[OOTB-hive] [ADDONS] What do we want from an Order-managed addonlisting?

Daren Firminger daren at digcat.com
Thu Aug 18 07:42:09 BST 2016


Hi Axel

Im interested to help, a) and b)

cheers

Daren


On 18/08/2016 07:39, Angel Borroy wrote:
> Available for a) and b)
>
> Angel Borroy
>
>
> El 18 de agosto de 2016 a las 8:34:38, Lanre Abiwon 
> (el_gigantes at hotmail.co.uk <mailto:el_gigantes at hotmail.co.uk>) escribió:
>
>> I am in support of option (a) as I am unable to participate in
>>  option (b).
>> Lanre Abiwon
>> _________________________________________
>> If you do things right, people won’t know that you’ve done anything 
>> at all.
>>
>>> On 17 Aug 2016, at 13:57, Axel Faust <axel.faust.g at googlemail.com 
>>> <mailto:axel.faust.g at googlemail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> After an initial stream of replies, this topic has fallen silent again.
>>> It has become clear that we won't come up with a plan via any form 
>>> of async communication (regardless of mailing list or any "new" 
>>> tool). I feel this needs some form of face-to-face communication / 
>>> collaboration over a defined amount of time to work / argue this out 
>>> and either come up with a common denominator plan or a redraw of 
>>> what ADDONS can / wants to be.
>>>
>>> I would like to ask everyone:
>>>
>>> a) Would you be willing / available to do some kind of web session / 
>>> web meeting in the next couple of weeks to discuss ADDON goals?
>>> b) Would you be willing to use the next Alfresco Global Virtual 
>>> Hack-a-thon (23rd of September) to discuss / finalize ADDON goals 
>>> and work on an initial sets of addons to be listed / reviewed / 
>>> whatever we decide to come up with?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Axel
>>>
>>> On 25 July 2016 at 20:33, Axel Faust <axel.faust.g at googlemail.com 
>>> <mailto:axel.faust.g at googlemail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     First of all: Sorry, I forgot to reply to the list in my
>>>     response to Tahir. I still have to get used to using Google Mail
>>>     more regularly now.. Thanks Tahir for including that in your
>>>     counter-response.
>>>
>>>     "So in my personal case if the plan doesn't change we still hold
>>>     on to something we thought 2 years ago and didn't provide the
>>>     result we wanted."
>>>
>>>     This very thread is intended to come up with a plan (or THE
>>>     plan) that we can work with, which may be very different from
>>>     the old one from 2 years ago.
>>>     And forgive me for saying, but "first provide result and then
>>>     look on fine-tuning them" was essentially what I was trying to
>>>     kickstart with my draft + reviews and see how well that turned
>>>     out. So how do we go about that this doesn't happend again?
>>>
>>>     If there are other people willing to start without a plan, do
>>>     stuff and come back and refine it later, I would be very happy
>>>     to see that succeed. Given previous experience, I have my doubts
>>>     and would wait for it to bear the first fruits, before I risk
>>>     spending my time...
>>>
>>>     Kicking the entire ADDONS business to the curb and killing any
>>>     intention to come up with an addon listing is a very real
>>>     consideration already discussed on the board, and I personally
>>>     don't have any intention as well to continue with something that
>>>     just won't work. So I hope there are other people interested in
>>>     this so this becomes a real discussion about plan / "what to
>>>     do", and desn't remain a back-and-forth between Tahir and myself...
>>>
>>>     On 25 July 2016 at 20:03, Tahir Malik <tahir.malik at contezza.nl
>>>     <mailto:tahir.malik at contezza.nl>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         I don't think “getting our act together” is working at this
>>>         moment. So probably our plans aren't suitable for us to work
>>>         with, in this case I'm clearly referring to myself.
>>>
>>>         So in my personal case if the plan doesn't change we still
>>>         hold on to something we thought 2 years ago and didn't
>>>         provide the result we wanted.
>>>
>>>         For me personally this would mean 2 things:
>>>
>>>         1.Get everyone in our team accepting that we need to change
>>>         the way we work and maybe first provide result and then look
>>>         on fine-tuning them
>>>
>>>         2.Leave the Addons team and start a new one to still
>>>         valuable contribute to the community
>>>
>>>         I have no personal issues with anyone of you 😊, but this
>>>         just doesn't seem to work for me and I'm being honest and
>>>         hopefully it's respected.
