[OW2 Technology Council]
[17:33] == alefebvr has joined #ow2-tc
[17:33] == mode/#ow2-tc [+o alefebvr] by ChanServ
[08:52] == PetrTuma has joined #ow2-tc
[08:54] <PetrTuma> Hi Alex, Guillaume.
[09:01] <@alefebvr> Hi Petr!
[09:31] == gblondelle has joined #ow2-tc
[09:31] <gblondelle> hi there,
[09:32] <@alefebvr> hello
[09:32] <@alefebvr> Let's wait a few more minutes for potential pepole to arrive
[09:32] <gblondelle> ok
[09:33] == cescoffier has joined #ow2-tc
[09:34] <@alefebvr> hello Clément
[09:35] <cescoffier> hello
[09:36] <@alefebvr> Let's wait a few more minutes for potential pepole to arrive`
[09:37] == jack-nudt has joined #ow2-tc
[09:37] <@alefebvr> Hello Yin Gang!
[09:37] <jack-nudt> hello everyone !
[09:37] <jack-nudt> hi, Alex !
[09:40] <gblondelle> Hi Jack,
[09:41] <@alefebvr> OK, let's go ?
[09:41] <gblondelle> Let's go.
[09:41] <@alefebvr> just as a reminder the agenda:
[09:41] <@alefebvr> - GIT/Maven for OW2 projects
[09:41] <@alefebvr> - GIT/Maven for OW2 projects
[09:41] <@alefebvr> - Trustie-OW2 projects cooperation
[09:42] <@alefebvr> - cooperative projects: resulting assembly code
[09:42] <@alefebvr> - project maturity and lifecycle
[09:42] <@alefebvr> - elections of the TC chairman
[09:42] <gblondelle> Tkx Alex. Let's say two words about the fact that we use irc for tc.
[09:42] <@alefebvr> I let Gaël do the introduction
[09:42] <gblondelle> So first of all, welcome to this first irc tc meeting.
[09:42] <gblondelle> We want to try irc as a mean to have better collaboration between all the tc members.
[09:42] <jack-nudt> Hi, Gael !
[09:43] <gblondelle> It looks like some ohter open source communities intensively use irc for their communication, and we think it's a good communication mean.
[09:43] <gblondelle> So let's start.
[09:44] <gblondelle> We have planned a one hour meeting for today, and the agenda is fulle of topics.
[09:44] <gblondelle> Again, welcome onboard.
[09:44] <gblondelle> Alex, I propose that you introduce the topics, and I'll introduce the last one :)
[09:45] <@alefebvr> OK
[09:45] <@alefebvr> First topic is GIT/Maven = infrastructure requirements for OW2 projects
[09:45] == cedricth has joined #ow2-tc
[09:45] <@alefebvr> There was also a request to have Sonar
[09:45] <@alefebvr> (hello Cédric)
[09:46] <cedricth> hello everybody!
[09:46] <@alefebvr> Topic 2 is
[09:46] <gblondelle> Maybe, we can discuss topics by topics?
[09:46] <@alefebvr> OK
[09:46] <@alefebvr> Let's keep to infra (GIT/Maven/Sonar)
[09:47] <@alefebvr> Question is: what are, do you think, the infra requirement priorities?
[09:47] <cescoffier> Well, I found this GIT / Maven title a little bit  weird
[09:47] <cescoffier> we use GIT on developer machine and each developer is free to use it
[09:48] <gblondelle> :)
[09:48] <cescoffier> we always considered SVN as our main dev stream
[09:48] <@alefebvr> what about Maven ?
[09:48] <gblondelle> The question is about the evolution of OW2 infra.
[09:48] <cescoffier> We use maven (for almost everything)
[09:48] <gblondelle> Do you expect OW2 to provide you with some git hosting?
[09:48] <gblondelle> ... a specific Maven infrastructure like Nexus?
[09:48] <cescoffier> about GIT hosting, not really
[09:49] <cescoffier> as we use (at least in our case) GIT only on developer machine
[09:49] <@alefebvr> OK so should OW2 provide Maven infra?
[09:49] <cescoffier> we don't use GIT to exchange code, just to organize your working copy
[09:49] <cescoffier> for Maven, it would be a good improvement
[09:49] <@alefebvr> any specific product/version/requirement?
[09:49] <cescoffier> Apache uses Nexus
[09:49] <@alefebvr> OK
[09:50] <@alefebvr> Jack, what do you use on Trustie?
[09:50] <gblondelle> about Git, it looks like some other members are willing to move there code to GitHub in order to have Git everywhere.
[09:50] <cescoffier> it is not perfect (in fact it's far from perfect according to the infra@apache mailing list, you will see a lot of issues)
[09:50] <@alefebvr> "it is not perfect" = Nexus?
[09:50] <cescoffier> alefebvr: yes
[09:51] <gblondelle> well let's continue with maven, and we'll get back to git and sonar.
[09:51] <cescoffier> alefebvr: but is provide really useful features (staging, proxying...)
[09:51] <jack-nudt> I use Trustie Collab-Dev Platform.
[09:51] <@alefebvr> Are there any other choices than Nexus?
