Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] Project Structure

[Dan Kuykendall]

address@hidden wrote:

> first off, the reason why i subscribed the proposal is, it sure has to
> change something in the structure of the project. but i dont see this text
> as the final version of a guideline, just a good base to start discussing.
>
> the areas where i see the need of a change are:
>
> - assigning all of our code to the fsf. i was thinking this happened
>   already when we became a gnu package. now i have to realise, it
>   didn't. :(
>   for me it was one of the reasons to agree becoming a gnu package,
>   and as far as i remember it was discussed and agreed with concerning
>   support in a law case. so i ask why it didn't happen already when we
>   became a gnu package? without the fsf owns the code they can't support
>   us in law cases...

The reason it didnt happen was administrative. Each developer needs to 
fill out the assignment papers and send them to the FSF.

> - also the holder of the phpgroupware.org domain should be the fsf.

As mentioned, I am open to co-assigning. This would mean the admin 
contact would be the FSF and I would be the technical. The reason I 
would be the technical contact is that it runs on my servers. As far as 
I know the FSF does not like to host other domains, they want their 
projects to be under the www.fsf.org/projects website.

> - all project important areas should be administrated by a group of ppl,
>   like the server, where the website is running, or any access to our cvs
>   repository.

CVS is done on savannah. I have a special account because of my 
friendship with loic. This special account is not something I can share 
with anyone else, and the only thing Im allowed to do with it is add 
developers to the group with CVS write access. I think savannah hackers 
would be willing to assign developers to that group if a project admin 
sent in the request.
The website is on my server, and I have always given the leaders access 
to the server to help admin it.

> - to vote for the leadership team makes much sense to me, also the voting
>   for changes/features. but this all has to be worked out some more, imo.
>   i think its abit oversized, to handle the time of presense/absense
>   exactly by month etc... we should decide it in the special case. also, to let 
> all
>   devels vote in all areas, doesnt seem to be a good idea. there should be
>   groups - like already mentioned in some other mail (api, apps,
>   translation etc...) - and the members of this groups vote in their
>   areas.

Yes I agree. The leadership team should be voted on. I just want special 
posts for the four of us as permanent positions.

Dan