>>>
>>>
>>>         Tahir Malik
>>>         Sent from Outlook Mail for Windows 10 phone
>>>
>>>         *From:* Axel Faust <mailto:axel.faust.g at googlemail.com>
>>>         *Sent:* 25 July 2016 17:26
>>>         *To:* Tahir Malik <mailto:tahir.malik at contezza.nl>
>>>         *Subject:* Re: [OOTB-hive] [ADDONS] What do we want from an
>>>         Order-managed addonlisting?
>>>
>>>         You may already be jumping ahead to the inclusion of addons
>>>         in Honeycomb, which isn't necessarily the same as including
>>>         them in an Order-managed listing (which would be just on our
>>>         web page with potentially different kinds of badges
>>>         differentiating "self-certified" from "reviewed").
>>>
>>>         "First things first": Reach an agreement on what we actually
>>>         want from addon listing and how we want to get there, to
>>>         have a sustainable process before we exhaust / frustrate
>>>         ourselves in uncoordinated actions.
>>>
>>>         ADDONS never had a problem with suggesting addons for
>>>         inclusion in either the issue tracker or the wiki page you
>>>         linked. I had already merged the two together to form a
>>>         backlog
>>>         (https://github.com/OrderOfTheBee/addons/wiki/Addon-review-schedule
>>>         <https://github.com/OrderOfTheBee/addons/wiki/Addon-review-schedule>)
>>>         of addons to be reviewed. But unfortunately, there was never
>>>         any real effort on reviewing these.
>>>         Why would we need an "updated list of rules" when we never
>>>         really had any formal rules except for a draft? (which by
>>>         the way includes a provision for source code to be
>>>         accessible, but leaves it open in what form)
>>>
>>>         One result of the discussion in this thread could be the
>>>         definition of pre-conditions for an addon to be considered
>>>         for inclusion in a Honeycomb distribution. This would
>>>         obviously involve DISTRO in terms of how we want to provide
>>>         Honeycomb (tieing into the Honeycomb vision thread Jeff
>>>         started). But I'd like for ADDONS to "get our act together"
>>>         and finally come up with a review / listing process that all
>>>         aggree on and actually do the potentially boring, but
>>>         necessary work of processing all those addon suggestions...
>>>
>>>         Jeff's suggestion was that "self-signed" would mean the
>>>         addon author has reviewed her addon herself based on the
>>>         criteria catalogue we define.
>>>         At that point there would potentially be very little
>>>         verification / review on our part (except the really simple
>>>         stuff, like license / source access / release bundling) and
>>>         it might be flagged in our listing as such ("developer
>>>         assures she complies with best practices but YMMV"). This
>>>         "self-signed" self-registration of an addon could also act
>>>         as our input funnel for a more thorough review, before we
>>>         put our "stamp of approval" on it. Such an addon could then
>>>         be reviewed by DISTRO for inclusion (which could be a
>>>         different level in our "stamp of approval" collection).
>>>
>>>         On 25 July 2016 at 16:47, Tahir Malik
>>>         <tahir.malik at contezza.nl <mailto:tahir.malik at contezza.nl>>
>>>         wrote:
>>>
>>>             Okay... still some things are unclear right now.
>>>
>>>             First things first, we need an updated list of addons:
>>>             - https://github.com/OrderOfTheBee/addons/issues/1
>>>             <https://github.com/OrderOfTheBee/addons/issues/1> -->
>>>             haven't been updated since october 2014
>>>             -
>>>             https://github.com/OrderOfTheBee/addons/wiki/Candidates-of-our-favorite-free-open-source-add-ons
>>>             <https://github.com/OrderOfTheBee/addons/wiki/Candidates-of-our-favorite-free-open-source-add-ons>
>>>             --> october 2015
>>>             - Probably update the wiki of 2015 and merge those together
>>>             - https://github.com/share-extras/
>>>             <https://github.com/share-extras/> --> Include all of
>>>             them updated since 2015?
>>>             - What do we do with the Hackaton(s) list(s)? Are some
>>>             of them ready to be included in the Honeycomb edition?
>>>
>>>             We need an updated list of rules on how we include
>>>             "self-signed" Addons.