[09:51] <cescoffier> Artifactory, but it's worse
[09:51] <cescoffier> we used artifactory at akquinet for 6 months, and then decide to move to Nexus
[09:51] <cescoffier> we got several index corruption with artifactory
[09:52] <gblondelle> If I remember well, the company developing Nexus proposed a free license to OW2. Right?
[09:52] <cescoffier> however our internal maven repo is kind of huge (yesterday : 50 Gb of releases)
[09:52] <jack-nudt> Do you mean OW2 will be maven-based or marven-dominated ?
[09:52] <cescoffier> gblondelle: yes, I think sonatype can provide such license, they did for Apache, so why not for OW2. Jason will not be against (I hope :-))
[09:53] *alefebvr* hmmm
[09:53] <cescoffier> (Jason : Jason Van Zill, the sonatype CEO)
[09:53] <@alefebvr> OK
[09:53] <cedricth> WRT Git, I had a discussion with Emmanuel Lecharny (Apache) he says Git doesn't work for them, the issue is (if I understood well) that Git is not good for maintaining a reference copy of the code
[09:54] <@alefebvr> "maven-based or maven-dominated": Clement, what do you think? Gael?
[09:54] <jack-nudt> Then shall be consider the relationship between CVS, SVN and such Marven-oriented tools?
[09:54] <gblondelle> jack: we mean that many OW2 projects use Maven, and some need an extra infrastructure element like a maven repo manager like nexus.
[09:54] <@alefebvr> but not all OW2 projects use Maven
[09:54] <@alefebvr> what about Trustie? do you use Maven?
[09:55] <cescoffier> alefebvr: MAven-based, despite we use mavne for everything, we're not domainated by Maven, we just use it because we consider that it's the 'best' EXISTING tools for our current need
[09:55] <gblondelle> In my understanding, Maven supports well any of the versionning systems like CVS, SVN or Git, so that's two different aspects of the infra.
[09:55] <jack-nudt> Not yet. I use Truste CDE to management several projects...
[09:55] <gsauthier> Hi all, sorry to be late
[09:55] <@alefebvr> no problems
[09:55] <cescoffier> Maven supports CVS and SVN (No idea about GIT)
[09:55] <jack-nudt> ok. I see.
[09:55] <gblondelle> welcome guillaume.
[09:56] <gblondelle> Git support in maven : http://maven.apache.org/scm/git.html
[09:56] <gblondelle> I didn't test it :)
[09:57] <cescoffier> gblondelle: yes, I read this page, but never tried to cut a release with Maven on GIT ..
[09:57] <@alefebvr> back to Maven repo manager: should we OW2 get in touch with Sonatype to get a Nexus license?
[09:57] <cescoffier> alefebvr: I think so
[09:57] <gblondelle> Cedric, I think that Sonatype already proposed such a license some months ago?
[09:57] *cescoffier* OK
[09:58] <cedricth> hmmm not really they contacted us but I suspect hey wanted to do business with us
[09:58] <cedricth> I can check though
[09:58] <@alefebvr> email on 29 March 2009 exchange with Jason
[09:59] <@alefebvr> we can follow-up on that exchange
[09:59] <cedricth> right, we'll have to get back to them
[09:59] <@alefebvr> OK. Action point noted.
[09:59] <cedricth> ok
[09:59] <@alefebvr> Next point GIThub
[10:00] <cescoffier> just a last point about nexus
[10:00] <cescoffier> it generally requires a centralized ldap for authentification, does OW2 has such LDAP ?
[10:00] <@alefebvr> OW2 has LDAP
[10:00] <@alefebvr> we use it for various authentication
[10:00] <gblondelle> yes Ldap is already part of the infra.
[10:01] <cescoffier> then, no major issues...
[10:01] <gblondelle> perfect.
[10:02] <@alefebvr> Good.
[10:02] <@alefebvr> Is GITHub a requirement from OW2 projects or not?
[10:02] <gblondelle> you git hosting?
[10:02] <@alefebvr> We noted Orbeon is hosted on GITHub.com
[10:02] <@alefebvr> yes sorry GIT hosting
[10:03] <@alefebvr> or is GIT not an issue for OW2 infra, as Clément said earlier?
[10:03] <gblondelle> well, it looks like Git is very usefull for developpers. Some use a bridge between git and svn, Clement?
[10:04] <gblondelle> Juts an interesting link http://blog.emmanuelbernard.com/2010/05/git-how-my-life-has-improved-since-last-month-when-i-used-svn/
[10:04] <cescoffier> yes
[10:04] <cescoffier> in fact, SVN is our main streamline
[10:04] <gblondelle> yes, but the question is : would you need pure Git hosting?
[10:04] <cescoffier> then each developer copy the repo using get (with the git / svn bridge)
[10:04] <gsauthier> Git (or any DCVS) seems to better handle the merge problem
[10:04] <gblondelle> in addition to svn hosting?
[10:05] <gsauthier> This is probably one of the best reasons for projects to move to Git/Mercurial
[10:05] <cescoffier> the issue here is that people generally use gitHUB for specific gitHUN features
[10:05] <cescoffier> not only git
[10:05] <gblondelle> I think that some members won't use Git + Svn, and will fully move to Git
[10:05] <gsauthier> cescoffier: I agree
[10:05] <gsauthier> GitHub is some kind of "social coding"
[10:06] <gsauthier> with features that are not directly related to git, but useful
[10:06] <gblondelle> so, do we need to try to establish a partnership with GitHub?
