I was in a similar situation in the past, so I can relate to many of your concerns. FWIW, the path we adopted eventually was SPI. It is a legal entity, and so it can hold assets (trademark, domain names, etc.), it can collect CLAs if you so choose, and it can collect donations on behalf of the project. It does the crux of what you need, a neutral entity to hold the naming right (which I think is at the heart of the issue, really.)
But SPI doesn't require a particular development process. So you can maintain the status quo in that regard. You just nominate the liason from the project to SPI, and in the eyes of SPI that person is the project. This is both a blessing and a curse --- blessing because projects like ours can maintain the way it operates and preserves its culture. But it's a curse because you'd need more governance to protect the community from you. There's no systematic check that prevents you from going rogue. I know some projects where the owner decided to turn the project closed source for profits, and it's not pretty. Not that I'm saying you'd ever do that, but after a fisasco like this one, I think it's fair to the community to make sure that won't happen.
Now that I've gone through the whole thing, I see that if one really takes this to the logical conclusion, you'll go the way toward Apache/Eclipse style mechanisms. But then, one shouldn't have to make the whole leap in one go, right?
So that's just my 2 cents.
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 10:43:28 AM UTC-8, Tim Fox wrote:
Between a rock and a hard place.
I can certainly see the advantages of a neutral foundation such as ASF/Eclipse - I only wish there was a neutral foundation which didn't impose such an onerous development process.
It seems really complex. I think I will go insane if I have to follow that. I'd also be worried that the project would screech to a halt. Anyone who knows me knows I am really not a process guy.
ASF - dev process seems a bit simpler, but I have to say, I have never really agreed with the whole "every committer is equal" thing. I think projects need leads.
So... I'm really stuck on this personally :(
On Thursday, 10 January 2013 15:41:15 UTC, Mark Little wrote:
My preference is certainly a foundation, and of the ones mentioned so far, Eclipse is my favourite.
On 10 Jan 2013, at 14:40, Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> There is one point that I would like to make which is independent of any particular process or foundation. That is, I would like to address the issue of why foundations are useful at all.
> Github rocks. I totally get it. For the people working on a project, it is just about perfect. It is a great environment for people to collaborate on a codebase and Get Shit Done. At Eclipse we aspire to hosting a really good forge and community, but we're not under the illusion that we compete with github's greatness.
> But foundations are not just for the people producing the code. They exist to balance the interests of the producers of that code, and the consumers who want to adopt it in their products or enterprises. All of the processes that you see at organizations like Eclipse and Apache exist to balance those interests. One of those interests that is particularly vital is vendor neutrality. In this day and age, if you want your project to aspire to becoming an industry platform, you need to demonstrate your project's independence from vendor control, and openness to outside contribution. Other key interests include IP management, project longevity, and the like. Organizations like Eclipse and Apache exist to ensure that their projects meet those criteria.
> There are certainly counter-examples (Spring comes to mind), but in general hosting a project at a foundation makes it more likely that your code will reach its maximum mainstream adoption.
> Disclaimer: I run a foundation, so obviously I'm biased :)