Contributors mailing list archives

Browse archives


RE: Proposal for new repo - Clouder

Moduon Team, S. L., Rafael Blasco (Moduon)
- 26/10/2016 06:35:14

Hi all!


I think it should have it’s own PSC. As Infrastructure-dns has OCA representative Eric Caudal, Clouder IMHO must have Yannick Buron and also PSC could be independen, at least in this first year.





De: David Lasley []
Enviado el: martes, 25 de octubre de 2016 6:53
Para: Contributors <>
Asunto: Re: Proposal for new repo - Clouder


The question now lies in which PSC group this goes under. 


Infrastructure-dns was never moved under Tools & Admin, so I propose we just leave it there and add Clouder into the mix? Maybe rename the Project to `Infrastructure` instead?


On Oct 18, 2016, at 8:07 AM, Yannick Buron <> wrote:


I agree, I like the PSC system of the OCA this is very well designed and reassuring according to me.


Yannick Buron
+33 (0) 6 70 74 52 26 |
My blog :


Building the tools we need
98 Avenue du general pierre billotte BatD
94000 Creteil |


Le 18/10/2016 16:22, Leonardo Rochael Almeida a écrit :

<blockquote cite="" type="cite">For those who are afraid of Yannick losing control of the core software for his own company, this should not be an issue as long as he is PSC of the respective project.


Clouded the Company using the PSC structure of OCA to manage Clouder the Software, instead of creating its own foundation, parallels the fact that Clouder the Software uses Odoo as Framework more than an application.


In this sense, OCA can be seen as FaaS: Foundation as a service. I'm cool with that ;-) 


On Tue, 18 Oct 2016, 11:07 Yannick Buron, <> wrote:

Hello Eric,

Yeah I deeply though about this in the past months and I am sure of my position. In all cases, whether it's an OCA repo or a separate one, in the end it'll be managed by a non-profit organization whose sole purpose is the interest of the product.

I see absolutely no case where the best interest of the product will not serve the interest of my company. Giving the control of the project to a non-profit is the best way to show everyone that the product will always go before any other interest, and as long as the name don't change I'm confident in my ability to make business in such context.


Yannick Buron
+33 (0) 6 70 74 52 26 |
My blog :


Building the tools we need
98 Avenue du general pierre billotte BatD
94000 Creteil |


Le 18/10/2016 03:38, Eric Caudal a écrit :

<blockquote cite="" type="cite">

If Clouder is intrinsically merged into your company business model, you might want to be careful as inside the OCA, the original author might lose control overtime over the group of contributors. This might not be consistent with your business strategy here and you might have to fork again.


Eric Caudal [Founder and CEO]
Skype: elico.corp. Phone: + 86 186 2136 1670 (Cell), + 86 21 6211 8017/27/37 (Office)
Elico Shanghai (Hong Kong/Shenzhen/Singapore)
Odoo Gold Partner // Best Odoo Partner APAC 2014 and 2016

On 10/18/2016 01:52 AM, Yannick Buron wrote:

<blockquote cite="" type="cite">


That may be true, I really don't know. At the very least, even is there is some connections (link to payment module and accounting module in invoicing for instance) Clouder is mainly an Odoo framework project indeed.

For the record, when I was going in the "keep the repo" direction I though it'd be nice if the OCA had some kind of "certification" for open-source modules/projects based on Odoo which respect the OCA rules (2 review commit, travis, quality etc...).
This would be a good way to improve quality on modules which can't for any reasons be managed by the OCA (out of scope, authors want to keep full control on the development, whatever) but are still good quality module. There is some good repos out there managed by companies which don't want to reverse their work to the OCA, I'm mainly thinking about them.

Anyway, that was just for sharing an idea I had long ago. As for Clouder, keeping a separate repo or moving in an OCA repo it's the same for me.


Yannick Buron
+33 (0) 6 70 74 52 26 |
My blog :


Building the tools we need
98 Avenue du general pierre billotte BatD
94000 Creteil |


Le 17/10/2016 18:38, Leonardo Pistone a écrit :

<blockquote cite="" type="cite">

I think it would be better for Clouder to be separate, on its own
repositories and foundation. Note, none of this is a critique of the
value of Clouder in itself!
But instead I am thinking:
1. I find it a bit out of scope. If I understand it correctly, it is a
tool that was built using the Odoo framework, that can be used to
manage many services (Odoo and others). I don't see it as an extension
to Odoo-the-software, but instead an infrastructure service that uses
the Odoo-the-framework.
It is a bit like if services built using Django joined the Django
foundation and code repositories.
2. The already mentioned ownership problem: it is the product, the
name and the trademark of Yannick and his company, and it feels more
natural that he keeps managing it. Changing the name sounds
super-confusing to me. Also what about future direction? It was
designed by Yannick with others, and what if someone in OCA disagrees
on the way forward? I'd love Yannick to have the last word on his own
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 7:38 AM, robert rottermann <>
> hi there,
> I strongly suggest, not to use clouder as part of the repo.
> On 16.10.2016 22:53, Daniel Reis wrote:
>> Yannick,
>> Fair enough, if your comfortable with the name being used in the OCA.
> some years ago I sold the licence to a software suite I then owned.
> It eventually became a part of the Autodesk offerings.
> As it is the case with clouder, my formers company name RoCAD, and the
> products
> name Rocad für die Haustechnik (RoCAD for building services) wher kind of
> identical.
> This produced confusion among the customer base, and was eventually resolved
> by
> dismantling my former company RoCAD.
> so better avoid such name clashing from the outset.
> robert
>> I still keepmy support to using the "clouder" name for the OCA repo.
>> If the need comes, renaming a repo is not such a big deal.
>> Renaming Odoo modules can be trickier, because of the dependencies and
>> the object names installed in existing databases. So I would recommend
>> to avoid having "clouder" in the module technical names.
>> Regards
>> --dr
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing-List:
>> Post to:
>> Unsubscribe:
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing-List:
> Post to:
> Unsubscribe:




Post to: