Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] Project Structure

[Dave Hall]

> 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.

Dan, you have some one inform you of something like this happening.  We had
a discussion about this the other day - in private chat on IRC ... I still
have the log of that conversation.  I was pretty clear about what my views were
on the matter.  Also we wanted the discussion to in the open, so everyone
knew what the issues were and could participate in the discussion.  This was
about the community, so the community should be involved ... imo.

I think that the current core team can stand for voting positions - that is
how i would see them being of equal status.

> 
> 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.

I am still sceptical of this ... and I would also like to see some activity
requirements that must be met before a person can exercise a veto.


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

Ok, I am starting to see that we might be able to agree on something here. 
I would still like activity requirements that must be met before a project
founder can vote.


> 
> > 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.

No one has proposed eT as the only option for phpGW.  At the same time I
think it should be an option for small apps/newbie devs.  I know of one new dev
is learning php/phpgw thru eT.  Also this is not what you said about eT last
time we chatted about it.

> 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.


I think that the issue of forks is being over played here.  Yes, when this
document was first sent some may have though this was a manifesto for a fork -
it was not.  All those who "signed" the document were unhappy with certain
issues.  We were willing to fork if it came to it, but i think the last 24
hours has shown this may be unwarranted.

> 
> >>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.

I do not see it this way, I just want to be involved in a democratic project
... hopefully called phpgroupware.  Built by the community, run by the
community for the community.

> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Phpgroupware-developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/phpgroupware-developers
> 

-- 
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!