[10:06] <@alefebvr> are there alternatives ?
[10:06] <cescoffier> we can host gitHUB no ?
[10:07] <gblondelle> ?
[10:07] <gsauthier> ?
[10:07] <cescoffier> the gitHUB system
[10:07] <gsauthier> is it opensource ?
[10:07] <gsauthier> even if it is OS, it will be another forge ...
[10:07] <@alefebvr> hmmm
[10:07] <cescoffier> we can check, but I think so
[10:07] <@alefebvr> is Mercurial an alternative?
[10:08] <gblondelle> alex : no, Mercurial is just a Git alternative.
[10:09] <gsauthier> and bitbucket is their github alternative
[10:10] <gblondelle> well, I am afraid we wqon't conclude on this topic today. what about posting a summary of this discussion on the mailing list and ask for reactions?
[10:10] <@alefebvr> OK the question is: 1) does OW2 infra need to host an instance of GITHub or bitbucket?
[10:10] <cescoffier> why not having the main stream on the ow2 SVN
[10:10] <@alefebvr> 2) are any of such products open source?
[10:10] <cescoffier> and allow them to get the code from GITHUB
[10:11] <@alefebvr> seems an interesting alternative
[10:11] <gblondelle> clement, could you elaborate about such a solution?
[10:11] <cescoffier> but asking them to use SVN as their main stream
[10:11] <gsauthier> This is what apache does with its top level projects
[10:11] <@alefebvr> OK good
[10:11] <cescoffier> I'm a newbies in GIT (except on my own machine)
[10:11] <gsauthier> http://github.com/apache
[10:11] <cescoffier> but, if the main stream (i.e.e trunk) is hosted on OW2 (SVN)
[10:11] <@alefebvr> OK, we'll have a look at this
[10:12] <cescoffier> then developer can get that code with GIT (SVN Bridge), use gitHUB ...
[10:12] <gsauthier> http://github.com/apache/felix They say it's a mirror of a git repo located in the apache infra
[10:12] <cescoffier> and then integrate the code into the OW2 SVN when doing a release
[10:12] <cescoffier> gsauthier: yes
[10:12] <@alefebvr> OK I see now
[10:12] <cescoffier> gsauthier: something like that
[10:13] <@alefebvr> so OW2 projects would need to have the ability to mirror between git repo on OW2 and git repo on github
[10:13] <cescoffier> yes, we can ask the apache infra how this is done
[10:13] <gsauthier> This is something I see a lot theses days: projects offering a mirror on github to allow to fork/clone a project easily
[10:14] <gsauthier> But I don't know how theses clones come back to the main repo ...
[10:14] <@alefebvr> Proposed action: we'll summarize this via e-mail and send a summary to TC mailing list (we = people currently on this IRC)
[10:14] <cescoffier> gsauthier: I think pushing ot the mirror also push on the SVN
[10:14] <gsauthier> cescoffier: maybe
[10:15] <gsauthier> alefebvr: ok
[10:15] <gblondelle> alex : we= you + guillaume + Clement :)
[10:15] <@alefebvr> OK
[10:15] <cescoffier> but, still wonder about felix branches, those branches were never created by us (release fo the framework is managed by us (i.e.e akquinet people)
[10:15] <@alefebvr> oh ?
[10:15] <cescoffier> I will ask apache guy how this works
[10:15] <@alefebvr> Thanks for this.
[10:15] <cescoffier> and maybe try to do a simple commit to see if it is mirrored correctly
[10:16] <@alefebvr> Next topic is Sonar: there was a request for Sonar. Do you agree it is a must have?
[10:16] <gblondelle> Next point : sonar
[10:16] <gblondelle> :D
[10:16] <gblondelle> Yes, sonar is a must have.
[10:17] <gsauthier> Someone knows if Sonar is difficult to configure ?
[10:17] <cescoffier> Last word about GitHUB : They sell it for private network... So still a valid options
[10:17] <gblondelle> No, it is not difficult.
[10:17] <gsauthier> for JOnAS/EasyBeans, the nemo Sonar instance already have theses projects :)
[10:18] <cescoffier> We use sonar internally, it's simple to configure BUT the database containing metrics grows really quickly
[10:18] <gsauthier> But other projects may be interested to have quality feedback on their codes
[10:18] <@alefebvr> Jack, do you use Sonar at Trustie?
[10:18] <cescoffier> Sonar aggregates reports, it's easy to configure, but it also requires that project configure their reports (i.e.e definie guideline, threshold...)
[10:18] <gblondelle> so the question is : do we ask sonar to integrate tohe owé mature projects in their nemo instance?
[10:18] <jack-nudt> NO. We usually use CVS or SVN
[10:20] <gsauthier> jack-nudt: Sonar is not SVN/CVS: http://nemo.sonarsource.org
[10:20] <cescoffier> using nemo is possible, the only issue is that nemo does nbot really allows fine configuration
[10:20] <jack-nudt> and Trustie CDE = CVS, SVN + Trustie Project Managment Tools.
[10:21] <gblondelle> Sonar, is more abuot code qualityt metrics.
