Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] Project Structure

[ceb]

On Tue, 13 May 2003, Dan Kuykendall wrote:

> Reiner Jung wrote:
>
> >>True in part. I think the veto is a way to keep from talking about
> >>forking when we disagree. As I said, I can possibly let this go, but
> >>think its better in terms of showing respect to the founding team as
> >>well as allowing for two founders to cancel eachother out.
> >
> > I think all have respect again the founding team and what they do in the
> > past. Which i cant agree that the founders can cancel each other out. On
> > what aspects this will be do?. Why the founders need the power to do it?
>
> Im not sure I understand what your saying here.
> As far as respect for the founders, I question some of that by the way I
> was notified. I didnt even get a chance to see the proposal ahead of
> public release. In the proposal, it said we would have an honorary but
> powerless position in the project. Put veto rights aside, and I have not
> even seen a possible acceptance of having the founders as permanent
> members of the leadership team, on equal with the rest of the voted in
> group.
>
> 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.
>
> For the sake of comprimise I will drop the veto. We can stick with
> permanent membership in the leadership group.
>

i don't have probs with the veto or permanent membership if the person is
active. this doesnt mean to be available in irc the whole day or to
write alot of code, but to stay in touch with current development and
actual discussions. if someone is very busy with jobs or family, it anyway
is possible to join the channel at least once a week or send a mail to the
list to let ppl know the person is involved in things.
right now i dont think jengo and skeeter have the ability to decide
something, they are out of development for too long time. and actually
jengo in a way messes up current development by comitting code to the api
and infolog where he shouldnt.
for the leaders or founders should be applied the same roules
than for any other devels. if they are not active - at least i described
above - they shouldnt vote or touch the project at all,imo. if they are
back and up to date with current development again, i dont see a prob and
can understand Dans wish to keep a place in the leadership team.

ceb

> > The other point, which you don't answer is. Why you need the full
> > control over the name?
> >
> >>Also, veto should only be used as a extreme measure.
> >
> > What will be a extreme measure? Have you some examples about this.
>
> I mentioned one example in IRC. If for example the group wanted to
> switch to eTemplates (eT) for the entire project. I think eT is cool and
> clever, but I dont want it as the solution for phpGW. If phpGW swicthed,
> I would no longer want to work on the project at all. So I would want to
> veto something like this.
> 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.
>
> >>This mixes up the "software" from the "project". There is no debate
> >>about the software being free. Thats just how it is and will be.
> >>The debate is about how the "project" is run. The project does not need
> >>to be a completely FREE in order for the software to be.
> >
> >
> > I think for all people which contribute to the project it will be
> > important that the project in his decisions will be free to. It will be
> > a barrier, when the leadership isn't free in his decisions.
>
> I dont understand what you are saying here. Im sorry, I think it didnt
> translate well.
> Maybe the problem is that you somehow think that I/we are somehow
> keeping everyone under some slavery. That we are not letting the current
>   dev team be mostly free to do what they want.
> As far as I know, the active developers are pretty much doing as they
> see fit.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Phpgroupware-developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/phpgroupware-developers
>