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

[Brian Johnson]

I don't have a problem (and I don't think many other do) with the concept of 
tying
phpgw in with business goals including making money.

What I think has set the current tone is two things:

1. that probiz has proposed features for phpgw that are already implemented

2. that probiz has been proposing changes to phpgw that go in a direction other 
than
what has already been discussed and is available for reading on the wiki

>From the wording and content in initial emails from probiz representatives 
>seemed to
indicate that they hadn't taken the time to find out even basic information 
about
phpgw to justify serious consideration of their proposals.  Also, some of those
proposals were leading to major and sweeping changes to the code and db 
structure of
phpgw with minimal commentary to justify their need and minimal proposal 
concerning
who would actually implement and maintain the modified code (as a side note, 
there
is a general mistrust in this community for reliance on one unknown commercial
entity for future maintenance and cooperation)

I and others that I have seen on the mailing list, think that SOME of the ideas
coming from probiz are quite good.

I don't pretend to have all of the answers, but perhaps your developers could
request the input from other developers with a slightly different approach.  
Perhaps
provide more justification for the need for some of the features possibly 
including
providing a larger view of what your goals are and don't try to rush everybody 
into
major changes.  Also, a polite request for input on how a goal is achieved 
would be
appreciated, especially when followed up by evidence of work going in that 
direction.

I think some of this is what your developers are trying to do but somehow it 
doesn't
read that way.

Although discussed before, IRC access for your developers does provide a way to
often discuss items in a faster dialog than the mailing list (and then use the
mailing list to invite other people's involvement once the concept is a little 
more
detailed)

Of course, you can take this commentary and do whatever you wish with it, but 
it was
intended as a third party observation of conversations that have taken place on 
the
mailing list in the hopes of smoothing over any conflict that may be festering.



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.
>
>> 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.
>
>> They have a business plan for what they receive money.
>
>What's wrong about it?
>
>> 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 source
>projects before.
>
>> 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 intention
>is 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.
>
>>
>> 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 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.
>
>> 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) asked
>just to pass on most of the money. 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 found
>it's way into the project; which it wouldn't otherwise. But you may accept
>or not that we simply can't just take orders.
>
>Be honest: would you donate your business or private money to a group of
>people approaching you in this tone?
>
>>
>> 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 software
>to do what they want with the source. It' not about not making money, and
>it's not anti-business.
>
>But well, if this opionion uttered by Reiner is the opinion of the majority
>of 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. Mind you that the GPL would not stop anyone from forking of a new
>project under a different name.
>
>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".
>
>>
>> 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. He's offering work voluntarily (in this case
>not as part as his job), and if you don't want it, just leave it.
>
>>> 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. If it's not appreciated, we can well
>stop offering work.
>
>> > 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. He offered to do it in his spare time, AFAIK. 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't
>want to. If someone offers work voluntarily, either accept or reject it, but
>don't order him to do it in another way.
>
>Regards
>
>Christian Böttger
>
>--
>*****    Open Source und Linux im professionellen Einsatz    *****
>**  komplexe Mailserver, Groupware, Office: sprechen Sie uns an **
>Dr. Christian Böttger                  Teamleiter Softwarelösungen
>pro|business AG, EXPO Plaza 1 (Deutscher Pavillon), 30539 Hannover
>E-Mail: address@hidden,  Tel.: 0511/60066-331, Fax: -355
>WWW: http://www.probusiness.de/
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Phpgroupware-developers mailing list
>address@hidden
>http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/phpgroupware-developers
>

--
Brian Johnson
* This is where my witty signature line would be if I bothered to edit this 
line :) *