RE: [phpGroupWare-developers] Coordination Team

[Sigurd Nes]

> From: Dave Hall address@hidden
> Sent: 2008-03-04 15:02:00 CET
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: SV: [phpGroupWare-developers] Coordination Team
> 
> On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 14:30 +0100, Sigurd Nes wrote:
> > > From: Dave Hall address@hidden
> > > Sent: 2008-03-04 13:39:41 CET
> > > To: address@hidden
> > > Subject: Re: [phpGroupWare-developers] Coordination Team
> > > 
> > > On Sat, 2008-02-23 at 10:56 +0100, Sigurd Nes wrote:
> > > > I'm happy with the team - it's just that sometimes I could wish I had
> > > > a vote in decision processes rather than being told afterwards that
> > > > some policy
> > > > has changed.
> > > 
> > > I am not sure which policies you are referring to.  The policies of the
> > > project and release goals for 0.9.18 haven't really changed for a long
> > > time.  
> > 
> > Well - how about licensing GPLv2 vs. GPLv3. (or what about AGPL?)
> 
> GPLv3 is a requirement of being a GNU package and was discussed here
> back in July last year.  The AGPL is a great license for something like
> phpgw, but without rewriting large chunks of code we can't use it.

Could we have things like that in the Developers Guide ?
> 
> > > 
> > > Most of the decision making by the coordination team isn't done through
> > > formal voting, it is done via informal discussions and consensus.
> > > 
> > > At the end of the day the community decides the direction of the
> > > project, not the coordination team.  If you are unhappy about something,
> > > please feel free to discuss it here.
> > > 
> > 
> > I'm happy with discussions and consensus - but I think these
> > discussions should be posted to the dev-list where everyone has a
> > chance to participate and to improve traceability.
> 
> The decisions usually are. I think all discussions have an appropriate
> forum, and those participating do so knowing the forum they are
> discussing things in. I don't support having the full discussion
> published on the dev list or other public place as this will undermine
> people's ability to discuss issues openly within the coordination team.
> Some issues are not appropriate to discuss publicly any time,
> 
> > Also - if there is matter where consensus is difficult to obtain - we
> > could have some sort of voting mechanism.
> > 
> 
> That has always been the case.

That's great ! -let's keep it
> 
> > Important decisions and policies could be listed somewhere obvious  -
> > and not buried in a mail history
> 
> Policies yes - they mostly are on the website. As for decisions, imo,
> the relevant list is the most appropriate place so they can be
> discussed.

That's what I'm saying (or trying to): 1) propose -> 2) discuss -> 3) decide -> 
4) Document when appropriate.

Regards

Sigurd