Re: RE: [Phpgroupware-developers] Re: Standard source code header and php Documentor

[Dave Hall]

Brian Johnson <address@hidden> wrote:

> I don't have a problem (and I don't think many other do) with the 
> concept of tying
> phpgw in with business goals including making money.


Neither do I - I just wish I was better at it.  I do have issues with
people who expect a lot, make a lot of money and give nothing back to
the community.  We have several businesses which we have formed a great
working relationship with ... 3 that spring to mind are
http://www.sogrp.com/ http://www.vater-gmbh.de/ and
http://www.zeald.com/ (listed alphabetically so not to offend anyone)

> 
> What I think has set the current tone is two things:
> 
> 1. that probiz has proposed features for phpgw that are already 
> implemented

Yes, which I think demostrated a lack of understanding of the project.

> 2. that probiz has been proposing changes to phpgw that go in a 
> direction other than
> what has already been discussed and is available for reading on 
> the wiki
> 

I agree with this also.

> >From the wording and content in initial emails from probiz 
> representatives seemed to
> indicate that they hadn't taken the time to find out even basic 
> information about
> phpgw to justify serious consideration of their proposals.  Also, 
> some of those
> proposals were leading to major and sweeping changes to the code 
> and db structure of
> phpgw with minimal commentary to justify their need and minimal 
> proposal concerning
> who would actually implement and maintain the modified code (as a 
> side note, there
> is a general mistrust in this community for reliance on one 
> unknown commercial
> entity for future maintenance and cooperation)

agreed

> 
> I and others that I have seen on the mailing list, think that SOME 
> of the ideas
> coming from probiz are quite good.

I think some of them have potential, but atm I find myself noticing the
flaws not the good points of their proposal - which stems from historic
problems - which I hope we can move away from.

> 
> I don't pretend to have all of the answers, 

Neither do I - I wish I did ;)

> but perhaps your 
> developers could
> request the input from other developers with a slightly different 
> approach.  Perhaps
> provide more justification for the need for some of the features 
> possibly including
> providing a larger view of what your goals are and don't try to 
> rush everybody into
> major changes.  Also, a polite request for input on how a goal is 
> achieved would be
> appreciated, especially when followed up by evidence of work going 
> in that direction.

Yes, this would be a good start.  I am yet to see any evidence of probiz
taking on board any feedback.  I hope this will change.  Also their tone
(especially Kai's) has not done them any favours.  I understand that
English is not their first language, but refering to anything as evil
would get most people's back's up.  

> 
> I think some of this is what your developers are trying to do but 
> somehow it doesn't
> read that way.
> 
> Although discussed before, IRC access for your developers does 
> provide a way to
> often discuss items in a faster dialog than the mailing list (and 
> then use the
> mailing list to invite other people's involvement once the concept 
> is a little more
> detailed)

I won't hold probiz's non use of irc against them - but I think there
are some benefits of it as a collabrative development tool.

> 
> Of course, you can take this commentary and do whatever you wish 
> with it, but it was
> intended as a third party observation of conversations that have 
> taken place on the
> mailing list in the hopes of smoothing over any conflict that may 
> be festering.

I hope to resolve these issues too.  I really don't enjoy bashing my
head against the wall.

