Moving Groovy to a Foundation

[Jeff MAURY]

According to the start of thread by Cedric, the discussion is open so it seems to be no choice has been yet done.

Regards

Jeff

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 2:12 PM, mmilinkov <[hidden email]> wrote:

Cédric,

It seems that you and the team have already decided on moving to the
Software Conservancy. I do agree that it would make an excellent home for
Groovy, and have nothing but good things to say about them, and the services
they provide. Although I think that Eclipse would make an excellent home for
Groovy, I don't see how it is in anyone's interest to get into a "sales
job".

Good luck to you and the Groovy team. I wish you all the best in these
difficult times.

P.S. As I told you in our previous private conversation we would have found
a solution to the history issue.



--
View this message in context: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Moving-Groovy-to-a-Foundation-tp5722483p5722527.html
Sent from the groovy - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email

--

[jimjag]

Alessio Stalla wrote

If Pivotal hadn't funded Groovy till now, they would most probably be in a
worse position. Less development would have been done. So "companies can
shift priorities or disappear" is not a good reason not to be funded by a
company. You should just have a reasonable plan in case the company goes
bust or Donkey Kong Jr. buys it and decides to reinvent it as a major
banana import dealer.

My point is that by creating a real, community-based environment, ala the ASF, then you are creating a safe, level playing field where more companies feel at ease sponsoring development. It allows you to widen the possible net of companies willing to help a project along when they see it doesn't benefit either a single company, or any single company to an "unacceptable" level.

[Cédric Champeau]

Mike,

To be very clear: we *did not* choose anything. I don't have a strong opinion myself, even though from my perspective Conservancy has less "issues" to be solved but also has major drawbacks (having to build your own infra, less legal protection of individuals, ...).  The whole point of this thread is because we want to take the best decision. If it is possible for Eclipse to mitigate the points we have highlighted, then it is an option. I wouldn't rule anything out. This thread is here so that we can clarify want can, and what cannot be done, in which timeframe, etc... Sorry if my initial email sounded negative towards Eclipse or Apache or Conservancy (depending on the point of view) but those are real concerns that need to be addressed publicly.

2015-02-12 14:12 GMT+01:00 mmilinkov <[hidden email]>:

Cédric,

It seems that you and the team have already decided on moving to the
Software Conservancy. I do agree that it would make an excellent home for
Groovy, and have nothing but good things to say about them, and the services
they provide. Although I think that Eclipse would make an excellent home for
Groovy, I don't see how it is in anyone's interest to get into a "sales
job".

Good luck to you and the Groovy team. I wish you all the best in these
difficult times.

P.S. As I told you in our previous private conversation we would have found
a solution to the history issue.



--
View this message in context: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Moving-Groovy-to-a-Foundation-tp5722483p5722527.html
Sent from the groovy - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email

[jimjag]

Cédric Champeau wrote

Mike,

To be very clear: we *did not* choose anything. I don't have a strong
opinion myself, even though from my perspective Conservancy has less
"issues" to be solved but also has major drawbacks (having to build your
own infra, less legal protection of individuals, ...).

Have you looked at the Outercurve Foundation? It is basically a "foundation in a box" and extremely lightweight, but is a 501(c)6. Licensing and governance are 100% under the control of the project, and it has mentors to help with the community building, etc. If something like the SFC looks "more" attractive, Outercurve might be even more so.

NOTE: I am director and Prez of Outercurve and Sam Ramji, just announced CEO of CloudFoundry Foundation is secretary. Erynn Petersen is our ED.

[johnrengelman]

While package renaming is a breaking change, there are ways to mitigate/minimize the impact. Groovy could ship a "groovy-compat" library that supplies a bridge between the old package names and the new. Grails recently did this with Grails 3.

[slashdashpipe]

Hi,

I am not the Groovy team, nor a member of any foundation. I think you guys (the Groovy Team) are in the best position to choose what's right for the Groovy Project.

That said, my preference would go to ASF, for their visibility, governance, legal protection, and the fact that so many successful OSS projects are hosted there (From ActiveMQ to Zookeeper, Tomcat, Hadoop, Camel, Shiro... to name a few).

