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

Tue Aug 23 14:17:57 BST 2016

Thanks for all the feedback. Considering that Jeff is in a timezone that is
consistently running behind, and Francesco (likely others too) wants to
minimize impact during work hours, we should aim for a time slot similar to
or later than TTL / Office Hours.

I am proposing Tuesday the 30th at 1530 UTC, which would be 1730 for all /
most contintental Europeans and 1030 for our resident Texan. If there
aren't too many vetoes until tomorrow, I'll set up a hangout. (Counting
respondents for option A we are currently one below the limit of 10 for a
hangout, and I really don't expect a sudden uptick.)

On 23 August 2016 at 11:24, Jean-Christophe KERMAGORET <
jckermagoret at bluexml.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> I can do either or both options but I would prefer a).
>
> When could it be?
>
> Tuesday or Wednesday next week for example? What are the most usable hours
> with time lag?
>
> Jc
>
> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>
> Le 17 août 2016 à 13:58, Axel Faust <axel.faust.g at googlemail.com> a
> écrit :
>
> 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> 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> 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 <axel.faust.g at googlemail.com>
>>> *Sent: *25 July 2016 17:26
>>> *To: *Tahir Malik <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/OrderOfThe
>>> Bee/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> 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 --> haven't been
>>> updated since october 2014
>>> - 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/ --> 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>
>>> 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, 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>
>>> 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>
>>> 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,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: Contezza]
>>>
>>> *Tahir Shazad Malik*
>>>
>>> *email*
>>>
>>> tahir.malik at contezza.nl
>>>
>>> *mobile*
>>>
>>> +31 (0)6 14 77 50 82
>>>
>>> *office*
>>>
>>> +31 (0)848 68 89 02
>>>
>>> *website*
>>>
>>> www.contezza.nl
>>>
>>> [image: linkedIn] <http://nl.linkedin.com/in/tsmalik/>
>>>
>>> [image: 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)
>>> 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 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
>>>
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 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
>>> 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
> http://www.xtreamlab.net/mailman/listinfo/ootb-hive
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.xtreamlab.net/pipermail/ootb-hive/attachments/20160823/4e47e446/attachment-0001.html>