[10:21] <gsauthier> jack-nudt: It's a code quality tool, acting just like a Continuous Integration server (like hudson/bamboo)
[10:21] <gblondelle> it aggregates tools like pmd, checkstyle, findbug, ... a,d some extra metrics
[10:21] <@alefebvr> yes
[10:21] <@alefebvr> http://www.sonarsource.org/
[10:21] <@alefebvr> a bit like what Trustie does :-)
[10:22] <gsauthier> Do you have to setup your maven reports to make it work ?
[10:22] <cescoffier> gsauthier: not really
[10:22] <jack-nudt> I see. It is very interesting.
[10:22] <cescoffier> if you use default metrics / report no
[10:22] <cescoffier> just mvn sonoar:sonar + a lot of properties to configurate the DB access are enough
[10:23] <gsauthier> cescoffier: OK
[10:23] <@alefebvr> Jack, can you please check with Trustie people whether they have had a look at Sonar, and what the respective positioning of Sonar and Trustie is?
[10:23] <cescoffier> in fact sonar:sonar populate the DB, then sonar analyzes the collected data and creates reports
[10:23] <jack-nudt> Ok.It is also the hot topic in Trustie !
[10:23] <@alefebvr> At Bull, you have installed Sonar locally then? Would it be a value that OW2 provides it in its infrastructure?
[10:24] <gsauthier> Is it CPU consuming to run Sonar ?
[10:24] <jack-nudt> Is sonar easily integrated with svn ?
[10:24] <cescoffier> gsauthier: yes, but generally we run sonar job daily (not after every commits), but the trickiest issue is the DB
[10:24] <gsauthier> Not in Bull, we have a Hudson (to tests with windows), but no Sonar
[10:25] <@alefebvr> OK, so I understand CPU may be an issue, but disk space is a bigger issue
[10:25] <gsauthier> Hmmm I'll have to ask the NovaForge guys, maybe they have one ...
[10:25] <cescoffier> sonar does not use SVN, the sonar job is generally executed by your CI (Bamboo, hudson...)
[10:25] <@alefebvr> I'll also get back to the software engineering guys at FT regarding Sonar/Hudson (I think Hudson is a corporate choice, but they looked at Sonar)
[10:25] <cedricth> Today I'd say we have enough CPU and Disk on the OW2 machines
[10:26] <jack-nudt> cescoffier: Thanks, you mean sonar only uses Client side project data ?
[10:26] <gsauthier> BTW, How many machines do we have ?
[10:26] <cedricth> three
[10:26] <@alefebvr> Summary : 1) look at what NovaForge provides 2) look at FT choices Sonar/Hudson 3) look at Trustie position wrt Sonar
[10:26] <cescoffier> jack-nudt: yes
[10:26] <gblondelle> Good summary
[10:27] <@alefebvr> Would Hudson be a viable alternative??
[10:27] <gsauthier> to what ?
[10:27] <cedricth> hmm hmm deadline ?
[10:27] <@alefebvr> Sonar`
[10:27] <gsauthier> Hudson != Sonar
[10:27] <gsauthier> Hudons is the CI
[10:27] <@alefebvr> sorry
[10:27] <@alefebvr> OK
[10:27] <gsauthier> Sonar is the rapport producer/analyzer
[10:27] <@alefebvr> (sorry to be blond)
[10:27] <gsauthier> They usually works together, Hudson triggering Sonar
[10:28] == wangwei has joined #ow2-tc
[10:28] <gsauthier> ;)
[10:28] <@alefebvr> Hi Wang Wei!
[10:28] <jack-nudt> hello Wang wei !
[10:28] <gsauthier> hi
[10:28] <gblondelle> hello
[10:28] <wangwei> hi, everyone!
[10:28] <gblondelle> well, it enough for today about the infra?
[10:28] <@alefebvr> think so
[10:29] <gblondelle> can introduce the topic of chairman elections?
[10:29] <@alefebvr> sure
[10:29] <gsauthier> Question, do we still have a fisheye running ?
[10:29] <gsauthier> I'm trying to connect sometines but it usually do not respond
[10:29] <@alefebvr> fisheye yes http://www.ow2.org/view/About/Atlassian
[10:29] <cedricth> we should do
[10:30] <gsauthier> Do I have to lost any hope to see it runnning on OW2 ? ;)
[10:30] <gblondelle> ok, I have been chairman of the tc for some years now, and I think that we need to organise a new election.
[10:30] <gsauthier> http://fisheye.ow2.org: KO
[10:30] <gsauthier> gblondelle: sorry, It's the ast time I interrupt you :)
[10:31] <gblondelle> I think that it would be a good sign, and a mean to boost the community if we had a new chairman of the tc.
[10:31] <PetrTuma> He who interrupts the chairman has to run in the election ? :)
[10:31] <gblondelle> Exactly.
[10:32] <gsauthier> Ho no !!! :)
[10:32] <@alefebvr> LOL
[10:32] <gblondelle> I think that the on the chat today, we certainly have candidtaes.
[10:32] <@alefebvr> as a reminder, the Chairman of the TC is not the CTO (for those who are wondering)
[10:32] <gblondelle> At least, we have the people most interested by the TC.
[10:33] <@alefebvr> can you describe in a few words the duties / priviledges of the TC chair please?
[10:33] <gblondelle> I can tell you that it may not be some time consuming to be chairman ot the TC.
