Re: [IBMiOSS] Collaboration discussion

Thanks.

So this may be more public a forum than we want to get into but I am going to at least spin it my way for a minute (just for perspective....). Clarification: Jeff doesn't make the decisions for Common, he just *speaks* for Common. So whether he is in or out of OSS is irrelevant......the board and staff at Common collaboratively make decisions. Not just Jeff....

<snip>

I am one of the primary individuals migrating things away from YiPs.

</snip>

Seems to me that NOT moving stuff from the YiPS site was your perspective when we first talked about this. Not wanting to break links, etc.... so I didn't move aggressively with Common to do that work because it needed to be done gently, without disrupting the status quo there. I guess I misread you. Common should have just taken it over....

<snip>

Why?
Because it doesn't facilitate what the various projects actually need:
organized collaboration where anyone can contribute, all while having
complete transparency. This was a decision by IBM that I am helping to
facilitate.

</snip>

Ok, again from my perspective....we both knew NOT having a "collaboration site" was an issue. We really needed to have a site where we ALL could collaborate on projects. *I* don't care what that site contains or where its is located. My hope was by hoisting something in a non for-profit business environment like Common, we could come up with a solution in a central place. I also remember that your concern was that Common moved too slow (it does, like any larger organizations of *volunteers*) and so, instead of helping me or Common get the site going or enhancing the YiPS site, others have now done their own thing and started their own sites using all the tools you listed. Cool! Its moving forward. You now have begun consolidating content just like the volunteers could have at Common. You could have done it through Common but you decided, and had the connections, to do it through your company. The choice was to either do it through a community resource like Common or do it yourself and you decided to do it yourself. Common planned on using all the same resources you did. I wasn't encouraging them to create a new BitBucket or Git solution and it was just common sense to use what tools they had already invested in to host a forum and wiki. The new website wasn't done for OSS but I thought it was a great time to launch a new site because a total revamp with new tools and capabilities was already in the works.

<snip>

That's what has me scratching my head
(and somewhat frustrated knowing a portion of my membership dues go to
that).

</snip>

Again, they haven't spent money to reinvent the wheel. Common needed a membership management tool that was better than the disjointed mashup of tools they had. What they purchased and implemented provides for public website, forums and wikis as well as member-centric management tools. Its off the shelf stuff, just like you use. The OSS site was MY idea based on conversations I had with you and others about the YiPS site and other stuff that was limiting the reach. My hope, again, was to do what you are doing under your company's banner but do it under a community banner. That's all.

<snip>

The kicker: COMMON trying to implement SaaS solutions that already exist
has prohibited/delayed the one thing we actually lack: a regular conference
call.

</snip>

SIGH.....Common has nothing to do with this... *I*, Pete Helgren, community member, decided to leverage what he knew: Common has an interest in promoting OSS on IBM i. Maybe Pete could ask them if they could sponsor a conference call. They did!, when I finally asked them last week!!! Yeah, I am busy. I didn't get it done immediately. I have a job that has nothing to do with IBM i or OSS directly that takes up 60 hours a week of my time. I am a VOLUNTEER. Maybe the wrong volunteer if you know of someone who has more CPU cycles to get this done. I do it because I love the community. Not because I have a job that can use the work do for the community....

Sheesh! Why are you so down on Common......?

Last <snip>

I wholeheartedly agree with the decision because, again, it
opens wide the gates for true collaboration and transparency.

</snip>

Since we are talking transparency, you have pulled lots of content in around your company's banner. Common planned to do it JUST the way you did and your argument is that Common sought to do it the wrong way? How's that again? The fact that you got it done around "Litmis" instead of Common reflects what? We could accomplished what you have (and again, I think it is great that stuff is up and active) but instead of working with Common you did it yourself. No problem. My only interest here is was getting the IBM i OSS into neutral territory. Common is neutral because it is invested in the community whether you are a member or not.

Not sure where your point lies except to say "I did it my way and faster". Cool.

