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

Mon Jul 25 19:33:06 BST 2016

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/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> 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>!
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.xtreamlab.net/pipermail/ootb-hive/attachments/20160725/8766b16f/attachment-0001.html>