Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] Project Structure

[Dan Kuykendall]

Darryl VanDorp wrote:

> A couple comments from a long time observer.
>
> 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.

Yes milosch is equal in contribution to the "four", but he has moved on 
to his own project. Otherwise I would be talking about the founding five :-)

> 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.

Fair assessment.

> 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.

Fair. We have not been as active as a group as we used to be, and this 
greatly slowed down the progress of the project.

> 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.

Agreed, its a good start and so far does appear to be overly cumbersome. 
 It also needs to deal with the founding team more along the lines of 
what I have said, instead of the "honerary but useless" status of 
founding team.

> 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.

Actually, skeeter would probably vote with ceb as much as me, or maybe 
more. Jengo would certainly vote with me.

> * 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.

correct.

> * 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.

fair enough

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

in large part, agreed. irc is very valuable for rapid discussion 
amoungst many players.

> * No defined/understood/structured decision making process.

fair

> * 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.

yes, the new wiki has solved a long running problem

> 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.

I value the userbase of phpGW. But I started this project as a way to 
learn, and a way to develop some concepts I had in how to design 
software like this. Since those were my main goals, the game is over if 
those are taken away. If people want to play a diff game, or one that is 
incompatible with the game I have been playing, then they can start 
their own game.

Dan