Hi Lars, Thomas, Matthias and Conny and all other eGW devs & users,
greetings from down under :-)
"Cornelius Weiss" <egw@...> 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
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
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.
> 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>