>>> even though they are not used.  Does leaving unused  
>>>>>>>> components in
>>>>>>>> place have a performance impact on ofbiz?  Do those components
>>>>>>>> consume memory? - they are certainly using disk space.  Some  
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> components for example BIRT consume a fair amount of space.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Disk and memory are very cheap nowadays...
>>>>>>> I think I have answered your other concerns in another email.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jacopo
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Disk and memory are cheap nowadays, but small businesses don't  
>>>>>> see it
>>>>>> like that, for example David Jones' ezBiz will be competing with
>>>>>> lightweight applications like OpenERP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, there's the security issues of having code running that  
>>>>>> isn't
>>>>>> required.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, I get the picture. A modular ofbiz is not an option!  
>>>>>> People in
>>>>>> control like ofbiz just the way it is - it suits their business  
>>>>>> model.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>