Contributors mailing list archives
contributors@odoo-community.org
Browse archives
Re: OCA/bank-payment-alternative
byodoo/odoo@cdd1596#diff-a13b3dfd8d9e1c45eee3b202345ad950f6b90db975708ee34b9bff2886f4513d
It seems that Odoo nows considers account.payment.method.line as OCA's account.payment.mode. They added 2 M2O company-dependent fields on res.partner for "Customer Payment Mode" and "Supplier Payment Mode". They added the M2O on account.move. Just like OCA's account.payment.mode, account.payment.method.line has a M2O to account.payment.method.
I now have the full stack working: account_payment_base_oca + account_payment_order + account_banking_pain_base + account_banking_sepa_credit_transfer + account_banking_mandate + account_banking_sepa_direct_debit. So I am able to make full scenarios and see the real problems I face and try to address them.
At the moment, it's too early to list them, because I'm currently performing the tests.
I think I have expressed my opinion on this topic several times, but I will do it again.
I understand that creating a fork is not the best outcome, but it seems inevitable right now. If we need to create it, I would call it experimental. As I explained several times, the native use of this fields is not the use that you are proposing. For this reason, I would never call it native, as Graeme said, calling it experimental seems a good approach. In any case, my vote is to avoid the creation of this fork.
Just to be clear, I think that some PSC are against this approach, but they have offered their help (Pedro and myself for example) in order to get a a middle solution. Maybe merging the PRs directly was not the best option, but it was clear that it was a "all or nothing" approach from your side as you refused to get a middle solution no matter the comments or problems raised from the other side.
Kind regards,
First of all, I’d like to thank Alexis for his contribution, as it’s clear he has invested a lot of time in trying to improve one of the key pillars in terms of billing in Odoo.
In my opinion, the best option would have been to reach a consensus between those in favor of keeping the current approach and those supporting a change closer to Odoo’s proposal. When there is no clear majority, nor a significant benefit in making such a major change as the one proposed, I believe the best course is to find common ground and reconsider all points of view—especially considering that other PSC members (Pedro, Enric...) have volunteered to help reach a middle-ground solution.
Given that (for now) consensus is not possible, I agree that a more appropriate name would be "experimental" or something similar.
To conclude, I’d like to share a reflection for all of us: What has happened in recent weeks could happen again in the future (near or distant). If the only possible solution involves creating new repositories, with the risk of duplicating efforts and dividing our focus in our work with the OCA, I believe we are not doing justice to the motto “Making Odoo mightier, together.”
Hello all,
First I would like to thank all community members for voicing their perspectives around the current situation with the oca/bank-payment project. Your commitment to OCA’s long-term success and open collaboration is deeply appreciated.
Reviewing the discussion for a Board Member perspective I feel there are some important notes that need to be made here.
I will not comment on any technical details, nor will I discuss any views on individual attitudes or merits. As a board member, the most important perspective here is on governance integrity, project ownership, and community trust.
Clarifying on project governance, I believe the OCA Board agrees with me if I say the following:
Respect for PSC Authority The OCA Board reaffirms the Project Steering Committee’s (PSC) responsibility and decision-making authority within the scope of their projects. This is foundational to our community governance model and must be preserved.
Transparency and Neutrality of the Board The Board’s role is not to impose technical decisions but to facilitate alignment, mediate conflicts when escalated, and uphold governance structures. We acknowledge that people involved in PSCs can also be Board members, but they are not acting in that capacity, and it does not grant them any particular privileges in those PSCs.
Forks and Innovation Channels While forks are a natural part of open-source ecosystems, “endorsed” forks under the OCA umbrella must be handled transparently, with consensus from relevant PSCs and clear processes.
In face of the above, and on some comments on the email thread, I need to set the record straight:
Let me reaffirm that it is NOT up to the OCA Board to make decisions on the direction of oca/bank-payment project, or any other project governed by a PSC for the matter.
It is solely up to the Banking PSC to make the decisions on the evolution of the project, and how to handle diverging options.
The Board can intervene to facilitate alignment, but the decisions ultimately need to come from the PSC.
Perhaps the PSC needs to meet to clarify the decisions made and the plan for the main and fork repos. A joint written statement can help ensure a shared understanding of those commitments, and avoid misunderstandings. The OCA Board is here to help facilitate this, and our Executive Director, Virginie, can help to ensure total independence on this facilitation.
Thank you Daniel
On 25/06/2025 08:58, Jorge Elena Poblet wrote:
Dear all,
I would like to express my opinion on this matter and propose a perspective that focuses on broader value, community cohesion, and long-term sustainability.
While I recognize that Alexis' code is technically sound, we must also evaluate it in terms of value proposition to the OCA and its ecosystem. In my view, the added value does not outweigh the negative consequences of a fragmented community. The creation of a fork (especially one that causes division) undermines our collective efforts not only in terms of development but also in our market competitiveness as implementation partners offering open-source solutions.
We are not just competing on code quality. We are competing in a global market where alignment, collaboration, and unity are crucial. A divided community weakens our position, and this discord will inevitably impact other critical areas such as sponsorships, memberships, and contributor engagement.
If the OCA board allowed this situation to unfold (or worse, endorsed it) then I firmly believe the OCA board has a responsibility to fix it. That means actively engaging with the involved parties, reestablishing governance boundaries, and restoring trust and unity within the community. We look to the board not only for leadership but also for accountability in upholding the values and processes that bind us.
This is no longer just about a particular module or technical choice. It's about governance, trust, and direction. The cost of internal fragmentation is far higher than the perceived benefits of a controversial code improvement, no matter how well-crafted.
