Quantcast

Proposal for the relationship between egw1.x and Tine 2.0

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Cornelius Weiss-4 Cornelius Weiss-4
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Proposal for the relationship between egw1.x and Tine 2.0

Hi devs,

After a hard period (again) of flameing and fighting, we want to make  
a proposal to solve the situation(s).

In our view the current state is the following:
- The majority of egw devs and users don't want to continue this ugly  
flame war.
- On the other hand, also nobody wants to have the votes conny proposed.
- No one wants to drop (not even lars or conny) egw 1.x
- Also a big majority don't want to drop Tine 2.0 out of the  
egroupware.org project.

So here is, what we  propose:
- Lets have two emancipated codelines within the framework of the  
egroupware.org project.
- Both activities share the same goal, to provide great collaboration  
software based on free and open sources.
- If possible, both activities agree on common technical standards and  
implement them in a compatible way
- Tine cares for smooth migration paths from egw to tine
- eGW 1.x (may) ports back new technologies from tine when they where  
proven successfully there.
- Both activities decide on their own about new members, coding-
standards, and quality agreements.
- On both web-sites, we'll link each other in a friendly way, e.g. by  
aggregating the news feed of the other page.

We propose to freeze this state for about half a year, before we  
continue to discuss about project politics. Hopefully then in a kind  
and friendly manner.

We feel, that continuing the discussions don't lead to any valuable  
result. So this is our last attempt. If it fails we will take the Tine  
effort out of the egroupware.org project.

cu
Lars, Thomas, Matthias and Conny



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
eGroupWare-core mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-core

tine_egw_relation (49K) Download Attachment
Lutz Falkenburg (irrsinn.de gmbh) Lutz Falkenburg (irrsinn.de gmbh)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal for the relationship between egw1.x and Tine 2.0

I apologize, that these mail might bothering you but, as we have heard  
in many posts during this discussion egw is not only a developer  
community there are also users and some developers wich are not  
writing any code.

As Yerk and Ubertroll its my duty to comment this proposal. I try to  
do this as reasonable as possible without any personal accuses.

Am 11.02.2008 um 13:22 schrieb Cornelius Weiss:

> Hi devs,
>
> After a hard period (again) of flameing and fighting, we want to  
> make a proposal to solve the situation(s).

> In our view the current state is the following:
> - The majority of egw devs and users don't want to continue this  
> ugly flame war.
> - On the other hand, also nobody wants to have the votes conny  
> proposed.
> - No one wants to drop (not even lars or conny) egw 1.x
> - Also a big majority don't want to drop Tine 2.0 out of the  
> egroupware.org project.
>

Sorry, but this is your personal opinion. I do not think the whole  
community has the same point of view ;)
And I am not seeing those big majorities you mentioned. I see a big  
majority with is using egrouware and happy with the most application.  
No the big picture is to lets innovation taking place without  
frustrating the users.

> So here is, what we  propose:
> - Lets have two emancipated codelines within the framework of the  
> egroupware.org project.
> - Both activities share the same goal, to provide great  
> collaboration software based on free and open sources.
> - If possible, both activities agree on common technical standards  
> and implement them in a compatible way
> - Tine cares for smooth migration paths from egw to tine
> - eGW 1.x (may) ports back new technologies from tine when they  
> where proven successfully there.
> - Both activities decide on their own about new members, coding-
> standards, and quality agreements.
> - On both web-sites, we'll link each other in a friendly way, e.g.  
> by aggregating the news feed of the other page.
>

So Tine ist not a proposal for the future codeline of egroupware? You  
are talking about coexistence? Are you correcting your statement made  
to the press with a new one? Because google never forgets!

But what you are mentioned above is in my understanding a fork, isn't  
it?

> We propose to freeze this state for about half a year, before we  
> continue to discuss about project politics. Hopefully then in a kind  
> and friendly manner.
>

I have nothing to say, I am only a "blood sucking ubertroll" but this  
sounds good for me.