[10:33] <@alefebvr> not?
[10:33] <gblondelle> Cedric? You are the holder of the bylaxs.
[10:33] <gblondelle> bylaws.
[10:34] <@alefebvr> the bylaws don't say very much about TC chair
[10:34] <@alefebvr> apart from that s/he is elected by the TC
[10:34] <@alefebvr> and thus is "responsible" for the TC
[10:34] <gblondelle> So the duties are :
[10:35] <gblondelle> Lead the discussions about technology vision
[10:35] <gblondelle> Make sure that the TC fulfills its role
[10:35] == wangwei has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
[10:36] <gblondelle> Co-organize meetings with the CTO and the MO
[10:36] <gblondelle> Run discussions about the architecture and the adoption of new projects
[10:36] <gblondelle> take car of OW2 code base consistency
[10:36] <gblondelle> ...
[10:37] <gsauthier> Take care of code base consistency ... that's the hard point ;)
[10:37] <gblondelle> It is a duo with the CTO, namely Alex.
[10:37] <gblondelle> Guillaume: you are right.
[10:38] == jack-nudt has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[10:38] == Hailong has joined #ow2-tc
[10:38] <@alefebvr> Hello Hailong!
[10:38] <gsauthier> gblondelle: how much time did you spent last year doing the chairman's work ?
[10:38] <Hailong> Hello Alex!
[10:38] <gsauthier> Hi Hailong
[10:39] <Hailong> Hi All!
[10:39] == jack-nudt has joined #ow2-tc
[10:39] == wangwei has joined #ow2-tc
[10:39] <gblondelle> I would say the equivalent of 2 full days per month, + participation to OW2 face to face events.
[10:40] <gblondelle> So, we have to formally launch the process.
[10:40] <gsauthier> gblondelle: thanks
[10:40] <gblondelle> We will ask for candidates on the mailing list.
[10:40] <gblondelle> and I propose that in two weeks, we start with the votes.
[10:40] <@alefebvr> your reasons to quit?
[10:41] <cescoffier> isn't to close of the vacations ?
[10:41] <gblondelle> ok, we should vote in september, then.
[10:41] <gsauthier> cescoffier: right, during summer, we have to provide longer deadlines, isn't it ?
[10:41] <cescoffier> yes, it seems better
[10:41] <@alefebvr> and leave the summer for candidates
[10:41] <gblondelle> ok
[10:41] <cescoffier> but the call for candidates can be done right now
[10:41] <cescoffier> exactly
[10:41] <gsauthier> yes
[10:42] <@alefebvr> OK: Action Gaël+Alex to launch call for candidates
[10:42] <gblondelle> I have no special reasons to quit expect the I think that the tc need a new boost, and that a new tc chairman will boost the tc :)
[10:42] <@alefebvr> that's a very good reason !!
[10:42] <@alefebvr> (feeling tired, Gael ? :-)
[10:43] <@alefebvr> Next item was - cooperative projects: resulting assembly code
[10:43] <@alefebvr> it follows a thread on the TC mailing list
[10:43] <@alefebvr> where the real question was:
[10:43] <@alefebvr> what happens if a new OW2 project is mostly an assembly of existing other OW2 projects
[10:44] <cedricth> question works for Initiatves and appliances I guess
[10:44] <@alefebvr> In my view, this is normal !! = OW2 promotes re-use, and it is good that OW2 projects re-use other OW2 projects
[10:45] <@alefebvr> Initiatives: maybe, but does not have to be (could be a technical assembly without the business scope of initiatives)
[10:45] <gsauthier> alefebvr: You mean a project with no real code ?
[10:45] <@alefebvr> Well, I think there has to be some code, at least the integration code
[10:45] <@alefebvr> let me dish out the initial quesiton in the mail
[10:46] <gsauthier> The thread about FederID ?
[10:46] <cescoffier> the code creating the assembly (generally a kind of build process + configurations...) => it's valuable code
[10:46] <gsauthier> cescoffier: rigth
[10:46] <@alefebvr> question by Christophe Gravier was :
[10:46] <@alefebvr> how does it work today in OW2 when different OW2 hosted OSS are integrated in another OW2 hosted OSS software as the OSS "entrypoint" for the other OW2 hosted OSS ?
[10:47] <gsauthier> Is it some king of (Apache meaning of the word) top level project ? with subprojects ?
[10:47] <@alefebvr> FederID: it was created by mistake as an "OW2 Forge project". FederID is a cooperative research project, not a software project
[10:47] <@alefebvr> toplevel project: yes I think
[10:47] <@alefebvr> take JOnAS as an example which integrates other OW2 projects
[10:48] <jack-nudt> I think this common, and this is good.
[10:48] <gsauthier> (I hope you see JOnAS more than an assembly ;) )
[10:48] <@alefebvr> Guillaume: of course !! JOnAS has code of its own, but also integrates other projects
[10:48] <gsauthier> just kidding ;)
[10:49] <@alefebvr> I also think that OW2 is not very good (we've had the discussion zillions of times in the past) at componentizing its code base
[10:49] <@alefebvr> many OW2 projects have their own internal modules re-implementing what other OW2 projects do (example = workflow engines)
[10:49] <@alefebvr> this is bad
[10:49] <jack-nudt> as long as the integrated one can provide new functions.
