Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] We cant continue to work like we do at the moment

[Dave Hall]

Another "SoBig" message - sent from a webmail client using moz on Debian
- lol

----- Original Message -----
>From   Dave Hall <address@hidden>
Date    Sun, 24 Aug 2003 23:46:49 +0000 (GMT)
To      address@hidden
Subject         Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] We cant continue to work like we
do at the moment

Ralf Becker <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm very unhappy about writeing again to this list with a topic,
> which
> might be seen by some as the next fight. I would not do so, if I
> dont
> think it's important and as my subject says:
>
> *We cant continue to work like we do atm*

I do not seek another fight. I have decide to move forward, not dwell
on the past. At the same time I wish to reply to some of the issues in
this post.

>
> For those who are not constantly monitoring the IRC channel here a
> short
> recall whats happened. It's of cause my view of the situation and
> I'm
> sure others will jump in quickly adding their view ;-)
>
> 1) I imported the jsCalendar into phpGroupWare, after hearing many
> feature requests about a calendar popup
> 2) ceb removed it the yesterday morning with the comment "what crap"
> 3) I talked to ceb about it on IRC (see the following log)
> 4) ceb took away my commit-rights for the API, without further
> consultation of other developers
> 5) I talked with ceb and skwashd on IRC
>
> Here's the IRC log from yesterday
> http://www.free-source.com/phpgw/irclogs/show_log.php?date=20030823
>
> I'm *very* unhappy about the situation at the moment. After long
> discussions in spring this year, we have commited ourselft to a
> restructoring, from which I hoped the project would be lead more
> openly
> and democratic. The events of the last weeks let me doubt this again.
>

Yes, we have committed to this new structure. One thing I would like to
know is how much time people have put into implementing this. It is one
thing to talk about wanting something, it is quite another to do the
work to make it happen. I am not going to start pointing fingers, but I
feel like I am the only one working to make this happen. I don't mind
putting so much effort into making the discussion move beyond a
discussion and become a reality.


> We have at the moment two acting leaders of the project (ceb +
> skwashd)
> which act, in my opion with very little, sometimes none
> consultation of
> the other developers or even each other.

Ralf, I think that there have been several occassion of late where you
have also acted in a similar manner. I won't be publishing lists of
these, I think we both know the events in question.

> I just want to give two
> examples:
> 1) Takeing away my commit-right
> As you can see from the IRC logs, ceb not even consulted skwashd
> before
> she took away my commit-rights. Takeing away the commit-rights of a
> developer is an extrem harsh measure, which in no project, which
> calls
> itself democratic, can be taken without a big consens of the other
> developers, just by one (not even elected) leader.

I have an issue with "As you can see from the IRC logs, ceb not even
consulted skwashd before she took away my commit-rights.". I do not
need to be consulted about every decision that is made. ceb did consult
with me on removing your rights, we disagreed on how to handle this. I
thought a serious warning was warranted. At the same time I am not
going to cause a huge fight because I disagree with ceb on the steps she
took in this matter.

>
> 2) The buying for the new server-box
> This was decided by skwashd alone, at this time not without
> consulting
> of any other developer, but against the opionion of the other
> developer
> in the channel (me). Buying something for the project is in my
> opion
> again something, which need a consens of the majority developers
> and
> cant by taken by one leader alone.


Yes, the *buying* a server was a decision I took. I took this action to
implement an agreement which we made months ago, that being that we host
our primary website on a GNU box. What was I supposed to do? Spend
weeks discussing the pros and cons of using the Toshiba box vs buying a
new box, while in the mean time we have no site? I have no problem with
my actions in relation to this issue. IMHO this is a dead issue, we
have a site back up and running. I do regret the fight that followed
this, but I want to move forward.

>
> I will not deny that this make me personaly unhappy and angry, and
> this
> is one of the reasons I write this mail. On the other hand the way
> these
> decission have been taken, is in my opionin not aceptable for a
> democratic project and for me personaly not acceptible for a
> project I
> enjoy spending a lot of time in.

I am personally very unhappy and angry at the moment, but can't we try
to move forward? I think our major problems at the moment stem from
stagnation and looking backards.

>
> You might wonder why I only argu against the way the decisions have
> been
> taken and not that they have been taken. I think everyone knows or
> can
> imagine my position / personal view in both issues and I dont think
> I
> have to justify myself. And its up to everyone to agree or disagree
> with
> the decission. But *I'm quite sure I'm not the only one who wanted
> to be
> asked before such dessions are taken*.
>
> My *personal* view about the jsCalendar issue and others in the
> last
> time: I think good relations to the GNU project and the GPL are
> necessary and important. More important for me is the development /
> progress of the project and the fun and comunity with the other
> developers. I think both are not oppositional in general, as the
> first
> has some importance for the development of the project too. I think
> our
> momentary (self-apointed AND from us accepted) leaders are
> overdoing
> this a lot. Other project like eg. DCL (Double Chocolate) are
> useing
> jsCalendar, while maintaining the same GNU status as we (GNU
> project,
> part of dotGNU and GNU enterprise).

I am not aware of the offical status of DCL. I am also aware of
dotGNU's position on this matter. I have also read the LGPL. I think
that we should ensure all code is truely L/GPL.

>
> We dont have to remove everything imediatly (and therefor break our
> software) if the slightest doubt araises it might not be compatible
> with
> our desired license.

Now I disagree. I think we should have strict enforcement of licensing
of our code. I also think that such a new contribution should have been
removed immediately, so it does not drag on or get forgotten. It should
also be noted that 16 is still pre RC, and so if people are using it,
they are doing so at their own risk.

> I was in favor of moving our API to GPL, but I
> now
> start haveing doubts: it seems to mean, we have to edit every
> single
> little tool-class (to relicense it from LGPL to GPL), we want to
> use in
> our project. We loose the abbility and benefit that we can update
> them
> easily, when a new version comes up. And we are acting against the
> will
> of the author of this class (I'm not talking about our own
> contributions). And there are many interesting classe out there and
> many
> have already been named in several discussions on the mailing list.

Yes, this will be a problem that we will have to deal with. There is
nothing to stop up taking up stream updates and relicense them also.
This is permitted under the terms of the LGPL.

>
> To come back to my subject and finish this lengthy mail ;-)
>
> *We cant continue to work like we do atm*
>
> If we are unhappy about the way our project is moveing at the
> moment we
> need to change it. I'm sure this realy a *we* and not just me. If
> we
> cant change our project for whatever reason, it becomes less and
> less
> our project. I'm sure everone know how important it is, specialy
> for an
> Open Source project, that all contributors feel it's *their*
> project. If
> it is no longer - they move on, like it happend many time in the
> past :-(.

Yes, this is true. I think many people feel this way. At the same time
I am not in the mood for more length discussions, it is time for action
not talk.

>
> In hope to start a fruitful discussion

I will observe the discussion evolve, but am unlikely to participate in it.

Cheers

Dave

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