james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Leangen <apa...@leangen.net>
Subject Re: [Discussion] Road to 4.0
Date Mon, 17 Aug 2020 04:21:31 GMT

Hi Benoit,

Thank you for responding.

>> I wanted to tie together a few ongoing threads and make a proposal for the road to
a 4.0 release. 
> I'm uncomfortable with the 4.0 release switch. It gives the impression
> that "much" needs to change whilewhat we need is to re-brand, and better
> document what exists.

I see.

I agree that there isn’t really that much that needs to be changed from a technical perspective.
My thought was that from the user perspective, there really are some very large changes being
made. It seems to me that even if technically the changes are small, from an objective / orientation
perspective this is a huge change.

Do you think it will be as easy to explain these changes to the public even with a minor release?

>> By the way, to coincide with the release, if the objectives are clear, perhaps there
is a commercial organization (or individual) who would be willing to provide paid-for professional
support starting from 4.0?
> Linagora (company for which I am working) already proposes these
> services. We already carried out several support / development contracts
> for Apache James.

Thanks! Is there a website page or something with details of this service offering?

I did a quick search for “Linagora James development” and got this hit:

  —> https://linagora.com/open-source-technologies/apache-james <https://linagora.com/open-source-technologies/apache-james>

>> I think it would help complete the offering, and hopefully provide a commercial opportunity
as well in a way that is beneficial to all, including the James community. We just need to
ensure that the “contract” is very clear, and that we avoid any potential conflicts of
interest. I think we should include this item in the scope of the discussion as well. 
> I'm not sure an Apache project is entitled to broadcast details of
> comercial offers. I believe "listing" service provider is enough. It
> should be up to the service providers to detail their offer on their own
> website (referenced via an hyper-link)

Good point. Need to follow Apache rules. My concern is about clarity, especially because there
could be a potential appearance of a conflict of interest between Linagora and the James project.

My thought was that if the objectives and scope of James is made very clear, then any potential
conflict of interest would be resolved, and also it would provide clarity to current and potential
users of James.

>> (Just a thought, but maybe the “Distributed James” could be a commercial offering,
rather than a community offering??)
> I strongly believe the "distributed server" is a differentiator for Apache James and
helps satisfy some of the community needs.

Ok, that’s fair. Then I guess we’ll have to figure out a different boundary.

>> To resolve this thread, I will be satisfied once we have a clear statement of objectives
regarding the 4.0 release.
> I do agree with the already discussed items (documentation & re-branding)

For my benefit, would you mind pasting a very short summary here so that I can understand
more precisely what it is you are referring to?

By the way, I also want to resolve the “community” discussion because I think it is related,
but perhaps that is too ambitious for this thread.


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message