> We feel, that continuing the discussions don't lead to any valuable  
> result. So this is our last attempt. If it fails we will take the  
> Tine effort out of the egroupware.org project.
>

You know that was my intension. But I think you are able to apologize  
yourself - you did half a way with this proposal. But it is still my  
intension (if I had something to say) that consequences has taken  
place for breaking rules. But fortunately I have nothing to decide.  
So, sorry for take you some time but mostly I started the flamewar to  
get some others into gears and from my point of view this could be a  
an agree on a ceasefire.

I excuse myself for some words I have written but as the time they  
where written they were the right words (from my point of view).

Regards Lutz (mainly yerk and ubertroll)


> cu
> Lars, Thomas, Matthias and Conny
> <tine_egw_relation>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/_______________________________________________
> eGroupWare-core mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-core


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
eGroupWare-core mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-core
jaytraxx jaytraxx
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal for the relationship between egw1.x and Tine 2.0

In reply to this post by Cornelius Weiss-4
Hi Tine-Staff and eGW-Community,

I think that would be a very good way to go (and maybe the only one), cause time has shown that the goals of users and developers really differ at the moment:

- a big majority wants to have the well foundated eGW with the possibility to have lot of different applications, whereas some are highly customized.
- another group of devels and users (e.g. me, for several reasons) prefer to have a real kick-off ui with just some basic applications. The only thing that is mandatory here is the backwards compatibility to eGW

Both ways of thinking have a right to exist and if there's a friendly connection between the devels and users of both directions, we could help one another.

So, this is from my point of view a very good way to go. Thx Conny for this proposal.

Greetings
Christian

Cornelius Weiss-4 wrote
Hi devs,

After a hard period (again) of flameing and fighting, we want to make  
a proposal to solve the situation(s).

In our view the current state is the following:
- The majority of egw devs and users don't want to continue this ugly  
flame war.
- On the other hand, also nobody wants to have the votes conny proposed.
- No one wants to drop (not even lars or conny) egw 1.x
- Also a big majority don't want to drop Tine 2.0 out of the  
egroupware.org project.

So here is, what we  propose:
- Lets have two emancipated codelines within the framework of the  
egroupware.org project.
- Both activities share the same goal, to provide great collaboration  
software based on free and open sources.
- If possible, both activities agree on common technical standards and  
implement them in a compatible way
- Tine cares for smooth migration paths from egw to tine
- eGW 1.x (may) ports back new technologies from tine when they where  
proven successfully there.
- Both activities decide on their own about new members, coding-
standards, and quality agreements.
- On both web-sites, we'll link each other in a friendly way, e.g. by  
aggregating the news feed of the other page.

We propose to freeze this state for about half a year, before we  
continue to discuss about project politics. Hopefully then in a kind  
and friendly manner.

We feel, that continuing the discussions don't lead to any valuable  
result. So this is our last attempt. If it fails we will take the Tine  
effort out of the egroupware.org project.

cu
Lars, Thomas, Matthias and Conny

 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
eGroupWare-core mailing list
eGroupWare-core@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-core
Frank-D Frank-D
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal for the relationship between egw1.x and Tine 2.0

In reply to this post by Cornelius Weiss-4
Hi Conny, Lars, Thomas and Matthias,

your proposal sounds interesting to me. Here is my question:
What about the use of the name egroupware in public?
Who decides about press-releases and News-articles on egroupware.org?
As I understood you, both projects will have their own name, own website, right?
On the other hand you say, inside egroupware.org framework?
What about forum?
What about the svn-server?

I think there are still some details to sort out.

I would not like tine having it's own website and egroupware not, because the old egroupware.org websites becomes the space for both projects.

I really think friendly manners are cool, trying myself.

best regards Frank


Cornelius Weiss-4 wrote
So here is, what we  propose:
- Lets have two emancipated codelines within the framework of the  
egroupware.org project.
- Both activities share the same goal, to provide great collaboration  
software based on free and open sources.
- If possible, both activities agree on common technical standards and  
implement them in a compatible way
- Tine cares for smooth migration paths from egw to tine
- eGW 1.x (may) ports back new technologies from tine when they where  
proven successfully there.
- Both activities decide on their own about new members, coding-
standards, and quality agreements.
- On both web-sites, we'll link each other in a friendly way, e.g. by  
aggregating the news feed of the other page.

