Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] Project Structure - some progress

[Dave Hall]

Hi all,

after some discussion with Dan on #phpgroupware we (Dan and I) have agreed
on the following points:

* The existing core team member will be given the title of Project Founder
* The current core team will be replaced by the Coordination Team
  - this will be composed of:
    # the Project Founders (who will have 1 vote each, but no veto rights)
    # elected representatives - the positions need to be clarified a little
    # if a founding member is "AWOL" there will be delay of 1 week before a
vote is conducted
* Domain name admin contact will be assigned to the FSF
* The website will be hosted by the FSF
* All copyright will be assigned to the FSF
* All people who assist in building the project will be called contributor -
not developer
* Contributors will be more involved in decision making

Oustanding Issues - Not agreed
Trademark - i am taking a back seat position on this one for the time being

Outstanding Issues - For discussion
Definition of activity
Job Descriptions
Timelines for implementing changes

Cheers

Dave



> 
> 
> Dave Hall wrote:
> 
> >>Dave Hall wrote:
> >>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.
> 
> I have nothing to lose either. I dont really remember all that was said, 
> but I dont mind having people see what I say. Regardless, its not 
> important right now, I was curious to see what was said.
> 
> > As is explained in that conversation ... skeeter was moved because of a
> > miscommunication - no malice was intended by it. 
> 
> Fine. Then the disagreement was cleared up on that point.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> This was a bad idea.
> 
> >>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. 
> 
> Thank you for the apology.
> 
> > Also remember that i sent it to the list, but it was people who signed
> it.
> 
> Generally the one who sends the mail is the one leading the charge. I 
> have let ceb know that I was disappointed by how it happened as well.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Yes, if you can help organize this, taht would be great.
> 
> > 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
> 
> OK
> 
> > Leadership Team Structure - I can live with the project founders
> (current
> > core team)  to have an automatic position within this group
> 
> OK. And these are seperate from the other 7/8 spots which are voted on. 
> I dont want the founding four to take up those spots.
> 
> > but to receive
> > voting rights, some activity requirements must be met.
> 
> Ceb brought this up in priv irc. She had the idea that if a founder is 
> inactive and shows up and wants to vote on a current topic, that the 
> vote can be held for a week to give the founder time to get themselves 
> up to date on things.
> Thats a possible comprimise. I dont really know why it matters tho. A 
> inactive founder who is voting againt the majority will lose. The four 
> get only one vote like the rest.
> I dont know what activity requirements can be set on the founders. We 
> all know the code pretty well. I have heard some issues with jengo have 
> popped up. In situations like this one of the other founders need to 
> contact the rouge and find out whats up.
> I even mentioned to ceb that Im possibly OK with a founder having their 
> cvs write access taken away if they are creating repeated problems with 
> the source, that goes against what the rest want.
> 
> >  The project founders are
> > also entitled to nominate for a area of responsibility postion, once
> again
> > if they meet certain activity requirements.
> 
> Yes, good idea. Altho this could mean a voted in person ends up with no 
> area of responsibilty... I guess that can get worked out in finer detail 
> as needed.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> As mentioned above, I really dont see a problem with the four to have 
> voting rights whenever they want. If their views are so far from 
> mainstream then their vote wont make a diff.
> 
> > Another thing i would like to point out.  I do respect Dan (and everyone
> > elses) contributions to the project. 
> 
> I think you need to work on how you show it ;-)
> 
> > Also I have nopt been arguing for anyone
> > to be kicked out of the project -
> 
> Being kicked out of leadership is no less to me
> 
> > but I do not want inactive people being able
> > to control the direction of the project.  
> 
> I still dont see how inactive people are in control of the direction. If 
> any of us are inactive, then we are not controlling any direction.
> 
> > 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.  
> 
> I dont mind if you run for a position. I think that you are on the whole 
> a good leader in coordinating efforts, and would be effective in the 
> leadership team. What you need to work on is in showing respect and in 
> how you work with strong and possibly difficult personalities (such as 
> myself).
> 
> > For me this is not about me building a power base to kick seek3r or
> anyone
> > out of the project. 
> 
> I dont think it really is either. But you didnt mind being rude to me or 
> the other founders who didnt know what was going on.
> 
> > My aim has purely been to create a project that
> > functions better, 
> 
> I believe this.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> The end result will probably be good. But how you get there is as 
> important to relationships. And in OSS/FS the relationships are very 
> impotrant. The relationship between you and I will not likely be an easy 
> one for a long time. This will possibly hurt things for awhile, and that 
> is not good for the project. So remember, this is a community and if you 
> are rude to others in the community, then it hurts the community.
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Phpgroupware-developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/phpgroupware-developers
> 

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