Pete Helgren
www.petesworkshop.com
GIAC Secure Software Programmer-Java
LinkedIn - www.linkedin.com/in/petehelgren
Twitter - Sys_i_Geek IBM_i_Geek

On 6/24/2016 1:22 PM, Aaron Bartell wrote:

Thanks for the reply, that gives me/us more visibility. I've only recently
met Jeff Carey so I know little about him. Jeff making decisions
concerning the things here (OSS collab tools for IBM i) would be like a CEO
picking a programming language instead of the IT manager and developers - a
lot more risky. That's not a slam against Jeff, just not the role he
should be playing (unless he's a closet open source personality that we've
not seen).

I agree on the "companies come and go" commentary and that COMMON has
staying power. I think COMMON's commitment to open source is very evident
in the fact they're dedicating entire conferences to the subject - says a
lot. That and the proliferation of open source topics at the annual
conferences - love it.

For the most part I don't really care who/what/where things are done, I
just know what will and won't work based on past experience. Tangible
examples are in order. Both you and I offer open source on our websites.
My source has always been free to contribute back to, but in 14yrs time
(since I first released RPGMail) I've maybe received two or three changes.
Why? Because I didn't have it in a form that made it easy to
collaborate/contribute. GitHub/Bitbucket changed *everything*. There is
significantly more IBM i collaboration going on with GitHub/Bitbucket than
5yrs ago. We should hop on that bandwagon.

This is why I think COMMON hosting a custom wiki/forum is doomed to
constantly be behind**. We have free SaaS tools
(Github/Bitbucket/Gitter/Slack/Ryver/midrange.com/googlegroups) yet COMMON
deems to build/host/port their own. That's what has me scratching my head
(and somewhat frustrated knowing a portion of my membership dues go to
that).

**It's why YiPs is behind. Why did COMMON adopt the awesome sched.org?
Because it made sense, as does the adoption of existing SaaS for open
source collaboration/aggregation.

The kicker: COMMON trying to implement SaaS solutions that already exist
has prohibited/delayed the one thing we actually lack: a regular conference
call.

That is beginning to fragment a bit with some projects landing elsewhere

(not sure why but that is how things evolve).

I am one of the primary individuals migrating things away from YiPs. Why?
Because it doesn't facilitate what the various projects actually need:
organized collaboration where anyone can contribute, all while having
complete transparency. This was a decision by IBM that I am helping to
facilitate. I wholeheartedly agree with the decision because, again, it
opens wide the gates for true collaboration and transparency. A good
example is the recently migrated python-itoolkit project(n1). What's cool
is now the entire community can see IBM and other Python community leaders
debating changes in the open(n2). The same is true for the ibmichroot(n3),
RelicPackageManager(n4), xmlservice-rpg(n5), vlang-rpg(n6),
ruby-itoolkit(n7), PHP iToolkit(n8), and a host of others. Again, this is
the bandwagon we must get on if we're to be successful in open source
engagement (code/collaboration/documentation), not creating our own new
path.

n1 - https://bitbucket.org/litmis/python-itoolkit
n2 -
https://bitbucket.org/litmis/python-itoolkit/issues?status=new&status=open
n3 - https://bitbucket.org/litmis/ibmichroot/issues?status=new&status=open
n4 - https://github.com/Club-Seiden/RelicPackageManager
n5 -
https://bitbucket.org/inext/xmlservice-rpg/issues?status=new&status=open
n6 - https://bitbucket.org/inext/vlang-rpg
n7 - https://bitbucket.org/litmis/ruby-itoolkit
n8 - https://github.com/zendtech/IbmiToolkit

In case my recommendation to COMMON got lost in the above paragraphs, I
would recommend COMMON *not* do their own hosted forum/wiki. Instead it
would be better for COMMON to point at/aggregate(n9) all the things going
on. Become the destination to learn what's going on and where. This is
essentially what a conference is, or at a smaller level a presentation - a
bunch of information summarized down into something people are willing to
pay a lot of money for(hint hint).

n9 - An example of aggregation, with history. Many are already
contributing: https://bitbucket.org/ibmi/opensource/wiki/Home


Aaron Bartell
litmis.com - Services for open source on IBM i


On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Pete Helgren <pete@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I am not on the Common board of directors and I do not speak for Common,
only Jeff Carey, current president, can do that.

