Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] Project Structure

[Dave Hall]

> Dave Hall wrote:
> > Dan, you have some one inform you of something like this happening.  We
> had
> > a discussion about this the other day - in private chat on IRC ... I
> still
> > have the log of that conversation.  I was pretty clear about what my
> views were
> > on the matter.  Also we wanted the discussion to in the open, so
> everyone
> > knew what the issues were and could participate in the discussion.  This
> was
> > about the community, so the community should be involved ... imo.
> 
> Post the log.

I do not think this will really help us reach a compromise, proably damage
the possibility of that.  So I will not post the log - even though I
personally have nothing to lose by doing so.

> Now that i am remembering the conversation, what I heard about was that 
> you moved the founding four to a "former developers" list. That was 
> enough insult to make me mad and confront you about it.
> I really had no idea about some formal plan to change the structure of 
> the project

As is explained in that conversation ... skeeter was moved because of a
miscommunication - no malice was intended by it.  The decison to go public with
the document was made just minutes before it was published - even though we
spent a lot of time on preparing it.
.
> 
> Again, you could have shown me in advanced as a show of repesct. Instead 
> you acted the weasle and shot it out to everyone because you knew it 
> wouldnt be something I would like.

Yes, everything is clear in hindsight ... I am sorry for not giving you
24hrs before posting it regardless of what you thought of what it contained. 
Also remember that i sent it to the list, but it was people who signed it.


Now to try to find some common ground.  

I want to see the copyright assignment occur - I have tried to do this
already, but the retuned paper work has gone missing between here and the FSF.

The domain name, I am happy with the co assignment, if someone can give us
independant verification that it will be owned by the FSF

Leadership Team Structure - I can live with the project founders (current
core team)  to have an automatic position within this group, but to receive
voting rights, some activity requirements must be met.  The project founders are
also entitled to nominate for a area of responsibility postion, once again
if they meet certain activity requirements.

Voting on issues, if we can agree to the above then this is the only issue
to be resolved.  I think that it does need some tweaking.  I was never
proposing that every cvs commit needs to voted on.  The idea is that all
contributors must have an opportunity to participate in the making of major 
decisions
for the project.

Another thing i would like to point out.  I do respect Dan (and everyone
elses) contributions to the project.  Also I have nopt been arguing for anyone
to be kicked out of the project - but I do not want inactive people being able
to control the direction of the project.  

I would also like to point out that this is not about me controlling the
project, and because of this I would like to make it clear that as things stand
at the moment, I will not be nominating for a position on the leadership team
if this proposal is adopted.  I will be an activite participant in the
project, and hope that I will be given access to the tools I require to do my
work.  For me this is not about me building a power base to kick seek3r or 
anyone
out of the project.  My aim has purely been to create a project that
functions better, I know this debate can be disruptive (and potentially
destructive), but if the proposal is adopted I think it will benefit the 
project in the
longer term.

Cheers

Dave


-- 
+++ GMX - Mail, Messaging & more  http://www.gmx.net +++
Bitte lächeln! Fotogalerie online mit GMX ohne eigene Homepage!