Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] Project Structure

[Dan Kuykendall]

Lars Kneschke(priv.) wrote:
> I fear that you have this opinion. As you say, you "wrote". It's a long time
> ago, that you contributed something important. Jengo and skeeter too. phpGW
> would not be that nice as it is, without the work of the other developers.
> They fixed many,many bugs and improved many apps/api in the past. Without
> that your code would be unuseable today.

Yes, this has been a community effort. But I dont think you can say that 
the founding four (plus milosch) are not responsible for the vast amount 
 of what makes up phpGW.

> Your opinnion to this topic makes we very angry. You have legally right on
> your site. Morally not! You just ignore the work of all other contributors.
> But most of us live in free countries, where anyone can have it is oppinion.

I do not ignore all the work of the team. I know phpGW has been a 
community effort and its a blast to work on (most of the time). I feel I 
do have the moral right to own the trademark and domain, because these 
two things I worked very hard on. The phpGW brand was largely build on 
my efforts to promote the project throught the community. Its is the 
only real power I have over the project.

> common sense is the key. You know how communitys work togehter. There become
> allways some people "leaders", because they do important work for the
> project. No one will vote you out, if you do important work for the project.
> If you don't do important work, no one will vote for you.

To me it seems like common sense is not always used. Maybe it can be 
argued that this even applies for me. But it seems like an obvious thing 
to anyone that knows me that I would rather have phpGW forked than to 
have any other than the founding four try and dump me from the project.

> Sorry Dan! We don't write this make you angry. We have the feeling that you
> are not responsible.

Per what criteria? You act as if I hold up development by telling you 
what you can and cant do. I dont!

> I can remeber how long it did take to get write access
> to the api again. It is also bad when we can't remove cvs locks, but you can
> ,but we can't reach you.

The CVS is run on savannah. The savannah hackers can fix these things.

> It is also bad when you not activly join
> discussions on the devel list. 
> Yout want to be a leader. That is ok! But please act like a leader. It is
> not part of the normal developers to search for the leader.

Yes, I am not as active as I want to be. This was not by choice. My work 
life and personal life got very busy in the last year.


> > What consititues inactivity? IRC time?
>
> common sense of the community again! I'm to lazy to give examples. I think
> anyone can think of good examples.

I think its something that needs defining. Otherwise people will start 
to lose their contributor status based on how people feel.

> A translator is important to. Who says that i can't code php, just because i
>  translate phpgw to german? Some things just needs discussion, to find the
> pros and the cons. At least the core team make the last decission.

I meant that the translator is not as imporant in the discussion of the 
API as an API person. I have this explained in the email I sent for 
improving the propsed structure

> > OK. Now you have cleared up the limit of the CT. Basicly you want it
> > run 
> > by popular vote of the contributors. This is terribly flawed because
> > people outside of the issue are of equal vote.
>
>
> Where possible! SOme fundamental things should be resolved in the community.
> Example: Should we switch to support only php 4.3.0? 
> Such a important should be discussed in the public.

Yes, this would be a good example of something that effects the entire 
community, and popular vote would work.

> > This is just wrong. Not all contributions are equal. Maybe this isnt
> > "politically correct" to say, but its the truth. Each member of
> > current 
> > core team has individually contributed more than all others combined.
> > I 
> > think its handy to have stuff translated to spanish, but thats just
> > not 
> > compariable to somewhere around 20,000 lines of code and about 3500 
> > hours which I have personally pumped into phpGW.
>
> I do not agree with you.

I really dont know how you can disagree, but OK.

> The idea of this document was to make a fork not needed. I think it is wrong
> to go this way. It will only split user- and developerbase, which is not
> good for any project.

I dont agree. It can be good at times. Sometimes forks are the only way 
to accomplish certain goals. Its generally best when they merge back 
together at some point... but forks are certainly not always bad.

Dan