Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] Clarification of Proposed Structure

[Dan Kuykendall]

One more note about veto.
The veto can be canceled out by another founder vetoing the others veto.
So if I try to veto something that ceb feels is nessesary, she can veto 
my veto and things revert back to the initial vote.

Also, veto is only a second to last resort. The real last resort is a 
fork. I would not press for a fork if I knew ceb were against me on an 
issue as well as the rest of the CT.

So this means the fork is only useful with ceb and I (or other founders 
as they become involved) in some basic agreement.

Dan

Dan Kuykendall wrote:

> Dave Hall wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Instead of responding to several posts seperately I will try to address
> > several issues which have been raised by people.
> >
> > I personally would like to avoid a fork - but there are some key points i
> > will not really negotiate on:
> > * Truly democractic structures - no one should have the right of veto (as
> > suggested by seek3r on #phpgroupware) ... regardless of previous work 
>
>
> I will not negotiate on this either. The founding four need permenant 
> positions in the leadership team, and they should have veto power. I 
> think we can be trusted with both of these and have earned them.
>
> > * Assignment to the FSF - without this the community does not control the
> > project ... which is the primary aim of this document
>
>
> I agree on assigning code. But not the domain or the trademark.
>
> > I am not denying that the core team has made considerable 
> > contributions to
> > the development of phpGroupWare - that is why I am happy for them to 
> > continue
> > to hold the honorary title of "Project Founder" with no special 
> > priviledges.
>
>
> I understand that you will not support my plan for the founding fours 
> permemant positions, and veto power. What about everyone else?
>
> > The document sent to the list has been a month in the making, and so 
> > the db
> > layer issue is now a dead one, but I think it would have been a good 
> > first
> > test of the democratic structure model.
>
>
> Fair enough
>
> > Over management, maybe.  At the same time, the document is a draft, not a
> > final version.  During the preparation of it parts changed, and we 
> > hope it will
> > change further.  The aim of it is to create a project where not only the
> > source is open, but the structures are too.
>
>
> ok
>
> > Activity,I will give my definition here.   Being easily contactable
> > regarding, managing your area of responsibility within the project, 
> > participating in
> > discussions which effect your area of responsibility.  
>
>
> better. I think it can still be refined, but good start
>
> > Some people have suggested that the current core team is a single 
> > entity, it
> > is not.  At the moment ceb is the only active membe rof the core 
> > team.  Not
> > only is she porting to head, she is assisting in the running of the 
> > project. I know why skeeter is not active at the moment, but that is 
> > for him to
> > discuss if he wishes, not me.  As for jengo, the last i saw him he was 
> > commiting
> > xml-rpc changes to support  a non free app he is working on.
>
>
> I also keep in touch with things. Maybe not on a daily basis, but I 
> follow the mailing lists and talk to ceb from time to time. I dont 
> generally speak up in the mailing lists unless I have something 
> important to add. Skeeter has gone inactive for his reasons, jengo hasnt 
> contributed in a long time, but his imprint is forever. Jengo and I 
> started phpGW together.
>
> If you do not think the founding four can be trusted with permenant 
> positions in the leadership team and with veto power, then I think you 
> do not know us very well. I will also not agree and will require a fork 
> without these measures.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Phpgroupware-developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/phpgroupware-developers