>>>             - Is having the code on github a must? I've seen
>>>             multiple 'cool' addons which aren't on github, but are
>>>             'free' to use as-is
>>>
>>>             Cause these aren't addon's we've tested I wouldn't
>>>             suggest just supplying them with no way of disabling
>>>             them if needed by a user.
>>>             So DISTRO guys is there a way to disable certain addons
>>>             on install?
>>>             We should have a configurable list of enabled/disabled
>>>             addon's on installation or creating a bundle/image.
>>>
>>>             *From:* Douglas C. R. Paes
>>>             *Sent:* Friday, July 22, 2016 3:20AM
>>>             *To:* Jeff Potts, Tahir Malik
>>>             *Cc:* Ootb-hive
>>>             *Subject:* Re: [OOTB-hive] [ADDONS] What do we want from
>>>             an Order-managed addon listing?
>>>
>>>             I liked the self certified add-on idea.
>>>
>>>             Em qui, 21 de jul de 2016 13:30, Jeff Potts
>>>             <jeffpotts01 at gmail.com <mailto:jeffpotts01 at gmail.com>>
>>>             escreveu:
>>>
>>>                 One more thing...
>>>
>>>                 The process I described sets up a simple hierarchy
>>>                 of add-ons:
>>>
>>>                 Un-trusted or Self-published: Add-ons that are
>>>                 freely-available in the wild, on GitHub, on
>>>                 addons.alfresco.com <http://addons.alfresco.com/>, etc.
>>>
>>>                 Self-certified: Add-ons that the owner says meet all
>>>                 of the "must" items on the OOTB Add-ons Best
>>>                 Practices Checklist
>>>
>>>                 OOTB Approved: Add-ons that the Order of the Bee
>>>                 have agreed by voting that an Add-on does indeed
>>>                 meet all of the must items.
>>>
>>>                 Jeff
>>>
>>>                 On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Jeff Potts
>>>                 <jeffpotts01 at gmail.com
>>>                 <mailto:jeffpotts01 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>                     I don't think anyone is proposing that the order
>>>                     has to test or fix any add-on.
>>>
>>>                     What is being proposed is that we have some sort
>>>                     of process for vetting add-ons, and Axel is
>>>                     pointing out that simply having a list hasn't
>>>                     been enough. It requires volunteers to actually
>>>                     look at each add-on and evaluate it against the
>>>                     objective criteria Axel has compiled.
>>>
>>>                     I think what has been lacking are volunteers to
>>>                     do that work and a prioritized list of add-ons
>>>                     that need to be vetted.
>>>
>>>                     Perhaps people who own those add-ons should be
>>>                     the ones to make a first pass at the criteria.
>>>                     Have them self-evaluate. Then they can be the
>>>                     one to submit their add-on to the community with
>>>                     a "self-certification" that it meets the
>>>                     criteria. The group can then spot-check their
>>>                     favorite "must" items and vote +1/-1 on
>>>                     including the add-on. A down vote due to the
>>>                     failure to meet a "must" item must be addressed,
>>>                     then the submitter can request again.
>>>
>>>                     This hopefully reduces the burden on the addons
>>>                     committee and automatically narrows the list of
>>>                     add-ons to those who are motivated enough to do
>>>                     their own check against the list and hopefully
>>>                     make improvements in their code.
>>>
>>>                     If we do a good job communicating the value of
>>>                     being an OOTB-vetted add-on but an add-on owner
>>>                     still doesn't think it is worth the effort to be
>>>                     listed, that probably means they aren't invested
>>>                     enough in that project. And if that's the case,
>>>                     we don't really want their add-on on this list.
>>>                     And if it's a good add-on that has simply been
>>>                     abandoned, some other community member can fork
>>>                     it, self-certify it, and submit it.
>>>
>>>                     Jeff
>>>
>>>                     On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Tahir Malik
>>>                     <tahir.malik at contezza.nl
>>>                     <mailto:tahir.malik at contezza.nl>> wrote:
>>>
>>>                         Hi Axel,
>>>
>>>                         I want to propose a different setup for our
>>>                         Addons community.
>>>                         Instead of thoroughly testing other people's
>>>                         code and fixing it where needed we should
>>>                         add all the (functional) working Addons in
>>>                         the edition and fix the addons when they
>>>                         seem to have a problem.