We propose to freeze this state for about half a year, before we  
continue to discuss about project politics. Hopefully then in a kind  
and friendly manner.

We feel, that continuing the discussions don't lead to any valuable  
result. So this is our last attempt. If it fails we will take the Tine  
effort out of the egroupware.org project.

cu
Lars, Thomas, Matthias and Conny

 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
eGroupWare-core mailing list
eGroupWare-core@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-core
Oscar van Eijk-3 Oscar van Eijk-3
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal for the relationship between egw1.x and Tine 2.0

In reply to this post by Cornelius Weiss-4
Hi All,

This sounds like a good proposal to me. It is important for developers to be
able to support apps for eGW and/or Tine; (almost) nobody wants to abandon
the eGW 1.x codeline, and (almost) everybody appreciates the Tine input ans
is waiting for the result of the proof of concept.

IMHO the opinion of users is not relevant here (on the short term!), since
the eGW codeline will be maintainted in this proposal, so users have
achoice.

In the long term, *only* the users matter; whatever they choose will be the
future of eGW; in the end, a good concept without users is just a waste of
time.

Oscar

"Cornelius Weiss" <[hidden email]> schreef:

> Hi devs,
>
> After a hard period (again) of flameing and fighting, we want to make  
> a proposal to solve the situation(s).
>
> In our view the current state is the following:
> - The majority of egw devs and users don't want to continue this ugly  
> flame war.
> - On the other hand, also nobody wants to have the votes conny proposed.
> - No one wants to drop (not even lars or conny) egw 1.x
> - Also a big majority don't want to drop Tine 2.0 out of the  
> egroupware.org project.
>
> So here is, what we  propose:
> - Lets have two emancipated codelines within the framework of the  
> egroupware.org project.
> - Both activities share the same goal, to provide great collaboration  
> software based on free and open sources.
> - If possible, both activities agree on common technical standards and  
> implement them in a compatible way
> - Tine cares for smooth migration paths from egw to tine
> - eGW 1.x (may) ports back new technologies from tine when they where  
> proven successfully there.
> - Both activities decide on their own about new members, coding-
> standards, and quality agreements.
> - On both web-sites, we'll link each other in a friendly way, e.g. by  
> aggregating the news feed of the other page.
>
> We propose to freeze this state for about half a year, before we  
> continue to discuss about project politics. Hopefully then in a kind  
> and friendly manner.
>
> We feel, that continuing the discussions don't lead to any valuable  
> result. So this is our last attempt. If it fails we will take the Tine  
> effort out of the egroupware.org project.
>
> cu
> Lars, Thomas, Matthias and Conny
>

--------------------------------
 
>

--------------------------------
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/

--------------------------------
 _______________________________________________
> eGroupWare-core mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-core
>



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
eGroupWare-core mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-core
Carsten Wolff-2 Carsten Wolff-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal for the relationship between egw1.x and Tine 2.0

In reply to this post by Cornelius Weiss-4
Hi Conny,

On Monday 11 February 2008, Cornelius Weiss wrote:
> After a hard period (again) of flameing and fighting, we want to make
> a proposal to solve the situation(s).

for me, this proposal sounds reasonable. I hope the people who's opinions
matter, will consider it.

There is no sense in rushing a decision between the "classic" and the "new"
approach, if the new one isn't yet there, where it's developers whant it to
be.

I also think, that forcing you guys to develop in the dark was a mistake and
hard to realise, anyway. It's open source, after all. Experimental branches
are a good thing. If they proof to be better in time, they become mainstream.
Else they die. That's completely normal and in my opinion no reason to fight.

Carsten
--
           /\-´-/\
          (  @ @  )
________o0O___^___O0o________

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
eGroupWare-core mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-core
Carsten Wolff-2 Carsten Wolff-2
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal for the relationship between egw1.x and Tine 2.0

In reply to this post by Lutz Falkenburg (irrsinn.de gmbh)
Admins,

why are non-developers with a destructive mind allowed to post to -core?
PLEASE take care of correct posting-rights for the projects mailinglists.
Half of the postings of the last week have been annoying to read at best.