We urgently need to redirect our energy and focus toward strengthening our community, improving our collective output, and reinforcing our presence in the Odoo ecosystem. This is how we compete, how we grow, and how we stay relevant. Let’s not allow internal conflict to derail that mission.
Best regards,
On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 8:37 AM Stuart J Mackintosh <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
As well as working with Odoo since 2006 and open Source since 10 years before, I lead a US Open Source foundation. I am an avid supporter of OSC and grateful to all of the contributors.
Normally an observer here, I felt compelled to support Graeme's point that once a governance structure is set up such as PSC, it holds the decision until the PSC is disbanded or leadership is changed. So above any technical argument, governance takes precedence.
The Foundation I lead is the Perl Foundation, well known for the acronym TIMTOWTDI (There Is More Than one Way To Do It) and this holds true in many areas and allows for experiments and empirical improvements, creating the opportunity for constructive arguments. However when on the user face of a successful mature project, there should be one recognised solution - forks etc should all be welcome, however PSC must have authority to recognise what is the official distribution. Once this rule is broken, it becomes very hard to ensure consistency and worst case, leads to core contributors to burn out and exit.
It has been valuable reading the technical exchange on this matter, and concerning to read that there may have been a breach of governance.
Best wishes,
Stuart.
On 24/06/2025 23:12, Graeme Gellatly wrote:
This seems a case of the OCA board overstepping its bounds, and prima facie, appears quite conflicted to boot. When a board can unilaterally override a project leader, this is a problem and it is this behaviour that will lead to senior contributor abandonment. Especially when that project leader has clearly shown a path forward and board members have a vested interest in the alternative. Without this interest a fork was probably avoided altogether (and the new issues this is already creating), and eventually agreement reached, but if it was ultimately deemed necessary, it would have occurred outside the OCA and ultimately converged at some future point.
Pedro and I have had disagreements over the years, and long may they continue. But I was never so churlish to think that just because I thought something was better I could unilaterally sidestep a project leader. Beyond adhering to basic principles of open source governance and mediating, insofar as it does not affect the OCA Project as a whole, this is not a board decision. By its own constitution, such power is vested in the PSC. The board can choose to remove a PSC, but not unilaterally override its decision and historically when such disputes reached the board that was often the consideration. This is Open Source dynamics forever under the "authority follows responsibility" principle.
In this, I can only back him 100%. As the clear leader of this particular project under the responsibility principle, whether you agree with him or not, it is a PSC decision and ultimately the project leader. If years of contribution and merit can be discarded by fiat, then it isn't really open source anymore is it? I ask myself which repo will be next. Certainly for me, if the OCA wishes to abandon these principles, it is not for the better.
On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 9:47 PM Pedro M. Baeza <notifications@odoo-community.org> wrote:
There are a lot of people that strongly disagrees with the creation of this fork, that is something with no precedence in OCA, and offered to merge the improvements into the main branch, with the only exception of the point 1 "Adoption of the native object account.payment.method.line as "Payment Method" (replaces the OCA object account.payment.mode)", postponing the decision to version 19 to check with Odoo SA if they expand the usage of that fields, because the so called "native model" is not for that purpose, and the changes that have been made for adopting it as so is deforming even more the standard, but it was miserable ignored. You can see in the same thread the technical reasons to not use such data model, but also the ethical and practical ones, as the fork started on version 16, ignoring all the improvements and bugfixes done meanwhile in 17 (or now announced in this thread as new things, while they were there for a long time thanks to multiple contributors), and also not respecting such contributions attribution, which is one of the main principles of the open source.
I'm deeply disappointed by both the attitude of the people involved, including some board members, and the arbitration done by the OCA itself, and I'm personally commiting to bring the improvements mentioned here that are still pending (obviously, respecting the attribution) to the main OCA/bank-payment branch, so please take all of this into account when you decide which one to use.
Regards._______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Stuart J Mackintosh
Business & digital technology consultant
Open Digital Consulting Co
UK: +44 20 36 27 90 40
FR: +33 1 89 48 00 40
Email: sjm@opendigital.cc
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
Jorge Elena Poblet
Founder & CEO
Binhex
j.elena@binhex.cloud
Office (Spain) : +34 622 40 08 08
Office (USA): +1 561 403 4406Offices:
Miami | 8325 NE 2nd Ave, Miami, FL 33138, United States
Texas | 27027 Westheimer Pkwy Katy, TX 77494, United States
Tenerife | Street Subida al Mayorazgo, 13, Office 15-2
Las Palmas | Edificio Polivalente IV Campus de Tafira Parque Tecnológico de Gran Canaria
Start for free: Try Odoo Community in the cloud This email is confidential and intended only for the recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete it immediately.
Privacy Policy_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
--
DANIEL REIS
MANAGING PARTNER>> Schedule time on my calendar.
M: +351 919 991 307
E: dreis@OpenSourceIntegrators.com
A: Avenida da República 3000, Estoril Office Center, 2649-517 Cascais
![[Logo OpenSourceIntegrators.com]](https://www.opensourceintegrators.com/images/opensource-logo-2022.svg)
_______________________________________________
Mailing-List: https://odoo-community.org/groups/contributors-15
Post to: mailto:contributors@odoo-community.org
Unsubscribe: https://odoo-community.org/groups?unsubscribe
Reference
-
OCA/bank-payment-alternative
byAlexinux, Alexis de Lattre- 21/06/2025 00:40:10 - 0-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: OCA/bank-payment-alternative
byDIXMIT Consulting SLU, Enric Tobella Alomar- 27/06/2025 08:10:08 - 0
-