Here is what I believe has been communicated to me and, btw, I am NOT
saying that Common has to have ownership of this thing but I will say the
one advantage of having an organization like Common in the middle is
because people come and go, and companies come and go, and communities ebb
and flow but Common has been around for 60 years while I cannot say that
for all the companies that have been in and out of the midrange space.
Midrange.com is a bit of an odd duck in this regard in that the community
has very nicely sustained this with David's oversight. But when David
moves on, what then? Probably someone will graciously host and maintain
the site but there is always risk. Common is not an eternal organization
and it could morph into something that sidelines IBM i and OSS, but right
now, Common has embraced OSS, IBM has embraced OSS we have a community
building around it and Common wants to support the effort with no strings
attached. No paywall for community content. No requirement of membership.
Just an offer to host a central place for community content, whatever form
it takes. Will there be paywalled content in the future? My guess is
there will be events that focus on OSS that will be fee based. But
community contributed stuff will always be free.

That said:

1) I put up some pages at www.common.org/open-source to get us
started. Common has a broader web strategy that they are in the middle of
implementing and the broader strategy will include a forum and a wiki.
Just like the risk Bill Gravelle is taking starting the LinkedIn Group and
the Ryver forum, another site at common.org in addition all the others
out there may not "stick". Maybe there will never be a central place where
all things IBM i OSS can be found. But hope that there can be. So I chose
to go with common.org. It may be a mistake to locate content there
because some folks have some "baggage" when it comes to Common and
therefore may not even visit the site, but the organization isn't going
away any time soon and so the location has *some* permanence.

2) Common and idevcloud.com partnered in keeping the YiPS site going
which has been a repository for OSS/PASE projects. That is beginning to
fragment a bit with some projects landing elsewhere (not sure why but that
is how things evolve). I hope to re-skin the site while retaining all the
current links (the underlying framework is pretty old). At some point, I
don't know when, my guess is a more permanent home will be found. I'd like
that home to be common.org or maybe even an IBM i OSS foundation that can
maintain a site. Who knows? For now the plan is to continue to support
the YiPS site.

3) Common as agreed to fund an open source project if necessary to get
some initial traction. Not sure what it will be or how much they are
willing to fund but they are will to put some skin the game. I like that
idea.

4) We hope to get a core group of folks who can commit to a regular
conference call. We need to keep it a manageable size and maybe that will
morph into a webcast with a conversational core and a chat option for folks
to ask questions or make suggestions. Common is willing to sponsor this as
well.

I REALLY like the OSS dashboard idea. I am not sure how to do it and it
would be a great opportunity to use many different technologies, all on IBM
i, to do it but we'll see how this evolves. So, in short, I see Common as
being a good place to "center" stuff instead of starting yet another web
presence. In reality, if there was a sustained community funded and more
or less permanent organization framework that would continue this effort, a
la an Apache-like organization, I would be happy to have stuff live there.
But Common s about the best place I can think of for now. The community
will vote with its fingertips: If they frequent the site and find it
useful, great. If we each end up with our own fiefdoms and everyone is OK
with that, so be it.


Pete Helgren
www.petesworkshop.com
GIAC Secure Software Programmer-Java
LinkedIn - www.linkedin.com/in/petehelgren
Twitter - Sys_i_Geek IBM_i_Geek

On 6/24/2016 10:23 AM, Aaron Bartell wrote:

Hi Pete,

I wonder if you could convey what you'd like to see, exactly - especially
if you can comment on COMMON's current stance. I know we've had
conversations in private months ago, but I'm curious to know where things
stand today. I am asking because I'd like to support where ever I can.
My
fear is that our community will try to control things instead of letting
things have organic success (which is why, btw, midrange.com is so
successful, imo).



Aaron Bartell
litmis.com - Services for open source on IBM i

--
This is the IBMi Open Source Roundtable (OpenSource) mailing list
To post a message email: OpenSource@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/opensource
or email: OpenSource-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/opensource.