Lutz,

I can only guess your motivation for what you are doing here. You have nothing
to contribute to the discussion and you are only trying to make it appear
like you actually had something to say, by shouting the loudest.

On Monday 11 February 2008, Lutz Falkenburg (irrsinn.de gmbh) wrote:
> As Yerk and Ubertroll its my duty to comment this proposal.

It's spelled "jerk" and no, you have no such duty.

> I have nothing to say

That is indeed my impression.

> You know that was my intension. But I think you are able to apologize
> yourself

If anyone should apologize, it's you. You are accusing and insulting people,
while most accusations appear to be based on speculation or on past events,
that already had been settled.

> I excuse myself for some words I have written but as the time they
> where written they were the right words (from my point of view).

"propaganda", "manipulation", "tricks" ... no, not the right words. Just
insults.

Carsten
--
           /\-´-/\
          (  @ @  )
________o0O___^___O0o________

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
eGroupWare-core mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-core
Lutz Falkenburg (irrsinn.de gmbh) Lutz Falkenburg (irrsinn.de gmbh)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal for the relationship between egw1.x and Tine 2.0

Some of you have a very interesting interpretation of what rules are  
for and what happened if you break them. Even the definition of  
stateting facts in the public wich are not true or legitimated seems  
to bee more than strange to me. But if this the way you are willing to  
drive this project. Have fun.

Everything is said - so just drive your personally and political  
concepts as you might want to drive them.

For me, some people didn't tell the truth - so, this is also called  
misinformating and manipulating people.
For me, some people lets drive themselfs more by personal frustration  
than by deceiding whats best for this project.
For me, is the shortest and most simply way to get peoples ass in gear  
to shout out loud - it is not always very kindly but it works.

So, egroupware is defenced that was may intension. And the developers  
has to talk to each other if they want to get an conclusion. There are  
different ways in life to get success. I am Lutz Falkenburg. And I am  
like I am so kick me out or respect my objectives and don't play games.

The problems started because of lack of leadership. And they still  
carry on because of missing leadership. Probably we urgently need new  
admins than new codelines.

Try not to play "beleidigte Leberwurst", try to think about what  
happened.

Most of my "insults" are prooved by statements within days ....

Bye Lutz

PS: You are one more developer who suddenly moves his mind and started  
involving in this discussion - its great - but still there are to few  
people.... is there anybody out there?


Am 11.02.2008 um 16:52 schrieb Carsten Wolff:

> Admins,
>
> why are non-developers with a destructive mind allowed to post to -
> core?
> PLEASE take care of correct posting-rights for the projects  
> mailinglists.
> Half of the postings of the last week have been annoying to read at  
> best.
>
> Lutz,
>
> I can only guess your motivation for what you are doing here. You  
> have nothing
> to contribute to the discussion and you are only trying to make it  
> appear
> like you actually had something to say, by shouting the loudest.
>
> On Monday 11 February 2008, Lutz Falkenburg (irrsinn.de gmbh) wrote:
>> As Yerk and Ubertroll its my duty to comment this proposal.
>
> It's spelled "jerk" and no, you have no such duty.
>
>> I have nothing to say
>
> That is indeed my impression.
>
>> You know that was my intension. But I think you are able to apologize
>> yourself
>
> If anyone should apologize, it's you. You are accusing and insulting  
> people,
> while most accusations appear to be based on speculation or on past  
> events,
> that already had been settled.
>
>> I excuse myself for some words I have written but as the time they
>> where written they were the right words (from my point of view).
>
> "propaganda", "manipulation", "tricks" ... no, not the right words.  
> Just
> insults.
>
> Carsten
> --
>           /\-´-/\
>          (  @ @  )
> ________o0O___^___O0o________
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> eGroupWare-core mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-core


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
eGroupWare-core mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-core
José Luis Gordo Romero José Luis Gordo Romero
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal for the relationship between egw1.x and Tine 2.0

In reply to this post by Cornelius Weiss-4
Hello,

I think that follow the discussion is damaging the project and the two branches solution for egroupware is a good solution (not the only but for me the better).