Cheers

Dave

> 
> 
> 
> Christian Böttger (address@hidden) wrote:
> >
> >G'day!
> >
> >> probiz receive more than 300.000 EUR for developing a solution with
> >> phpgw.
> >
> >Wrong number. We are receiving money, yes. But we have to put and 
> will put
> >the same amount of money in it as well, as it is a 50% funding.
> >
> >> We (Ralf,Lars and I) meet them on the CEBIT in
> >> Hannover Germany.
> >
> >Correct.
> >
> >> They don't want communicate with the community.
> >
> >That's plain wrong, otherwise noone would write anything here 
> from our
> >company.
> >
> >> They have a business plan for what they receive money.
> >
> >What's wrong about it?
> >
> >> They told us that they are make the first project with OS 
> developers.>
> >Well, it's not exactly the first project, it's the second. And in 
> any case,
> >some of the developers involved have individually worked on open 
> source>projects before.
> >
> >> I know the plan from them and i say,
> >
> >Do you? How long was that meeting? 30 minutes. I guess there are some
> >misunderstandings still.
> >
> >> that what they do it's not a community project. They want
> >> that the "OSS developers" agree with their "commercial" product.
> >
> >Not correct. That is your interpretation, not our intention. Our 
> intention>is to give as much work back into the phpGW project as 
> possible. It's of
> >course up to the phpGW project whether they accept the work or not.
> >
> >>
> >> What they told us on the CEBIT:
> >> We can be happy, that a company like probusiness make a commercial
> >> solution and professional support for phpgw.
> >
> >Commercial companies must produce money to exist, mustn't they?
> >
> >> I have no NDA with probiz and when anybody want know more 
> about, what
> >> they want do, please ask. I hope we can declare it.
> >
> >Well, nobody will stop you from telling what you want. But we may 
> answer to
> >this as well if we feel that's you misunderstood something.
> >
> >> We ask them, to spend some money for development to the
> >> developers, but they don't want. When I want i found a way.
> >
> >Oh well. AFAIK someone (I don't know whether is was you, 
> honestly) asked
> >just to pass on most of the money. This is not possible. But, 
> e.g. we had
> >open job positions. People could have applied. And: in the case 
> parts of our
> >work go into the phpGW community: then "money" in form of work 
> has found
> >it's way into the project; which it wouldn't otherwise. But you 
> may accept
> >or not that we simply can't just take orders.
> >
> >Be honest: would you donate your business or private money to a 
> group of
> >people approaching you in this tone?
> >
> >>
> >> Greetings to probiz. Follow OSS rules and not YOUR COMMERCIAL
> >> INTEREST
> >
> >Please ask Richard Stallmann or anyone else from FSF or FSF 
> Europe about OSS
> >and business. From all their statements, that's not a 
> contradiction at all.
> >Commercial companies *must* follow commercial interests, 
> otherwise they will
> >cease to exist. OSS (the FSF prefers "Free Software") is about the
> >accessability of source code and the freedom of the *user* of the 
> software>to do what they want with the source. It' not about not 
> making money, and
> >it's not anti-business.
> >
> >But well, if this opionion uttered by Reiner is the opinion of 
> the majority
> >of the contributors and the core team, and all agree that they 
> don't want
> >any code or contribution from our company at all and will not 
> have a look at
> >further (code or other) contributions, well then just say it and 
> we will be
> >off. Mind you that the GPL would not stop anyone from forking of 
> a new
> >project under a different name.
> >
> >We are well prepared and much in favour of assigning any phpGW 
> related code
> >from us to the FSF or FSF Europe, whichever may be the correct 
> address. That
> >my count as "following OSS rules".
> >
> >>
> >> Am Sam, 2003-06-28 um 02.42 schrieb Dave Hall:
> >> > address@hidden wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >> > Yes, this is part of the problem with Kai's (and probiz's) 
> attitude>> > towards the project.  They decide something then try to
> >> impose it on the
> >> > project.
> >
> >No. It's meant as a proposal. And Kai added an example, so that 
> people can
> >have a better basis to decide. He's offering work voluntarily (in 
> this case
> >not as part as his job), and if you don't want it, just leave it.
> >
> >>> All subscribers to this list should be aware, the project
> >> > works on a collabrative model.
> >
> >Well, whatever it might look like to some people: these things 
> are meant as
> >*proposals* and offers to work on it. If it's not appreciated, we 
> can well
> >stop offering work.
> >
> >> > This may be the case, but this must be a decision of the
> >> project, not a
> >> > patch contributor.
> >
> >It was definitely *not* meant as a decision, but just as an 
> example of what
> >it would look like. He offered to do it in his spare time, AFAIK. 
> If you
> >like it, accept it. If not, reject it. But you cannot, as it is an
> >collaborative approach, force him to it in a different way, if he 
> doesn't>want to. If someone offers work voluntarily, either accept 
> or reject it, but
> >don't order him to do it in another way.
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >Christian Böttger
> >
> >--
> >*****    Open Source und Linux im professionellen Einsatz    *****
> >**  komplexe Mailserver, Groupware, Office: sprechen Sie uns an **
> >Dr. Christian Böttger                  Teamleiter Softwarelösungen
> >pro|business AG, EXPO Plaza 1 (Deutscher Pavillon), 30539 Hannover
> >E-Mail: address@hidden,  Tel.: 0511/60066-331, Fax: -355
> >WWW: http://www.probusiness.de/
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Phpgroupware-developers mailing list
> >address@hidden
> >http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/phpgroupware-developers
> >
> 
> --
> Brian Johnson
> * This is where my witty signature line would be if I bothered to 
> edit this line :) *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Phpgroupware-developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/phpgroupware-developers
>

dave.hall.vcf
Description: Card for <dave.hall@mbox.com.au>