>>>                         This could eather be in the github issues or
>>>                         we forward the issues to the rightfull
>>>                         addon's party and help them fix it.
>>>
>>>                         So what you'll get is that instead of having
>>>                         3 addons, you'll have at least 15 addon's
>>>                         which will definitely have more value than
>>>                         what we currently have.
>>>
>>>                         And I think we should next to Addons also
>>>                         add Patches to the list. I've created
>>>                         multiple patches in the past (and still do)
>>>                         on community and we should just bluntly add
>>>                         them and take the responsibility to fix them
>>>                         if needed.
>>>                         If too much issues with them, discard them.
>>>
>>>                         So the goal is exactly the same, only the
>>>                         approach it different and you'll have more
>>>                         result in less time and hopefully will have
>>>                         a compellingly more valuable honeycomb
>>>                         edition than we now have at the moment :).
>>>
>>>                         To put this further we should have a pre-req
>>>                         list for these addons:
>>>                         - Should be running on at least one client
>>>                         production system
>>>                         - We should have at least tested the addon
>>>                         functionally
>>>                         - etc.
>>>
>>>                         The same for Pathes and we need to make sure
>>>                         that we can supply the Addons/Patches on
>>>                         different Alfresco Versions.
>>>                         So the puppet/docker config should keep a
>>>                         list for each Alfresco version.
>>>
>>>                         Next to this I want to in the future let our
>>>                         team create Addons, that could be 1 fully
>>>                         new addons we decide (let's say in the
>>>                         hackaton) or 2 pickup half working addons
>>>                         from the community and make it work.
>>>
>>>                         Best regards,
>>>
>>>                         Contezza
>>>
>>>                         *Tahir Shazad Malik*
>>>
>>>                         *email*
>>>
>>>                         	
>>>
>>>                         tahir.malik at contezza.nl
>>>                         <mailto:tahir.malik at contezza.nl>
>>>
>>>                         *mobile*
>>>
>>>                         	
>>>
>>>                         +31 (0)6 14 77 50 82
>>>
>>>                         *office*
>>>
>>>                         	
>>>
>>>                         +31 (0)848 68 89 02
>>>
>>>                         *website*
>>>
>>>                         	
>>>
>>>                         www.contezza.nl <http://www.contezza.nl/>
>>>
>>>                         linkedIn <http://nl.linkedin.com/in/tsmalik/>
>>>
>>>                         	
>>>
>>>                         Twitter <http://twitter.com/tahirshazad/>
>>>
>>>                         *From:* Axel Faust
>>>                         *Sent:* Thursday, July 21, 2016 12:48PM
>>>                         *To:* Ootb-hive
>>>                         *Cc:*
>>>                         *Subject:* [OOTB-hive] [ADDONS] What do we
>>>                         want from an Order-managed addon listing?
>>>
>>>                             Hello everyone,
>>>
>>>                             as our previous ADDONS mailing list was
>>>                             closed due to inactivity, it is time to
>>>                             contemplate the state / future of the
>>>                             committees work.
>>>
>>>
>>>                             Initially, the committee was set up to
>>>                             compose, review and manage a list of
>>>                             Community addons / tools that we as the
>>>                             Order can recommend to users of Alfresco
>>>                             either because they fit a very specific
>>>                             niche of features, are qualitatively
>>>                             exception or simplify specific use cases
>>>                             immensely. In comming up with a process
>>>                             / guideline to review and accept addons
>>>                             in such a list we had some discussions
>>>                             about criteria but little concrete
>>>                             progress was made. At some point I
>>>                             started to compile a draft criteria
>>>                             catalogue
>>>                             (https://github.com/OrderOfTheBee/addons/wiki/Inclusion-criteria-overview
>>>                             <https://github.com/OrderOfTheBee/addons/wiki/Inclusion-criteria-overview>)
>>>                             to help me structure my ideas and be
>>>                             used as a concrete basis for additional
>>>                             debate. Response had been mixed, I
>>>                             created two addon reviews as showcases
>>>                             and asked others to try and use the
>>>                             catalogue for their own reviews to
>>>                             gather feedback as well as input for
>>>                             potential changes (both detail or
>>>                             general direction).
