[OOTB-hive] [ADDONS] What do we want from an Order-managed addonlisting?
Tahir Malik
tahir.malik at contezza.nl
Mon Aug 29 10:42:06 BST 2016
Tuesday 1730 is fine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Mark Goodnight
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 23, 2016 5:20PM
*To:* Axel Faust
*Cc:* Ootb-hive
*Subject:* Re: [OOTB-hive] [ADDONS] What do we want from an
Order-managed addonlisting?
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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
>> <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
>> <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
_______________________________________________
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>!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.xtreamlab.net/pipermail/ootb-hive/attachments/20160829/9f6442da/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the OOTB-hive
mailing list