[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] Project Structure

From: Dan Kuykendall
Subject: Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] Project Structure
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 19:04:25 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507

Dave Hall wrote:
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.

I simply wont agree with this.

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.

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.

Again, I will not agree with this. I will not even bend in the least about the permenant positions of the founding four.

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.

I was creating an example. As I said, eT is very cool, but I dont want it to be "the" template system for phpGW.

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.

Forking may still be on the table. You have yet to comprimise on anything. Im not going to make the consesions I have without any of my demands being met.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]