I like the current codebase and the hard work from Ralf and the rest (Klaus, Christian, ..)
and
I like the tine20 concepts and features and the hard work from two of the most egw contributors.

Let each developer decide to work in your branch (or the two) and the user install and support your branch.

Just my 2 cent.
José Luis Gordo Romero

2008/2/11, Cornelius Weiss <[hidden email]>:
Hi devs,

After a hard period (again) of flameing and fighting, we want to make
a proposal to solve the situation(s).

In our view the current state is the following:
- The majority of egw devs and users don't want to continue this ugly
flame war.
- On the other hand, also nobody wants to have the votes conny proposed.
- No one wants to drop (not even lars or conny) egw 1.x
- Also a big majority don't want to drop Tine 2.0 out of the
egroupware.org project.

So here is, what we  propose:
- Lets have two emancipated codelines within the framework of the
egroupware.org project.
- Both activities share the same goal, to provide great collaboration
software based on free and open sources.
- If possible, both activities agree on common technical standards and
implement them in a compatible way
- Tine cares for smooth migration paths from egw to tine
- eGW 1.x (may) ports back new technologies from tine when they where
proven successfully there.
- Both activities decide on their own about new members, coding-
standards, and quality agreements.
- On both web-sites, we'll link each other in a friendly way, e.g. by
aggregating the news feed of the other page.

We propose to freeze this state for about half a year, before we
continue to discuss about project politics. Hopefully then in a kind
and friendly manner.

We feel, that continuing the discussions don't lead to any valuable
result. So this is our last attempt. If it fails we will take the Tine
effort out of the egroupware.org project.

cu
Lars, Thomas, Matthias and Conny



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
eGroupWare-core mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-core





--
Saludos
José Luis Gordo Romero
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
eGroupWare-core mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-core
jaytraxx jaytraxx
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal for the relationship between egw1.x and Tine 2.0

Hi José,

nice to hear your 2cents :-)

José Luis Gordo Romero schrieb:

> Hello,
>
> I think that follow the discussion is damaging the project and the two
> branches solution for egroupware is a good solution (not the only but
> for me the better).
>
> I like the current codebase and the hard work from Ralf and the rest
> (Klaus, Christian, ..)
> and
> I like the tine20 concepts and features and the hard work from two of
> the most egw contributors.
>
> Let each developer decide to work in your branch (or the two) and the
> user install and support your branch.

That's my belief of OpenSource! Hope this will be getting true again.

Bye
Christian

>
> Just my 2 cent.
> José Luis Gordo Romero
>
> 2008/2/11, Cornelius Weiss <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>>:
>
>     Hi devs,
>
>     After a hard period (again) of flameing and fighting, we want to make
>     a proposal to solve the situation(s).
>
>     In our view the current state is the following:
>     - The majority of egw devs and users don't want to continue this ugly
>     flame war.
>     - On the other hand, also nobody wants to have the votes conny proposed.
>     - No one wants to drop (not even lars or conny) egw 1.x
>     - Also a big majority don't want to drop Tine 2.0 out of the
>     egroupware.org <http://egroupware.org> project.
>
>     So here is, what we  propose:
>     - Lets have two emancipated codelines within the framework of the
>     egroupware.org <http://egroupware.org> project.
>     - Both activities share the same goal, to provide great collaboration
>     software based on free and open sources.
>     - If possible, both activities agree on common technical standards and
>     implement them in a compatible way
>     - Tine cares for smooth migration paths from egw to tine
>     - eGW 1.x (may) ports back new technologies from tine when they where
>     proven successfully there.
>     - Both activities decide on their own about new members, coding-
>     standards, and quality agreements.
>     - On both web-sites, we'll link each other in a friendly way, e.g. by
>     aggregating the news feed of the other page.
>
>     We propose to freeze this state for about half a year, before we
>     continue to discuss about project politics. Hopefully then in a kind
>     and friendly manner.
>
>     We feel, that continuing the discussions don't lead to any valuable
>     result. So this is our last attempt. If it fails we will take the Tine
>     effort out of the egroupware.org <http://egroupware.org> project.
>
>     cu
>     Lars, Thomas, Matthias and Conny
>
>
>
>     -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
>     Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
>     http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
>     _______________________________________________
>     eGroupWare-core mailing list
>     [hidden email]
>     <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-core
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Saludos
> José Luis Gordo Romero
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> eGroupWare-core mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-core


