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

Axel Faust axel.faust.g at googlemail.com
Fri Aug 26 12:32:23 BST 2016 

In case some of the Google+ contacts I invited were not the correct ones
(there were some duplicates for a couple of people), the event I created
for the hangout can be found here:
https://plus.google.com/events/cmru0a29gve189dqci7g90bfr4s?authkey=CI2wr7qltPKRzwE
If someone who claimed to be interested in this thread misses an
invitation, anyone else is allowed to invite an alternative account.

On 23 August 2016 at 17:20, Mark Goodnight <mark at goodnight.ws> wrote:

> Count me in for option A
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark Goodnight, PMP, ERMp
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 23, 2016, at 09:18, Axel Faust <axel.faust.g at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> 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-o
>>>> ur-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/OrderOfThe
>>>> Bee/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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160826/1356ee1f/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the OOTB-hive mailing list