Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] Project Structure

[Dan Kuykendall]

Dave Hall wrote:

> > Dave Hall wrote:
> > Post the log.
>
> I do not think this will really help us reach a compromise, proably damage
> the possibility of that.  So I will not post the log - even though I
> personally have nothing to lose by doing so.

I have nothing to lose either. I dont really remember all that was said, 
but I dont mind having people see what I say. Regardless, its not 
important right now, I was curious to see what was said.

> As is explained in that conversation ... skeeter was moved because of a
> miscommunication - no malice was intended by it. 

Fine. Then the disagreement was cleared up on that point.

> The decison to go public with
> the document was made just minutes before it was published - even though we
> spent a lot of time on preparing it.

This was a bad idea.

> > Again, you could have shown me in advanced as a show of repesct. Instead 
> > you acted the weasle and shot it out to everyone because you knew it 
> > wouldnt be something I would like.
>
> Yes, everything is clear in hindsight ... I am sorry for not giving you
> 24hrs before posting it regardless of what you thought of what it contained. 

Thank you for the apology.

> Also remember that i sent it to the list, but it was people who signed it.

Generally the one who sends the mail is the one leading the charge. I 
have let ceb know that I was disappointed by how it happened as well.

> Now to try to find some common ground.  
>
> I want to see the copyright assignment occur - I have tried to do this
> already, but the retuned paper work has gone missing between here and the FSF.

Yes, if you can help organize this, taht would be great.

> The domain name, I am happy with the co assignment, if someone can give us
> independant verification that it will be owned by the FSF

OK

> Leadership Team Structure - I can live with the project founders (current
> core team)  to have an automatic position within this group

OK. And these are seperate from the other 7/8 spots which are voted on. 
I dont want the founding four to take up those spots.

> but to receive
> voting rights, some activity requirements must be met.

Ceb brought this up in priv irc. She had the idea that if a founder is 
inactive and shows up and wants to vote on a current topic, that the 
vote can be held for a week to give the founder time to get themselves 
up to date on things.
Thats a possible comprimise. I dont really know why it matters tho. A 
inactive founder who is voting againt the majority will lose. The four 
get only one vote like the rest.
I dont know what activity requirements can be set on the founders. We 
all know the code pretty well. I have heard some issues with jengo have 
popped up. In situations like this one of the other founders need to 
contact the rouge and find out whats up.
I even mentioned to ceb that Im possibly OK with a founder having their 
cvs write access taken away if they are creating repeated problems with 
the source, that goes against what the rest want.

>  The project founders are
> also entitled to nominate for a area of responsibility postion, once again
> if they meet certain activity requirements.

Yes, good idea. Altho this could mean a voted in person ends up with no 
area of responsibilty... I guess that can get worked out in finer detail 
as needed.

> Voting on issues, if we can agree to the above then this is the only issue
> to be resolved.  I think that it does need some tweaking.  I was never
> proposing that every cvs commit needs to voted on.  The idea is that all
> contributors must have an opportunity to participate in the making of major 
> decisions
> for the project.

As mentioned above, I really dont see a problem with the four to have 
voting rights whenever they want. If their views are so far from 
mainstream then their vote wont make a diff.

> Another thing i would like to point out.  I do respect Dan (and everyone
> elses) contributions to the project. 

I think you need to work on how you show it ;-)

> Also I have nopt been arguing for anyone
> to be kicked out of the project -

Being kicked out of leadership is no less to me

> but I do not want inactive people being able
> to control the direction of the project.  

I still dont see how inactive people are in control of the direction. If 
any of us are inactive, then we are not controlling any direction.

> I would also like to point out that this is not about me controlling the
> project, and because of this I would like to make it clear that as things stand
> at the moment, I will not be nominating for a position on the leadership team
> if this proposal is adopted.  I will be an activite participant in the
> project, and hope that I will be given access to the tools I require to do my
> work.  

I dont mind if you run for a position. I think that you are on the whole 
a good leader in coordinating efforts, and would be effective in the 
leadership team. What you need to work on is in showing respect and in 
how you work with strong and possibly difficult personalities (such as 
myself).

> For me this is not about me building a power base to kick seek3r or anyone
> out of the project. 

I dont think it really is either. But you didnt mind being rude to me or 
the other founders who didnt know what was going on.

> My aim has purely been to create a project that
> functions better, 

I believe this.

> I know this debate can be disruptive (and potentially
> destructive), but if the proposal is adopted I think it will benefit the 
> project in the
> longer term.

The end result will probably be good. But how you get there is as 
important to relationships. And in OSS/FS the relationships are very 
impotrant. The relationship between you and I will not likely be an easy 
one for a long time. This will possibly hurt things for awhile, and that 
is not good for the project. So remember, this is a community and if you 
are rude to others in the community, then it hurts the community.

Dan