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
eGroupWare-core mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-core
Frank-D Frank-D
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal for the relationship between egw1.x and Tine 2.0

In reply to this post by Cornelius Weiss-4
Hi devs,

I am quite unhappy of posting on this list only half tolerated und sort of illegal, but I won't open a new thread in dev-list for this answer.

I am very happy with decision to
"We propose to freeze this state for about half a year, before we  
continue to discuss about project politics. Hopefully then in a kind  
and friendly manner."
They was I understand this, this means:
no votes during this time about the matters discussed
no call for supporters for votes and no other ways of announcing votes
this includes admin-votes
we will have a List of allowed voters by the end of the time (we nearly have one already)

Than there is still the thing about the websites, news, mailinglists, members etc.
I think tine and egroupware would need an own webstie each, they already have in certain ways
There will be no News, Blogs or anything else damaging or critizising the other project (for example: on egroupware there is no official news or press release saying "tine is lacking this und those functionalities" and on tine there won't be no blog or news saying: We started this, because "unit testing" und "great usability" were not possible with egroupware
Of course egroupware can say:" We have great functionalities" and Tine ca say "We have got unit testing and other nice Zend-things"
The mailinglist of the other projects are not used attract users, devs or anybody else to the other project, only technical necessary things relating to the "ohter" project. Therefor the post are only restricted to the dev-list in general.
The mailinglists are not used to critizise the other project in terms of "the other project is better".
There will be no press-releases (or other forms of publications) of tine using the name egroupware and no press releases of egroupware using the name tine.
The svn-repo stays at it is? Some devs will only have access to egw1.x some only to tine, some to both, each community decides themself
Tine sort of forms their own community "- Both activities decide on their own about new members, coding- standards, and quality agreements." So till in 6 month talking about politics again, tine can decide about members on it's own, but as egw1.x, does this, too, they won't become automatically members of egroupware (e.g. considering voting )
There will be new mailinglist, considering cooperation issues (maybe egroup-core, but I think there should be a special one for this purpose)
There maybe links form one website to the others, details have to be settled, but this imho this is not necessary
I think "- Tine cares for smooth migration paths from egw to tine
- eGW 1.x (may) ports back new technologies from tine when they where  
proven successfully there." sounds nice.
of course this is only a very broad mission, details are up to the devs of "both" projects
Migration paths form egroupware to tine should be discussed in tine forums only, not to let it look like advertising for another project

As tine has it's own website, and as it may have (already has) it's own members, I think it would be okay, if they talked about there own politics (they are alread doing this anyway, see this proposal I am answering right now). But if they don't set up own rules etc. (membership, voting etc.) at the moment in order to make full integration with egroupware later easier, it has some advantages, too. Anyway they should be free to choose tehmselves, not getting full egroupware membership at the moment

Of course every dev is free to be part of both projects, if he is accepted as members and will respect the rules.

Apart from all this egroupware has to decide, what it will do, if the rules will be violated, or what will be done about violations which may already taken place (by which side whatever). This is another topic I will not discuss here, and which should not be discussed in the context, regarding the very promising proposal of Conny.

If you think this post maybe helpfull and have postings-rights to core, you could answer this post citing me, so non-nabble users can read it, too (they can't at the moment can they? most mails of me have pending status according to nabble)

best regards Frank









Cornelius Weiss-4 wrote
Hi devs,

After a hard period (again) of flameing and fighting, we want to make  
a proposal to solve the situation(s).

In our view the current state is the following:
- The majority of egw devs and users don't want to continue this ugly  
flame war.
- On the other hand, also nobody wants to have the votes conny proposed.
- No one wants to drop (not even lars or conny) egw 1.x
- Also a big majority don't want to drop Tine 2.0 out of the  
egroupware.org project.