[10:49] <gsauthier> Agree, everyone choose it's integration technology
[10:50] <@alefebvr> So I don't think there is an issue about project assembly creating a new project (with added value)
[10:50] <jack-nudt> alefebvr: you mean ow2 need a mechanism to promote better code reuse ?
[10:51] <@alefebvr> jack: yes I think we still have an issue about "forcing" projects to open up their code base and make some of their subprojects explicit and re-usable
[10:51] <cescoffier> in fact, it might help componentization by asking the integrated project to be more easily integrable
[10:51] <gsauthier> more cooperation between projects in fact
[10:52] <@alefebvr> cescoffier: "integrated project to be more easily integrable" ??
[10:52] <jack-nudt> Maybe more detailed and precise projects claasification tools are required...
[10:52] <@alefebvr> tools are one thing, willingness to cooperate is another...
[10:52] <gsauthier> jack-nudt: I feel that integration is more about code
[10:52] <cescoffier> alefebvr: imagine an assembly project willing to integrate another ow2 project but this project is not easily integrable (internal configurations ... )
[10:53] <@alefebvr> OK I understand
[10:53] <@alefebvr> this is a multi step process:
[10:53] <@alefebvr> 1. large project should expose subprojects
[10:53] <@alefebvr> 2. subprojects should be, as you say, easily integrable (configuration, API, ...)
[10:54] <jack-nudt> gsauthier: yes. but things to be integrated must be operational...
[10:54] <jack-nudt> sorry to cut your procesess...
[10:54] <@alefebvr> and 3. new projects should not re-implement everything if existing bricks exist (not invented here syndrome)
[10:54] <@alefebvr> (jack no problem)
[10:54] <gsauthier> jack-nudt: sure, that's a pre-requisite
[10:55] <@alefebvr> more practically, what do you feel/suggest that we could do to improve sharing (concretely)?
[10:56] <@alefebvr> [biological break 2 min]
[10:56] <jack-nudt> maybe in the project submission process, something should be done to ease future integration...
[10:58] <jack-nudt> gsauthier: will you please tell me how to change the collor of my name ?
[10:58] <gsauthier> There was a discussion about new project's mentoring some time ago
[11:00] <cescoffier> gsauthier: yes this can definitely help
[11:00] <gsauthier> jack-nudt: Probably depends on your IRC client, isn't it ? BTW you already did change it (gold -> pink -> gold on my screen) :)
[11:00] <gsauthier> Mentoring can help because peoples of different projects will know each others (and mentor probably have a larger OW2 vision than new project)
[11:01] <gsauthier> So cooperation could be enhanced
[11:01] <jack-nudt> I am not aware of this. Maybe my browser can not support this :)
[11:03] <gsauthier> Question, I can see how we can integrate things together using APIs for middleware, but for applications?
[11:03] <cescoffier> but despite mentoring makes a lot of sense, the issue is still : how do we choose mentors
[11:03] <cescoffier> (TC members, projects leaders ... ? )
[11:03] <gsauthier> willing project leaders ?
[11:04] <gsauthier> peoples who have an OW2 knowledge
[11:04] <cescoffier> who select the mentor : the proposed projects, the TC ?
[11:06] <gblondelle> As you may have noticed, I had to switch to another meeting at 10h30. Sorry to not participate to this interesting discussion.
[11:06] <gsauthier> mentor should not be elected, they should express their interrest in a project
[11:06] <gsauthier> gblondelle: bye
[11:08] <gsauthier> For example, for chameleon, I could have say "I want to be one mentor for the project". Anyway, concretely, I think I have done this kind of job :)
[11:08] <@alefebvr> [back: there was a fire exercise]
[11:09] <cescoffier> gsauthier: yes :-)
[11:09] <@alefebvr> you are right we never formalized the mentoring process
[11:10] <@alefebvr> Summary: 1. we need to improve componentization 2. we need to re-launch mentoring for new projects
[11:10] <gsauthier> I think peoples are not against cooperation, they just don't know that something is already provided in OW2
[11:10] <@alefebvr> you are right
[11:11] <gsauthier> project leaders should be more involved in the OW2 stuff
[11:11] <jack-nudt> Maybe we need a good search engine.
[11:11] <gsauthier> easy to say, not to do ;)
[11:11] <@alefebvr> so it goes back to the point above: better cartography of OW2 projects
[11:12] <@alefebvr> next point in agenda (2 points left)
[11:12] <@alefebvr> - Trustie-OW2 projects cooperation
[11:13] <@alefebvr> this was more an information point
[11:13] <@alefebvr> there was an important Trustie event on 12 June with presentation of Trustie in China
[11:13] <@alefebvr> current status of Trustie-OW2 is that:
[11:13] <@alefebvr> 1. we have started mirroring some Trustie projects on OW2 and vice versa
[11:14] <jack-nudt> yes. our collabration was introduced in presentation and panel.
[11:14] <@alefebvr> 2. current mirroring is manual, and we plan to have SVN mirroring (and also for some downloads)
[11:14] <@alefebvr> objective it to improve Trustie dissemination outside China and OW2 dissemination is China
[11:14] <@alefebvr> 3. Trustie is the platform for hosting the programming contest code
[11:14] <@alefebvr> (in 2009 and 2010)
[11:15] <jack-nudt> yes.
