[Dspace-tech] Re: [Dspace-general] DSpace Position Paper - HP Labs (fwd)
Tansley, Robert
robert.tansley at hp.com
Tue Aug 3 12:57:18 EDT 2004
Hi all,
I think MacKenzie's comments are spot on. The future of the DSpace platform relies on involvement from a wider community than just the individuals on the HP and MIT team. A software project with the scope DSpace now finds it has needs a far greater pool of resources to work on it and move it forward. If everyone relies on HP and MIT to fix bugs and implement features, the number of people in this pool will not grow sufficiently and progress will be slow.
So yes, by focussing on some architectural issues, HP is for the time being stepping back from the role of fixing bugs and implementing new features in 1.x; however, whether HP do that or not, other people need to step forward to take some of the load. Perhaps now others will feel more freedom and incentive to contribute their bug fixes and code to the platform.
I'd also like to reinforce that HP does wish to remain involved in the DSpace project. What we want to see happen, as stated in the position paper, is to move to a more robust and modular architecture. Naturally, this also needs to be a group effort and can only move forward with involvement of others, in a way that makes sense for the whole community.
Robert Tansley / Digital Media Systems Programme / HP Labs
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Robert_Tansley/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dspace-tech-admin at lists.sourceforge.net
> [mailto:dspace-tech-admin at lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of
> MacKenzie Smith
> Sent: 29 July 2004 11:00
> To: dspace-general at mit.edu; dspace-tech at lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [Dspace-tech] Re: [Dspace-general] DSpace Position
> Paper - HP Labs (fwd)
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> I was going to respond to your post on dspace-tech, but since
> you copied it
> here I'll reply to both lists at once. First let me say that I don't
> presume to speak for Rob, or HP Labs, in any way... I just
> represent how
> MIT fits into the DSpace open source software community, and
> I have talked
> to HP about their ongoing interests so I know a bit about
> where they're
> coming from.
> I'd also like to point out that the institution you work for
> (Cambridge
> University) has a very active 'committer' in the person of
> Jim Downing, and
> that he might have opinions about some of this too.
> But here's my take on it:
>
> -- At the user group meeting last March there was clear
> consensus that
> DSpace should behave like other large/growing open source software
> projects, and expand its development process to be more
> inclusive of people
> from all the institutions who depend on the platform. That's
> why we created
> the DSpace 'committer' group to manage the codebase, which you have a
> representative on. This is standard practice in open source software
> projects, and is based loosely on the Apache Foundation's model.
>
> -- We also said then (and have repeatedly said since) that
> both MIT and HP
> are committed to remaining actively involved in the DSpace
> project, but
> will, as is standard practice in OSS communities, be focusing
> our limited
> resources on the things that our organizations need most. We
> have in the
> past devoted some resources to features that we didn't need
> ourselves, but
> that is likely to become less common over time, as other
> institutions pick
> up some of the load, including yours.
>
> -- A thriving, successful open source software community can
> *only* exist
> if *many* people are involved, and not just the originators (in fact,
> there's a belief in some OSS quarters that a good project
> doesn't really
> take off until the originator leave completely so that the
> community feels
> free to do whatever they need to... we don't think we need to
> go that far,
> but it's an illustrative point of view). As long as the user
> community
> thinks of the originating organizations as a sort of unpaid
> vendor, the
> thing will never work.
>
> All of which goes to say that HP should focus on what HP
> wants from DSpace,
> and right now that's the 2.0 architecture and a migration
> plan for getting
> from here to there. But I think everyone realizes that
> development on the
> 1.x tree can't stop while 2.0 is being developed, so we
> (collectively) need
> to be a bit creative about how to support both a short-term
> 1.x development
> track and a 2.0 development track that neatly merge in a year
> or two. This
> might turn out to be impossible, but that's the challenge for the
> committers group, and particularly those working on the 2.0 effort.
>
> Since DSpace is now a full-blown open source software
> project, what HP and
> MIT do in relation to it should be somewhat irrelevant in the
> big picture,
> except of course that we have some great programmers and good
> ideas about
> where DSpace should go :-) So in a way, you shouldn't feel
> you need to ask
> this question. If you want things to go one way or the other,
> lobby your
> representative on the committers group (or get someone on the
> group if you
> aren't represented). That's my opinion anyway, and I'll let
> Rob answer for
> HP when he's back in town.
>
> MacKenzie
>
>
>
> At 01:54 PM 7/29/2004 +0100, Tom De Mulder wrote:
>
> >I sent the mail below to DSpace-tech, but I thought it might
> be useful to
> >post here, too, since I think quite a few people here work
> at institutions
> >that are using DSpace 1.2 and might be worried about a
> sudden switch to
> >2.0 architecture leaving the 1.x branch behind.
> >
> >I'd personally most like to hear MacKenzie's viewpoint on
> this - what's
> >MIT's stance?
> >
> >--
> >Tom De Mulder <tdm27 at cam.ac.uk> - Cambridge University
> Computing Service
> > New Museums Site, Pembroke Street,
> Cambridge CB2 3QH
> >-> 29/07/2004 : The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (72% of Full)
> >
> >---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:20:53 +0100 (BST)
> >From: Tom De Mulder <tdm27 at cam.ac.uk>
> >To: dspace-tech <dspace-tech at lists.sourceforge.net>
> >Subject: DSpace Position Paper - HP Labs
> >
> >Hello all (and esp. Rob and the folks at MIT),
> >
> >I was reading HP's Position Paper
> >(http://wiki.dspace.org/index.php/HpPositionPaper)
> >and noticed the following:
> >
> >"We believe all of the above goals are best served by
> concentrating on
> >moving DSpace to the proposed 'version 2.0' architecture as soon as
> >possible. This is where our efforts will henceforth be focussed."
> >
> >Does this mean that the 1.x branch won't be further
> developed by HP? What
> >about bug fixes and feature requests?
> >
> >--
> >Tom De Mulder <tdm27 at cam.ac.uk> - Cambridge University
> Computing Service
> > New Museums Site, Pembroke Street,
> Cambridge CB2 3QH
> >-> 28/07/2004 : The Moon is Waxing Gibbous (64% of Full)
> >_______________________________________________
> >Dspace-general mailing list
> >Dspace-general at mit.edu
> >http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/dspace-general
>
> MacKenzie Smith
> Associate Director for Technology
> MIT Libraries
> Building 14S-308
> 77 Massachusetts Avenue
> Cambridge, MA 02139
> (617)253-8184
> kenzie at mit.edu
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
> FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
> Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=4721&alloc_id=10040&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> DSpace-tech mailing list
> DSpace-tech at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspace-tech
>
More information about the Dspace-general
mailing list