Re: RE: [Phpgroupware-developers] Re: Standard source code header and php Documentor

[Dave Hall]

Hi

Christian Böttger <address@hidden> wrote:

> G'day!
> 
> > probiz receive more than 300.000 EUR for developing a solution with
> > phpgw. 
> 
> Wrong number. We are receiving money, yes. But we have to put and 
> will put
> the same amount of money in it as well, as it is a 50% funding. 

Ok, so you have a lot to spend on development - cool, would be
interested in seeing how many new features 600k EUR can buy.  As an
aside I recently ran sloccount on the 16 branch API inc directory it
valued the API at close to 1.2mil USD

> 
> > We (Ralf,Lars and I) meet them on the CEBIT in 
> > Hannover Germany.
> 
> Correct.
> 
> > They don't want communicate with the community. 
> 
> That's plain wrong, otherwise noone would write anything here from our
> company. 

I think you do not want to properly engage with the project.

> 
> > They have a business plan for what they receive money. 
> 
> What's wrong about it?

Nothing, I wish I could do the same.  I think some consultation with the
community could have helped you improve that plan :)

> 
> > They told us that they are make the first project with OS 
> developers. 
> 
> Well, it's not exactly the first project, it's the second. And in 
> any case,
> some of the developers involved have individually worked on open 
> sourceprojects before.

Sorry, I think your inexperience is showing here.

> 
> > I know the plan from them and i say,
> 
> Do you? How long was that meeting? 30 minutes. I guess there are some
> misunderstandings still.
> 
> > that what they do it's not a community project. They want 
> > that the "OSS developers" agree with their "commercial" product. 
> 
> Not correct. That is your interpretation, not our intention. Our 
> intentionis to give as much work back into the phpGW project as 
> possible. It's of
> course up to the phpGW project whether they accept the work or not.
> 

Ok, I would like to see some demostration of this.  So far you have been
working on this for quite a few months - so far we have seen a single
class documented in someones "spare time".


> > 
> > What they told us on the CEBIT:
> > We can be happy, that a company like probusiness make a commercial
> > solution and professional support for phpgw. 
> 
> Commercial companies must produce money to exist, mustn't they?

I think Karl Marx had a solution for that ;)  Ok no more Marx :)

> 
> > I have no NDA with probiz and when anybody want know more about, 
> what> they want do, please ask. I hope we can declare it.
> 
> Well, nobody will stop you from telling what you want. But we may 
> answer to
> this as well if we feel that's you misunderstood something.

That is your right, just as it is Reiner's right to express his opinion.


> 
> > We ask them, to spend some money for development to the 
> > developers, but they don't want. When I want i found a way. 
> 
> Oh well. AFAIK someone (I don't know whether is was you, honestly) 
> askedjust to pass on most of the money. 

Nice try, I would have made a similar joke :)

> This is not possible. But, 
> e.g. we had
> open job positions. People could have applied. And: in the case 
> parts of our
> work go into the phpGW community: then "money" in form of work has 
> foundit's way into the project; which it wouldn't otherwise. But 
> you may accept
> or not that we simply can't just take orders.

Ok, what is the process for applying for existing developers who do
reside in the local government region where you are based?  Is
telecommuting a possibility?  I will be able to attend an interview in
Hamburg is early August.


> 
> Be honest: would you donate your business or private money to a 
> group of
> people approaching you in this tone? 

I think it is a 2 way street.  Your initial approach to the project was
pretty poor imho.


> 
> > 
> > Greetings to probiz. Follow OSS rules and not YOUR COMMERCIAL 
> > INTEREST 
> 
> Please ask Richard Stallmann or anyone else from FSF or FSF Europe 
> about OSS
> and business. From all their statements, that's not a 
> contradiction at all.
> Commercial companies *must* follow commercial interests, otherwise 
> they will
> cease to exist. OSS (the FSF prefers "Free Software") is about the
> accessability of source code and the freedom of the *user* of the 
> softwareto do what they want with the source. It' not about not 
> making money, and
> it's not anti-business.

I agree with this, but it is also not about taking a all or nothing
approach to a project - something that I think you will find they
believe in also.  I think this is something you might be interested in
reading http://FreeStrategy.info - written by the founder of the dotGNU
project.

> 
> But well, if this opionion uttered by Reiner is the opinion of the 
> majorityof the contributors and the core team, and all agree that 
> they don't want
> any code or contribution from our company at all and will not have 
> a look at
> further (code or other) contributions, well then just say it and 
> we will be
> off. 

I agree with some of what Reiner has said.  What I would suggest is for
you to make a time with the active developers to discuss this matter, on
irc, phone conference or via an off list email discussion.  As I have
stated in the past I have some concerns about your intentions with the
project, and you approach to the project thus far.  I think if you have
any interest in resolving these issues you really need to try to start
over with the project.

> Mind you that the GPL would not stop anyone from forking of a new
> project under a different name.

No it doesn't.  I am not afraid of forks or new projects.  Intellectual
competition is what makes the free software movement so vibrant.  At the
same time I am yet to see a phpGW for survive.

> 
> We are well prepared and much in favour of assigning any phpGW 
> related code
> from us to the FSF or FSF Europe, whichever may be the correct 
> address. That
> my count as "following OSS rules". 

That is good start, but the contributions would have to be useful in
order for them to incorporated into the project's code base.

> 
> > 
> > Am Sam, 2003-06-28 um 02.42 schrieb Dave Hall:
> > > address@hidden wrote:
> > > 
> > 
> > > Yes, this is part of the problem with Kai's (and probiz's) 
> attitude> > towards the project.  They decide something then try 
> to 
> > impose it on the
> > > project.  
> 
> No. It's meant as a proposal. And Kai added an example, so that 
> people can
> have a better basis to decide.

This is all good and well, but some discussion before starting work is
always a good thing.  I don't deny that Kai has *attempted* to deal with
some long outstanding issues with our codebase.   At the same time I do
not like his approach - maybe it is just me.  I think more discussion
might slow things down initially but would save time in the longer term.

> He's offering work voluntarily (in 
> this case
> not as part as his job), and if you don't want it, just leave it.

So do many other people who contribute to the project.  Somethings can't
be included, but the contributor guidelines are there to prevent things
not being useful.

> 
> >> All subscribers to this list should be aware, the project
> > > works on a collabrative model.
> 
> Well, whatever it might look like to some people: these things are 
> meant as
> *proposals* and offers to work on it.

I know of one time this has been the case - the naming of categories to
"folders".

> If it's not appreciated, we 
> can well
> stop offering work.

Proposal -> Discussion -> Work -> Result .... that is the model I like.

> 
> > > This may be the case, but this must be a decision of the 
> > project, not a
> > > patch contributor.
> 
> It was definitely *not* meant as a decision, but just as an 
> example of what
> it would look like.

Ok, it did not appear to be that.

> He offered to do it in his spare time, AFAIK. 

I think you will find all of our active contributors provide most of
thier work voluntarily.  If I had "spare time" I would do more.  I think
we both know that this does make his paid work easier - which I do not
object to.

> If you
> like it, accept it. If not, reject it. But you cannot, as it is an
> collaborative approach, force him to it in a different way, if he 
> doesn'twant to.

No that is true, but why donate a lot of time to something that will not
be used?

> If someone offers work voluntarily, either accept 
> or reject it, but
> don't order him to do it in another way.

I have never ordered anyone to do anything - there have been times that
would have nice to do so :)  I am just trying to prevent wasted effort -
to point out major issues that I have with probiz's approach to the project.

Cheers

Dave

dave.hall.vcf
Description: Card for <dave.hall@mbox.com.au>