Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] Project Structure

[Dan Kuykendall]

Reiner Jung wrote:

> > True in part. I think the veto is a way to keep from talking about 
> > forking when we disagree. As I said, I can possibly let this go, but 
> > think its better in terms of showing respect to the founding team as 
> > well as allowing for two founders to cancel eachother out.
>
> I think all have respect again the founding team and what they do in the
> past. Which i cant agree that the founders can cancel each other out. On
> what aspects this will be do?. Why the founders need the power to do it?

Im not sure I understand what your saying here.
As far as respect for the founders, I question some of that by the way I 
was notified. I didnt even get a chance to see the proposal ahead of 
public release. In the proposal, it said we would have an honorary but 
powerless position in the project. Put veto rights aside, and I have not 
even seen a possible acceptance of having the founders as permanent 
members of the leadership team, on equal with the rest of the voted in 
group.

As far as founders canceling eachother out in veto. This could happen 
most certainly. We are not all of one mind, and often have lengthy 
discussions about issues.

For the sake of comprimise I will drop the veto. We can stick with 
permanent membership in the leadership group.

> The other point, which you don't answer is. Why you need the full
> control over the name? 
>
> > Also, veto should only be used as a extreme measure.
>
> What will be a extreme measure? Have you some examples about this.

I mentioned one example in IRC. If for example the group wanted to 
switch to eTemplates (eT) for the entire project. I think eT is cool and 
clever, but I dont want it as the solution for phpGW. If phpGW swicthed, 
I would no longer want to work on the project at all. So I would want to 
veto something like this.
Without veto I would simply fork the project. If we have veto and ceb 
wanted to go against me and cancel my veto, I would fork off with a new 
name and let the rest of you keep phpGW. Otherwise I would make you all 
go find a new name to work under.

> > This mixes up the "software" from the "project". There is no debate 
> > about the software being free. Thats just how it is and will be.
> > The debate is about how the "project" is run. The project does not need 
> > to be a completely FREE in order for the software to be.
>
>
> I think for all people which contribute to the project it will be
> important that the project in his decisions will be free to. It will be
> a barrier, when the leadership isn't free in his decisions.  

I dont understand what you are saying here. Im sorry, I think it didnt 
translate well.
Maybe the problem is that you somehow think that I/we are somehow 
keeping everyone under some slavery. That we are not letting the current 
 dev team be mostly free to do what they want.
As far as I know, the active developers are pretty much doing as they 
see fit.

Dan