incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ate Douma <>
Subject Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost findings
Date Sun, 25 Sep 2016 22:51:08 GMT
On 2016-09-25 17:45, Ross Gardler wrote:
> You seem to have taken my comment as an indication that I have concerns one
> way or the other. That is not the case.

> What I'm saying is that to make a
> case for extra budget there needs to be solid justification that  a move to
> ASF will help the community grow.

Ross, can you elaborate further on this?
Your statement is rather confusing and AFAIK such a justification has never
been put forward as a criteria for entering the ASF.

The fact that NetBeans might need extra budget clearly makes it different
than most other podlings, and as such it definitely requires extra attention.

If you mean: expected grow of more active committers and more diversity among
them, then that hardly looks like a problem to me.
If anything, that *is* one of the primary reasons to move to the ASF.

And while I agree with Geertjan that just looking at the Zeroturnaround
productivity report is not a proper nor realistic measurement, if anything
it shows there is still more than enough community using NetBeans today
that we should not have to worry about a lack of that at all.
I'd say on the contrary: it shows there is plenty to gain, and moving to
the ASF can (and IMO will) be a great help in that direction.

> The ASF is not a magic bullet, there needs
> to be a plan coming from the incoming project.
IMO the NetBeans proposal already provides the needed details for that plan.
Including sound reasoning why they (and I) think the move to the ASF will
benefit the project as well as the community.
Nor have I have seen one single argument to the contrary.