[11:15] <@alefebvr> (by the way we have 19 contestant teams registered in the contest)
[11:15] <@alefebvr> and 4. next step is to use the Trustie Software Resource Repository facilities to provide OW2 classification wrt Trustie criteria
[11:15] <@alefebvr> Jack, maybe you can say more on what TSRR provides?
[11:16] <jack-nudt> Yes. TSRR is online now.
[11:16] <jack-nudt> and I want to know is there any plan for ow2 to use TSRR ?
[11:16] <@alefebvr> http://tsr.trustie.net/
[11:17] <@alefebvr> I think it could be valuable that OW2 uses TSRR to "assess" its code base
[11:18] <@alefebvr> Is there a document describing the services offered by TSRR?
[11:18] <jack-nudt> yes. and this will increase the classification and insights of ow2 projects, for better integration and reuse.
[11:18] <jack-nudt> Yes. Mainlly in Chinese. But we are translating them into English.
[11:18] <@alefebvr> great
[11:19] <@alefebvr> I think that OW2 projects will have to understand what TSRR can provide
[11:19] <jack-nudt> just like any other tools. it is easy to use.
[11:20] <@alefebvr> :-) I meant the list of functions provided by TSRR, the output that it produces, etc
[11:20] <@alefebvr> Any questions from the others on Trustie?
[11:21] <jack-nudt> 1. publish released version of software components. 2. collection and submission of feedbacks from users. 3. evaluation of all evidences related to the components.
[11:21] <@alefebvr> thanks
[11:21] <@alefebvr> FYI, this is part of the "global" "software quality" tools that we think OW2 should provide to its projects
[11:21] <jack-nudt> And the feedbacks includes various kinds of data for the target components.
[11:22] <@alefebvr> it includes 1. IP assessment (license) 2. Code quality (includes feedback, but also other metrics)
[11:22] <@alefebvr> Management Office is working on putting together tools
[11:22] <jack-nudt> Right !
[11:23] <@alefebvr> We already have Fossology access and OW2 OSLC (licenses), and have contacts with Antelink (INRIA's spin off)
[11:23] <jack-nudt> But unlike sonar, it itself do not provide or generate evidences.
[11:23] <@alefebvr> I think it is complementary
[11:24] <@alefebvr> Sonar = automatic metrics, ISRR = user feedback metrics
[11:24] <@alefebvr> ISRR > TSRR
[11:24] <@alefebvr> OK for Trustie topic today? More questions?
[11:25] <jack-nudt> good abstraction ! and Trustie tools in TSRR can be used to generate trust evideces or data ...
[11:25] <@alefebvr> Last topic today is project maturity and lifecycle
[11:25] <@alefebvr> There are 2 points:
[11:26] <@alefebvr> 1. cooperative research projects hosted in OW2 are NOT OW2 code base projects, and the name "project" is misleading (see the confusion with FederID)
[11:27] <@alefebvr> We have started cleaning up. Cooperative research projects should not be submitted to the TC as Incubator, and have a separate lifecycle.
[11:27] <@alefebvr> The code resulting from cooperative research projects may be a separate OW2 code base project.
[11:27] <@alefebvr> 2. the incubator->mature->archive lifecycle is OK on paper
[11:28] <@alefebvr> however, we need to better implement the review process for migrating incubator to mature, and to archive
[11:28] <jack-nudt> excuse me. Alex, maybe just now I misunderstanding your formular: ISRR > TSRR. I think TSRR maybe include ISRR.:)
[11:28] <PetrTuma> Did any new project move from incubator so far ?
[11:28] <@alefebvr> yes NovaForge for example
[11:29] <@alefebvr> note that the process is relatively new. We did a first map of all projects directly into 1 of the 3 categories.
[11:29] <@alefebvr> other examples are Enhydra projects which moved to archive
[11:29] <cescoffier> I think chameleon would be interested to move to mature around september / october, but we (I) don't know the process :-)
[11:29] <@alefebvr> You are right: criteria are listed somewhere, they are not visible, and the concrete process is still undefined
[11:30] <@alefebvr> I believe that a regular review of all projects may not be viable (too time consuming)
[11:30] <cescoffier> for mature -> archive
[11:30] <@alefebvr> Status change could be done based on user/project lead/TC request ?
[11:30] <cescoffier> a 6 month review of the activity can be enough
[11:31] <cescoffier> no activity at all => move to archive
[11:31] <@alefebvr> mature->archive could be helped by automatic metrics from mailing list and SVN
[11:31] <cescoffier> exactly
[11:31] <@alefebvr> yes, no activity -> archive, this is what we did with Gael when we listed and reviewed all projects
[11:32] <@alefebvr> I'll post the list of criteria for the classification on the TC mailing list, and will created a dedicated page on the website
[11:32] <@alefebvr> Gaël says that Apache asks its projects to do an activity report every 3 months.
[11:32] <cescoffier> ok good
[11:32] <@alefebvr> Do you think it is a good idea?
[11:33] <@alefebvr> And this could be the opportunity for projects to ask change their status
[11:33] <PetrTuma> The web is probably more useful: the criteria went through the list several times but they never stick :)
[11:33] <@alefebvr> what do you mean Peter?