>>>
>>>                             Since then, nothing has really happened
>>>                             in the committee. For me it became clear
>>>                             that I could do little to encourage
>>>                             others to either try their hand at a
>>>                             review or come up with a concrete
>>>                             counter-proposal of how we want to go
>>>                             about compiling a list. Additionally, I
>>>                             was burdened with a higher load at work
>>>                             and didn't really find the time to
>>>                             continue doing reviews by myself, and
>>>                             neither wanted to since doing stuff
>>>                             unilaterally defeats the purpose of a
>>>                             committee / the Order. I am confident I
>>>                             can rectify my problem with the work
>>>                             load now that there'll be a couple
>>>                             changes in my work life. But engagement
>>>                             by other members is still crucial and
>>>                             initiative has yet to been demonstrated
>>>                             in this particular area.
>>>
>>>                             My question(s) to you now:
>>>
>>>                               * Do we still (want to) consider it an
>>>                                 objective of the Order of the Bee,
>>>                                 to compile a list of addons / tools
>>>                                 that have been qualitatively
>>>                                 evaluated (in some sort), and to
>>>                                 have that list provide added value
>>>                                 over what is already provided by
>>>                                 addons.alfresco.com
>>>                                 <http://addons.alfresco.com/> or any
>>>                                 potential tool that may be
>>>                                 introduced with the new community
>>>                                 platform?
>>>                               * How do we want to go about compiling
>>>                                 such a list?
>>>                                 And here I don't mean minute details
>>>                                 (GitHub issues vs. whatever task
>>>                                 listing), but questions about
>>>                                 "output artifacts" (what is part of
>>>                                 the listing), "inclusion criteria",
>>>                                 "distribution of effort",
>>>                                 "committment to review schedule /
>>>                                 targets"
>>>                               * Who wants to (regularily) take part
>>>                                 in addons-related activities within
>>>                                 the Order (and hasn't previously
>>>                                 been aware of what you could do)?
>>>
>>>                             Regards
>>>
>>>                             Axel
>>>
>>>                             _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>                             OOTB-hive mailing list
>>>
>>>                             OOTB-hive at xtreamlab.net
>>>                             <mailto:OOTB-hive at xtreamlab.net>
>>>
>>>                             http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-hive
>>>                             <http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-hive>
>>>
>>>                         Follow Contezza on LinkedIn
>>>                         <https://www.linkedin.com/company/contezza-informatiemanagement> or
>>>                         Twitter <https://twitter.com/contezzaim>!
>>>
>>>                         _______________________________________________
>>>                         OOTB-hive mailing list
>>>                         OOTB-hive at xtreamlab.net
>>>                         <mailto:OOTB-hive at xtreamlab.net>
>>>                         http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-hive
>>>                         <http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-hive>
>>>
>>>                 _______________________________________________
>>>                 OOTB-hive mailing list OOTB-hive at xtreamlab.net
>>>                 <mailto:OOTB-hive at xtreamlab.net>
>>>                 http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-hive
>>>                 <http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-hive>
>>>
>>>             -- 
>>>
>>>             Douglas C. R. Paes
>>>
>>>             Follow Contezza on LinkedIn
>>>             <https://www.linkedin.com/company/contezza-informatiemanagement> or
>>>             Twitter <https://twitter.com/contezzaim>!
>>>
>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>             OOTB-hive mailing list OOTB-hive at xtreamlab.net
>>>             <mailto:OOTB-hive at xtreamlab.net>
>>>             http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-hive
>>>             <http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-hive>
>>>
>>>         Follow Contezza on LinkedIn
>>>         <https://www.linkedin.com/company/contezza-informatiemanagement> or
>>>         Twitter <https://twitter.com/contezzaim>!
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ OOTB-hive mailing 
>>> list OOTB-hive at xtreamlab.net <mailto:OOTB-hive at xtreamlab.net> 
>>> http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-hive
>> _______________________________________________ OOTB-hive mailing 
>> list OOTB-hive at xtreamlab.net 
>> http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-hive 
>
> _______________________________________________
> OOTB-hive mailing list
> OOTB-hive at xtreamlab.net
> http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-hive
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.xtreamlab.net/pipermail/ootb-hive/attachments/20160818/e0bd32d9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the OOTB-hive mailing list