Regards, Ate

> The costings here are more
> than we usually get when a new podling is considered. This is a very good
> start.
> The data I refer to is only one data point. If you have data that contradicts
> it then provide it in your request for funds (yes this has been discussed to
> some extent across the main discuss thread, but it needs to be packaged up
> nicely for VP Infra, Prez and finally Board to consider.
> My one data point is
> (requires sign in). That reports shows a decline from 14% in 2012 to 10%
> today. To be fair that has been steady since 2014.
> The reason for my explicit request is that the foundation is currently
> running at a significant deficit. That's not a problem since we have many
> years of cash in the bank at the current deficit. However, we do need to plan
> for the future. So any new budget requests need to be fully justified. That's
> all I'm asking for. A "just because" is not sufficient. Like you and others
> have said there needs to be evidence to back up claims, simply adopting the
> apache way does not mean that NetBeans will be successful as an Apache
> project. If my data (limited to the above single data point) is
> inaccurate/invalid/not representative then you should have no problem
> providing evidence to the contrary when you ask for this budget.
> One final note, back in Jan 2015 the board approved a limited experiment with
> directed sponsorship to help alleviate issues like this. Maybe this would be
> useful to the NetBeans community. See presidents report here:
>  Ross
>> -----Original Message----- From:
>> [] On Behalf Of Wade Chandler Sent: Saturday,
>> September 24, 2016 8:04 PM To: Subject: Re:
>> Preliminary NetBeans cost findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans
>> Incubator Proposal)
>> First, I think we need to see the data you are referring to. Anecdotally
>> the NB community seems to be growing. We are certainly competing with more
>> projects such as VS Code and others in recent years. However, given
>> reviews over the past many years of Java IDEs, NB has consistently been in
>> the top 3. IntelliJ IDEA Ultimate is not an open source project by the way,
>> so I suggest any comparisons to it, especially in the context of an
>> organization such as Apache, is not relevant. Money being one thing, and
>> everything else another, including OSS versus sort of OSS, I think it a
>> fair question, but I hope not a subjective and biased one.
>> Has moving to Apache ever reversed trends which you are referring? For
>> instance, does Apache champion it's own model over others? Why should a
>> project move to the Apache way? Us in the NB community have pushed Oracle
>> to move to a more open and community focused model for years. This sounded
>> like it was about to happen, and many were excited to hear Apache, but I
>> don't know what goal post this is, and if realistic, and if this email is
>> to be viewed negatively or not.
>> It doesn't seem oriented towards analyzing statements of cost to be applied
>> in support of other projects, or a way forward based on cost reduction or
>> code sharing given the initial estimate, but instead focuses on a seemingly
>> nebulous decline of NetBeans which is the first news I have seen of this.
>> Are there ways to cut the cost estimates? GoDaddy (surely others) has some
>> nice plans with unlimited storage and bandwidth, and some rewrites of some
>> systems with PHP, could make some things more viable. What about cost
>> share across projects with similar needs? Do no other Apache projects have
>> plugins or distribution needs? Other than build servers, what can't be
>> consolidated? What about monetary donations to projects or specific Apache
>> line items? Has there been any such talk?
>> How many other OSS Java IDEs are their? Seem only 2 at the Eclipse and
>> NetBeans level. Having them both exist makes the entire ecosystem
>> healthier in my opinion. It would be a shame to not have one of the real
>> open source Java IDEs exist as an Apache project IMO.
>> Thanks
>> Wade
>> On Sep 24, 2016 7:16 PM, "Ross Gardler" <>
>> wrote:
>>> The ASF need to justify spending an extra $10k per year in this one
>>> project at the expense of that $10k going to other projects.
>>> Don't make the request until the IPMC can present an argument that a move
>>> of NetBeans to the ASF will reverse the decline in interest that NetBeans
>>> is seeing.
>>> It may sound trivial, but we can support three "traditional" ASF projects
>>> for NetBeans budget. As a charity we need to think carefully about how we
>>> spend our money. A solid argument that this would reverse the downward
>>> trend for NetBeans will go a long way to reassuring me (as one member,
>>> but also as the person ultimately responsible for paying such a budget
>>> request to the board).
>>> Ross
>>> --- Twitter: @rgardler
>>> ________________________________ From: Ted Dunning
>>> <> Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:04:34 PM To:
>>> Subject: Re: Preliminary NetBeans cost
>>> findings (was: [DISCUSS] Apache NetBeans Incubator Proposal)
>>> Should this request come from IPMC? Seems like it should be at least a
>>> coop request between infra (who get the budget and the operational onus)
>>> and incubator (who cause the problem).
>>> Certainly the budget shouldn't come to the IPMC if approved.
>>> I will work with the board to determine the best form.
>>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Chris Mattmann <>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Daniel this is great work. Thank you for outlining this. Wow!
>>>> Chris
>>>> On 9/24/16, 3:17 AM, "Daniel Gruno" <> wrote:
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>> I've been going over the requirements for NetBeans infrastructure,
>>> it's
>>>> ballpark costs, bandwidth, machines needed and so forth, and the
>>> cliff
>>>> notes are as follows:
>>>> - 40-50TB/month in traffic required (mostly downloads+plugins) - 8-13
>>>> machines/VMS are required - Ballpark hardware costs are between $3k and
>>>> $10k per year,
>>> depending
>>>> on how much we can move to existing infrastructure and how close we
>>>> come to the original setup. The most likely figure we are working with
>>>> is $4.9k, but we should be prepared for a larger cost, just in
>>> case.
>>>> - The maintenance will be split between infra (downloads, web site,
>>> CI,
>>>> new build machines) and the project (services, plugins,
>>> statistics),
>>>> which will undoubtedly incur additional costs in terms of infra
>>> time
>>>> spent on this, possibly to the tune of $10-20k in the initial
>>> phase.
>>>> Certain services like the plugins hosting will rely on Legal giving
>>> the
>>>> go-ahead for it, otherwise we'll have to find other people willing to
>>>> host this.
>>>> Other items like downloads may be offset by CDN providers offering
>>>> their assistance, but we should be prepared for this not being the
>>>> case
>>> from
>>>> the beginning, thus the 40-50TB/month. Likewise, some machine costs may
>>>> be offset by cloud providers offering services for free.
>>>> Thus, I would submit to the IPMC that they consider asking the board
>>>> for a budget of roughly $10k per year for the NetBeans project, as
>>>> well
>>> as
>>>> the additional time required of Infrastructure to implement this into
>>>> the existing ASF infra. As we may be able to pool resources and
>>> utilize
>>>> the new hardware for multiple projects, the cost may go down in the
>>>> coming years, but this is the baseline I suggest we consider when
>>>> approving NetBeans as a new podling.
>>>> With regards, Daniel.
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ---------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: For
>>>> additional commands, e-mail:
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: For
>>>> additional commands, e-mail:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To
> unsubscribe, e-mail: For additional
> commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message