Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] Project Structure

[Darryl VanDorp]

A couple comments from a long time observer.

In any group of the size of the phpgroupware project there
are bound to be politics and power struggles. The core
of the problem comes down to how and why are people inspired
to work on an opensource project.

It has been my feeling for some time that a project of the size
of phpGW requires a certain critical mass of developers and
maintainers to keep it's relevancy in the rapidly changing online
world.

Earlier on in the beginning of the project there was rapid and prolific
growth hugely based on the almost manic contributions of Seek3r, jengo,
skeeter and ceb. Shortly before I came across the project Milosch came
on-board and eventually also became a huge contributor. As far
as I can recall there were always dynamic discussions on IRC, thoughtful
discussions on the development list and overall a good project
direction and leadership.

No one can doubt or question the huge contributions made by the 'fab four'

Some time after this period however, the level of contributions by this
'core of four' diminished. One can't take away what they accomplished but
one can question the future.

Quite simply put: The level of contribution by the 'core' developers or
'original group' has dimished to the point of almost nonexistence. The
issue comes down to the fact that a lack of contribution by a leadership
team reduces it's effectiveness.  This is not unique to phpGW or to
opensource.

What this project needs to come to grips with is it's development model.
For what it's worth, It's my opinion that the development model put forth
in the 'restructure' document seems overly cumbersome however it appears
to be a  good start.

I will voice the following points:

* reserving veto power for a developer who hasn't actively participated in
a project for a period of years (never mind months) is ridiculous

* if skeeter and jengo are given 'veto' the fact is Seek3r has de-facto
veto. Ceb can veto Seek3r's veto but jengo and skeeter would vote with
Seek3r.

* Dan has trademark and the domain and it's his legal right to have it.
You may debate whether its fair or nice but that's the facts.

Historically there are several critical sucess factors that exist in
open-source projects.

Here are the things that I believe that this project needs work on:

* Lack of techinical participation by the leadership (whoever that may be)
group. 'Trying' to watch the mailing lists just isn't good enough for
sucess. The phpGW-dev list has an excellent signal to noise ratio.

* Overdepence (at least historically) on IRC. Too many different time
zones too many people with day jobs.

* No defined/understood/structured decision making process.

* Lack of credit given participants for their efforts. (although this
newish wiki seems to resolve this to some extent.) If people contribute
they want to see 'their name in lights' so to speak.

So, at any point those who can or do control the project can take their
ball and bat and go home, the question is, to whose benefit would that be.
A key to any open project is the need to recruit and retain developers. An
open structure could go a long way towards this.

My $.02 CAN

-Darryl aka Maniac