Also, ASF has it's own infrastructure (http://www.apache.org/dev/#infrastructure) , but also :
- JIRA instance : https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Dashboard.jspa
- GitHub mirror for git.apache.org that accepts PRs : https://github.com/apache
- Jenkins : https://builds.apache.org/

For sure, adapting to their tools and processes would be a big short term effort, i am quite sure the community can raise funds for making it happen.

All that said, i also think binary compatibility for previous Groovy versions is the red line.

Whatever you choose, keep rocking

[Guillaume Laforge-4]

Not necessarily mandatory though, so not necessarily a limiting factor here in this discussion.

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 1:32 PM, jim northrop <[hidden email]> wrote:

did not twig that there would be a package name change from org.codehaus :-P


On 12/02/15 13:13, Jochen Theodorou wrote:

to add on what Cedric said

Am 11.02.2015 17:29, schrieb Cédric Champeau:
[...]

  * The Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org>, home of
    Apache HTTP server, Lucene, Spark and lots of famous OSS projects
  * The Eclipse Foundation <https://eclipse.org>, home of Eclipse,
    vert.x, AspectJ and a lot of tooling related OSS projects
  * The Software Freedom Conservancy <http://sfconservancy.org>, home of
    Git, Mercurial, PyPy and many other OSS projects

I must say I was a long time not happy with the idea moving there. In my opinion a ASF project works long term only with a company backing the developers. ASF itself does not provide anything to help with that, meaning the developers either have to be part of the companies behind it, or finance themselves using an outside organization. I perceive this as a disconnection and was not happy with it. But if you think about it, the same probably counts for the Eclipse Foundation as well. The model that was suggested by the eclipse foundation will require a minimal money flow as well.

In both cases Groovy would become a top level project, but at least in the case of Apache we have to go through the incubation process, even if we can do a fast tracked one here. Moving to Apache requires us using primarily using their bugtracker, repository and mailing lists for legal reasons. If we for example decide now to move to google groups to have a solution for the time being, then we would have to move the mailing lists again later on if we go to apache. At least on apache we can import our existing jira and keep the bug tracker history

The package naming is a problem. groovy.lang can stay in both cases, but they have their branding and that requires to change from org.codehaus to eclipse or apache. Also this point is difficult to negotiate, since it is part of... well corporate identity is the wrong name for it I would say, but it goes in the same direction. Of course we would have benefits from the branding, but it comes not for free.

I was always for eclipse in the past, mainly because the most apache stuff, that is not driven by companies, looks quite dusted to me. But requiring a history wipe at eclipse... that's a nogo for me.

If org.codehaus package name change, removing old versions and history wipe is a nogo, then the Software Freedom Conservancy is the only option left. Unless I missed something important and those points suddenly can be negotiated in our favor.

bye blackdrag

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

   http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email

--

[Guillaume Laforge-4]

Agreed, no decision has been made yet at all.

Wiping the history and past versions was a no-go, but as Mike mentioned, in our previous discussions with him, there's a possibility to not go that route, which would remove that hurdle ahead of us.

Mike mentioned to us the idea of a "working group", as explained here: http://eclipse.org/org/workinggroups/

Which gives much more autonomy to the project.

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Jeff MAURY <[hidden email]> wrote:

According to the start of thread by Cedric, the discussion is open so it seems to be no choice has been yet done.

Regards

Jeff

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 2:12 PM, mmilinkov <[hidden email]> wrote:

Cédric,

It seems that you and the team have already decided on moving to the
Software Conservancy. I do agree that it would make an excellent home for
Groovy, and have nothing but good things to say about them, and the services
they provide. Although I think that Eclipse would make an excellent home for
Groovy, I don't see how it is in anyone's interest to get into a "sales
job".

Good luck to you and the Groovy team. I wish you all the best in these
difficult times.

P.S. As I told you in our previous private conversation we would have found
a solution to the history issue.