So here is, what we  propose:
- Lets have two emancipated codelines within the framework of the  
egroupware.org project.
- Both activities share the same goal, to provide great collaboration  
software based on free and open sources.
- If possible, both activities agree on common technical standards and  
implement them in a compatible way
- Tine cares for smooth migration paths from egw to tine
- eGW 1.x (may) ports back new technologies from tine when they where  
proven successfully there.
- Both activities decide on their own about new members, coding-
standards, and quality agreements.
- On both web-sites, we'll link each other in a friendly way, e.g. by  
aggregating the news feed of the other page.

We propose to freeze this state for about half a year, before we  
continue to discuss about project politics. Hopefully then in a kind  
and friendly manner.

We feel, that continuing the discussions don't lead to any valuable  
result. So this is our last attempt. If it fails we will take the Tine  
effort out of the egroupware.org project.

cu
Lars, Thomas, Matthias and Conny

 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
eGroupWare-core mailing list
eGroupWare-core@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-core
Ralf Becker Ralf Becker
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal for the relationship between egw1.x and Tine 2.0

In reply to this post by Cornelius Weiss-4
Hi Lars, Thomas, Matthias and Conny and all other eGW devs & users,

greetings from down under :-)

"Cornelius Weiss" <[hidden email]> schrieb:
> Hi devs,
>
> After a hard period (again) of flameing and fighting, we want to make  
> a proposal to solve the situation(s).
>
> In our view the current state is the following:
> - The majority of egw devs and users don't want to continue this ugly  
> flame war.

I wonder how it got started, if noone wanted it ;-)

> - On the other hand, also nobody wants to have the votes conny proposed.
> - No one wants to drop (not even lars or conny) egw 1.x
> - Also a big majority don't want to drop Tine 2.0 out of the  
> egroupware.org project.

Everyone might have it's own opinion which of the last two have the "bigger
majority" supporting it. Definitely both have some support from developers
and maybe also from users. I don't think claiming the bigger support will
serve any purpose, if one seeks an agreement!

> So here is, what we  propose:
> - Lets have two emancipated codelines within the framework of the  
> egroupware.org project.
> - Both activities share the same goal, to provide great collaboration  
> software based on free and open sources.
> - If possible, both activities agree on common technical standards and  
> implement them in a compatible way
> - Tine cares for smooth migration paths from egw to tine
> - eGW 1.x (may) ports back new technologies from tine when they where  
> proven successfully there.

This sounds like a one-way to me, meaning brand new technologies implemented
in eGW like the stream wrapper vfs system or the new admin_cmd objects get
not considered for Tine and shared innovation can only come from the Tine
side. I hope you can understand, that's hardly acceptable for me.

> - Both activities decide on their own about new members, coding-
> standards, and quality agreements.
> - On both web-sites, we'll link each other in a friendly way, e.g. by  
> aggregating the news feed of the other page.

I think that friendly way need some clarifications: so far I perceived most
of the Tine marketing as based on your perception of deficits in eGroupWare.
I have problems to imagine friendly relationships, if these kind of
statements persist.

We would also need a clear and not abused (!) way how both parts communicate
their relationship to the press, without claiming superiority and "being the
or a possible future" for the other part.

> We propose to freeze this state for about half a year, before we  
> continue to discuss about project politics. Hopefully then in a kind  
> and friendly manner.

As this proposal is not in agreement with the admin decision from December,
which has now constitutional status, there need to be a vote (with 2/3
majority) to implement it. I just state that here, to tell what needs to be
done, not to say it can't be or it should not.

Without a satisfying solution / answers to my points mentioned above, I
personally will NOT support or vote for this proposal. I also have some
problems to put trust in your statements and your will to keep them. Sorry
to say, but that's how I fell about it.

> We feel, that continuing the discussions don't lead to any valuable
result.

I again wonder who started the discussion in the first place ;-)

> So this is our last attempt. If it fails we will take the Tine  
> effort out of the egroupware.org project.

