[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] Clarification of Proposed Structure

From: Dan Kuykendall
Subject: Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] Clarification of Proposed Structure
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 09:12:32 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507

One more note about veto.
The veto can be canceled out by another founder vetoing the others veto.
So if I try to veto something that ceb feels is nessesary, she can veto my veto and things revert back to the initial vote.

Also, veto is only a second to last resort. The real last resort is a fork. I would not press for a fork if I knew ceb were against me on an issue as well as the rest of the CT.

So this means the fork is only useful with ceb and I (or other founders as they become involved) in some basic agreement.


Dan Kuykendall wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

Hi all,

Instead of responding to several posts seperately I will try to address
several issues which have been raised by people.

I personally would like to avoid a fork - but there are some key points i
will not really negotiate on:
* Truly democractic structures - no one should have the right of veto (as
suggested by seek3r on #phpgroupware) ... regardless of previous work

I will not negotiate on this either. The founding four need permenant positions in the leadership team, and they should have veto power. I think we can be trusted with both of these and have earned them.

* Assignment to the FSF - without this the community does not control the
project ... which is the primary aim of this document

I agree on assigning code. But not the domain or the trademark.

I am not denying that the core team has made considerable contributions to the development of phpGroupWare - that is why I am happy for them to continue to hold the honorary title of "Project Founder" with no special priviledges.

I understand that you will not support my plan for the founding fours permemant positions, and veto power. What about everyone else?

The document sent to the list has been a month in the making, and so the db layer issue is now a dead one, but I think it would have been a good first
test of the democratic structure model.

Fair enough

Over management, maybe.  At the same time, the document is a draft, not a
final version. During the preparation of it parts changed, and we hope it will
change further.  The aim of it is to create a project where not only the
source is open, but the structures are too.


Activity,I will give my definition here.   Being easily contactable
regarding, managing your area of responsibility within the project, participating in discussions which effect your area of responsibility.

better. I think it can still be refined, but good start

Some people have suggested that the current core team is a single entity, it is not. At the moment ceb is the only active membe rof the core team. Not only is she porting to head, she is assisting in the running of the project. I know why skeeter is not active at the moment, but that is for him to discuss if he wishes, not me. As for jengo, the last i saw him he was commiting
xml-rpc changes to support  a non free app he is working on.

I also keep in touch with things. Maybe not on a daily basis, but I follow the mailing lists and talk to ceb from time to time. I dont generally speak up in the mailing lists unless I have something important to add. Skeeter has gone inactive for his reasons, jengo hasnt contributed in a long time, but his imprint is forever. Jengo and I started phpGW together.

If you do not think the founding four can be trusted with permenant positions in the leadership team and with veto power, then I think you do not know us very well. I will also not agree and will require a fork without these measures.


Phpgroupware-developers mailing list

reply via email to

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