[11:33] <cescoffier> alefebvr: every quarter all apache project (TLP and incubator) must do a report
[11:33] <@alefebvr> Petr?
[11:34] <@alefebvr> cescoffier: do you think we should adopt this quarterly report in OW2?
[11:34] <cescoffier> alefebvr: well, form my point this report sum up the activity
[11:34] <PetrTuma> (I was commenting on sending the criteria for the classification to the TC list.)
[11:34] <@alefebvr> OK yes, agree, web page is better
[11:35] <cescoffier> it is interesting, and allows TC members to know the activity of projects
[11:35] <@alefebvr> I agree Clement
[11:35] <@alefebvr> Is this a TC decision to enforce such a quarterly report? Should we submit it to TC?
[11:36] <cescoffier> but, what I see so far : all projects are late and the activity report is not exhaustive ...
[11:36] <cescoffier> but yes, it may be something good
[11:36] <cescoffier> and 'froce' people to maintain projects
[11:36] <@alefebvr> always difficult to enforce requirements...
[11:36] <PetrTuma> I'm a bit of a skeptic on this.
[11:37] <@alefebvr> could be a suggestion then
[11:37] <@alefebvr> note that JOnAS for example produces on jonas-team a meeting summary which is like a quarterly report (except it is monthly)
[11:37] <@alefebvr> and it is useful
[11:38] <PetrTuma> I agree that it is useful ... I just don't see how it forces projects that are less active to be more active.
[11:38] <PetrTuma> Since they are usually less active because of lack of time & resources, adding extra requirements doesn't remedy that.
[11:39] <@alefebvr> Summary: 1. publish classification criteria on web page; 2. suggest projects to produce regular reports (periodicity may vary)
[11:39] <@alefebvr> This leaves us with: how (which process) does a project change classification? Who drives it? Who "asks for it"?
[11:40] <@alefebvr> should this be formalized?
[11:41] <PetrTuma> For ->archive transitions, it's clear. TC has to do it.
[11:41] <cescoffier> for incubator => mature
[11:41] <@alefebvr> should we leave it open: 1. upon request from the project lead, with review from the TC; or 2. upon request from anyone, with review from the TC
[11:41] <cescoffier> the project leader can propose to the TC
[11:41] <PetrTuma> For incubator->mature, it should be in the interest of the project.
[11:42] <@alefebvr> yes, interest of the project, but could also be interest from OW2 in general (TC, MO, ...) to promote some project
[11:42] <PetrTuma> I can't imagine that somebody would propose to mature a project and the project lead would not agree.
[11:42] <cescoffier> then, the mentor (if one) can discuss it with the TC
[11:42] <@alefebvr> :-)
[11:42] <@alefebvr> yes Clement
[11:42] <@alefebvr> yes Petr
[11:42] <@alefebvr> (we all agree :-)
[11:42] <PetrTuma> Dangerous :)
[11:42] <@alefebvr> OK, I think we have something here.
[11:43] <cedricth>  incubator>mature: project lead
[11:43] <@alefebvr> or mentor with TC discussion
[11:43] <cedricth> mature>archive: project lead or CTO
[11:43] <cedricth> (apologies if I'm out of synch)
[11:43] <@alefebvr> no no it's a good summary
[11:44] <cedricth> :)
[11:44] <@alefebvr> Are we done for this first ever TC IRC?
[11:44] <@alefebvr> More questions? Feedback? Requests? Complaints? :-)
[11:45] <PetrTuma> Just comment, the IRC idea is nice.
[11:45] <cedricth> YES!
[11:45] <@alefebvr> Thanks to Ed Daniel for setting it up for us.
[11:45] <PetrTuma> It's less demanding than conf call, and makes it easier to participate (I wouldn't be able to participate in a conf call).
[11:45] <Hailong> Agree too. It is more efficient that tele-conference:-)
[11:46] <@alefebvr> This was the idea for proposing it. 
[11:46] <cescoffier> at least, we have the minutes :-)
[11:46] <PetrTuma> *laugh*
[11:46] <@alefebvr> Do you think we should post the raw log of this meeting to TC, or not?
[11:46] <cescoffier> Yes, I think so
[11:46] <@alefebvr> (is it what they do at Apache?)
[11:47] <cescoffier> no, at apache some people sum up the stuff
[11:47] <@alefebvr> and I'll try to produce short summary minutes too
[11:47] <gsauthier> yes, but the main points should be quickly identifiable
[11:47] <cescoffier> but, I'm not sure this is useful here
[11:47] <cescoffier> the raw log + a 5 lines per points sum up should be enought
[11:47] <@alefebvr> OK. For this first one, I'll make the log available then
[11:47] <cedricth> well we need a quick summary of decisions and action points
[11:48] <@alefebvr> ok
[11:48] <cedricth> ok both then, a) summary b) link to raw discussion
[11:48] <PetrTuma> Yes, a) is useful and b) is easy :)
[11:48] <jack-nudt> thanks, alex.
[11:49] <cedricth> this is a real progress, thank you all!
[11:50] == wangwei has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
[11:50] <cescoffier> ok, thanks and Bye !
[11:50] <jack-nudt> Bye !
[11:50] <gsauthier> bye !
[11:50] <PetrTuma> Bye !
[11:51] <Hailong> Bye