That is of cause your right. It was Tine who wanted to be part of eGroupWare
and not the other way around.

Regards

Ralf

> cu
> Lars, Thomas, Matthias and Conny

--
-- eGroupWare Training & Support ==> http://www.egroupware-support.deOutdoor
Unlimited Training GmbH [http://www.outdoor-training.de]Geschäftsführer:
Ralf und Birgit BeckerLeibnizstr. 1767663 Kaiserslautern</pre>



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
eGroupWare-core mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/egroupware-core
Frank-D Frank-D
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Proposal for the relationship between egw1.x and Tine 2.0

Hi Ralf, Hi everybody (devs, users and other contributers ;-) ),

Ralf Becker-3 wrote
> - Tine cares for smooth migration paths from egw to tine
> - eGW 1.x (may) ports back new technologies from tine when they where  
> proven successfully there.

This sounds like a one-way to me, meaning brand new technologies implemented
in eGW like the stream wrapper vfs system or the new admin_cmd objects get
not considered for Tine and shared innovation can only come from the Tine
side. I hope you can understand, that's hardly acceptable for me.
The statement could sound like:
"Tine and eGW try to make their data and apps compatible whereever reasonable possible in order to allow migration and use of same code. Both projects will try to learn from the other projets experiences regarding technology and code. " One way to support this, would be to set up a cooperation-dev mailinglist.

An important thing would be of course to discuss if the wording is "Tine and eGW" or "eGW and tine" ;-)

Ralf Becker-3 wrote
> - On both web-sites, we'll link each other in a friendly way, e.g. by  
> aggregating the news feed of the other page.

I think that friendly way need some clarifications: so far I perceived most
of the Tine marketing as based on your perception of deficits in eGroupWare.
I have problems to imagine friendly relationships, if these kind of
statements persist.
We would also need a clear and not abused (!) way how both parts communicate
their relationship to the press, without claiming superiority and "being the
or a possible future" for the other part.
I agree. All official information in tine blogs and online available PEs on the website pointing out deficits of egw should be revised and altered together.
I stated before, that using the name of the other project on offical statements (like PEs, blogs etc) should not be allowed, I'll changed my opion to: Using the name of the other projects can only be done with the permission (this requires a review of the publication by admins) of the other project. Of course, if the admins feel they can trust the others not to abuse the name, they can allow the use without review, but that is up to them.
I think consequences for violating the rules should be defined by the project in prior to possible violations (just a broad outline), because trust maybe quite low at the moment.

Ralf Becker-3 wrote
As this proposal is not in agreement with the admin decision from December,
which has now constitutional status, there need to be a vote (with 2/3
majority) to implement it. I just state that here, to tell what needs to be
done, not to say it can't be or it should not.
Without a satisfying solution / answers to my points mentioned above, I
personally will NOT support or vote for this proposal. I also have some
problems to put trust in your statements and your will to keep them. Sorry
to say, but that's how I fell about it.
I think now it's time for an answer regarding the mentioned topics by Lars, Thomas, Matthias and Conny.
There don't need to be a vote. If 2 of the 3 admins agree to a proposal and Ralf stated he might, if the topics addressed can be settled, the old admin decision can be changed without a vote.
As everybody seems to agree, that further heated discussion, which will be the result of a new vote, will do no good, we should work on a agreement both Lars, Thomas, Matthias and Conny and the admins and the other devs of the project can agree to. If such an agreement cannot be made, imho the best alternative (instead of voting on different versions of a statement) would be to:

> So this is our last attempt. If it fails we will take the Tine  
> effort out of the egroupware.org project.
as proposed by Lars, Thomas, Matthias and Conny previously.

On the other hand, if there is one proposal, which seems to meet the needs of 2/3 of egroupware devs, but not 2/3 of admins, of course somebody has the constitutional right to call for a vote.

At the moment tine is the abbrevation for: "this is not egroupware" I don't know, if this might cause some irritation that one name of a project is part of the other name. I think if the other things can be sorted out, this point could be settled, too.

At last this things seems to get sorted ...

best regards to all (devs and ... ;-)

Frank



Loading...