--
View this message in context: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Moving-Groovy-to-a-Foundation-tp5722483p5722527.html
Sent from the groovy - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email

--

Jeff MAURY


"Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling.
 - Bjarne Stroustrup

http://www.jeffmaury.com
http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com
http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury

--

[Henrique Lobo Weissmann]

In my opinion, if you want to secure the future of this project first you must secure it's past. That's why Eclipse Foundation unfortunetely is the worst option on this case. The drawbacks are far heavier than their advantages.

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Guillaume Laforge <[hidden email]> wrote:

Agreed, no decision has been made yet at all.

Wiping the history and past versions was a no-go, but as Mike mentioned, in our previous discussions with him, there's a possibility to not go that route, which would remove that hurdle ahead of us.

Mike mentioned to us the idea of a "working group", as explained here: http://eclipse.org/org/workinggroups/

Which gives much more autonomy to the project.

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Jeff MAURY <[hidden email]> wrote:

According to the start of thread by Cedric, the discussion is open so it seems to be no choice has been yet done.

Regards

Jeff

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 2:12 PM, mmilinkov <[hidden email]> wrote:

Cédric,

It seems that you and the team have already decided on moving to the
Software Conservancy. I do agree that it would make an excellent home for
Groovy, and have nothing but good things to say about them, and the services
they provide. Although I think that Eclipse would make an excellent home for
Groovy, I don't see how it is in anyone's interest to get into a "sales
job".

Good luck to you and the Groovy team. I wish you all the best in these
difficult times.

P.S. As I told you in our previous private conversation we would have found
a solution to the history issue.



--
View this message in context: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Moving-Groovy-to-a-Foundation-tp5722483p5722527.html
Sent from the groovy - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email

--

Jeff MAURY


"Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling.
 - Bjarne Stroustrup

http://www.jeffmaury.com
http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com
http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury

--

Guillaume Laforge
Groovy Project Manager
Pivotal, Inc.

Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/

Social: @glaforge / Google+

--

[Henrique Lobo Weissmann]

By the way,

do you have any plan to start a donation center or something like that?

I'm pretty sure a lot of people are willing to help (me included).

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Henrique Lobo Weissmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

In my opinion, if you want to secure the future of this project first you must secure it's past. That's why Eclipse Foundation unfortunetely is the worst option on this case. The drawbacks are far heavier than their advantages.

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Guillaume Laforge <[hidden email]> wrote:

Agreed, no decision has been made yet at all.

Wiping the history and past versions was a no-go, but as Mike mentioned, in our previous discussions with him, there's a possibility to not go that route, which would remove that hurdle ahead of us.

Mike mentioned to us the idea of a "working group", as explained here: http://eclipse.org/org/workinggroups/

Which gives much more autonomy to the project.

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Jeff MAURY <[hidden email]> wrote:

According to the start of thread by Cedric, the discussion is open so it seems to be no choice has been yet done.

Regards

Jeff

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 2:12 PM, mmilinkov <[hidden email]> wrote:

Cédric,

It seems that you and the team have already decided on moving to the
Software Conservancy. I do agree that it would make an excellent home for
Groovy, and have nothing but good things to say about them, and the services
they provide. Although I think that Eclipse would make an excellent home for
Groovy, I don't see how it is in anyone's interest to get into a "sales
job".

Good luck to you and the Groovy team. I wish you all the best in these
difficult times.

P.S. As I told you in our previous private conversation we would have found
a solution to the history issue.



--
View this message in context: http://groovy.329449.n5.nabble.com/Moving-Groovy-to-a-Foundation-tp5722483p5722527.html
Sent from the groovy - user mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email

--

Jeff MAURY


"Legacy code" often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling.
 - Bjarne Stroustrup

http://www.jeffmaury.com
http://riadiscuss.jeffmaury.com
http://www.twitter.com/jeffmaury

--

Guillaume Laforge
Groovy Project Manager
Pivotal, Inc.

Blog: http://glaforge.appspot.com/

Social: @glaforge / Google+

--

Henrique Lobo Weissmann (Kico)
(55) 31 9226-0459
http://devkico.itexto.com.br
http://www.twitter.com/loboweissmann

--