Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] Communication ... again (was PHPDoc s for head)

[Dave Hall]

Hi Alan,

On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 10:31 -0400, Alan Langford wrote:
> At 2005 04 27 23:19, Alfonso Guerra wrote:
> >Greetings,
> ><snip>
> 
> Maybe Alfonso won't be reading this. I bet he will. Whatever.

10EUR says he will, otherwise there is no point in posting, he like
<insert-name/> does things for a response.  

> 
> Rant-like attitude aside, he makes some points worthy of discussion. I 
> migrated from eGW as well, partially because of the license, but largely 
> because I asked about contributing to an eGW module, got a response that 
> was worthy of a politician (many words, zero content), pressed my point, 
> was accused of having a bad attitude (since when is asking "is there a 
> specification and a project plan?" a bad attitude?), and bailed on the 
> project despite the fact that it's got some nice features that pgpGW 
> doesn't have (yet).

I know a few people in similar positions to yourself, many of them never
aware that eGroupWare is a fork of phpGW.

I try to be pretty upfront, if I think you are an idiot, you will know
about it.  If you want help and I have some time you will get the help
you need.

>  I'll freely admit that I too have considered just going 
> in and making changes and creating "my" branch. This is partially because I 
> might be duplicating effort (there is little way to tell) and partially 
> knowing that the odds of having those changes embraced are slim, since they 
> might step on some undocumented plan discussed in IRC, or they might 
> violate some unwritten philosophical principle.
> 

I for one (and I think there are others) who would be interested in
hearing your ideas and plans.

> But Alfonso is dead wrong about open source. Competing forks are good 
> things in the end; eventually a few will come to dominate, and then the 
> best features will migrate into the dominant products. It's a messy 
> process, but competition is evolution, and evolution is messy. 

IMHO evolution is nice, I think we can learn a lot from Ximian/Novell's
product :)

> It also 
> takes time, and developers aren't known for their patience. If you can't / 
> won't contribute or wait, or if you don't have the conviction to argue that 
> your changes are worthy, then maybe an extensible commercial product is a 
> better option.
> 
> One thing is clear to me though. Really successful OSS projects have strong 
> supporting infrastructure. At this point in OSS evolution, this usually 
> means the project has a single corporate sponsor with a strategic motive or 
> a profit motive, and that motive focuses the project (for example 
> eclipse.org). But that's not always the case; some times there's a strong 
> individual who can put all of his or her efforts into it (the Linux kernel 
> would be a good example here).

phpGW has grown as a grassroots FOSS project.  I would love it for
someone with deep pockets to step in and offer to sponsor the project,
but for that to happen there would need to be some very serious
negotiations.  Side note: I have done some math on it :)

> 
> This is what projects that suffer from forking, and from 
> single-implementation dialects seem to be missing: Some kind of clear set 
> of goals, objectives, time lines (even if they are subject to ongoing 
> revision), an easy way to look at features that have been suggested and 
> their status (new, approved (with a target release and estimation of effort 
> required), rejected (with detailed rationale so people can learn)), an easy 
> way to make a small contribution, documentation that makes it easier to do 
> a little bit of work without becoming an API guru, frequent commits, clear 
> targets for releases... in other words a lot of stuff developers would 
> rather not do when there's code to be written!

There are several reasons why phpGW doesn't have this.

Major work is required in most areas, it is actually depressing to look
at the code base and list everything.  Some of it is fundamental design
flaws, which can't be fixed quickly.  Some "competing" projects have
hoped that some eye candy will distract people from the flaws.

Lack of resources, 4 part time coders doesn't make a viable project when
the code base is this large.  I think we need a minimum of 4 coders
working full time on the project, with an agreed development plan.

Lack of agreement.  There are too many people who want to run their own
race.

> 
> Every project I've worked on from time to time has a couple of guys who 
> just can't resist taking shots at each other. Any imperfection by one gets 
> a nasty remark in response. Every possible solution requires some 
> interpretation and evaluation, and of course the other guy always makes an 
> inferior choice. It's a great ego-fest to them, but merely distracting and 
> tedious to the rest. In the end it's just noise and if it's discouraged, it 
> goes away sooner or later. We just need to keep stepping in and saying 
> "have your pissing match in private, please", or worst case, moderate the 
> messages out and remove their audience. We have a bit of that now and man 
> is it dull reading.

For me Kai has shitted me from day 1, and I have tried to get over it,
but it just isn't possible.  Sorry for the noise but it is just the way
it is.

> 
> Let's not forget that phpGW is a pretty cool product, and something the 
> contributors can be extremely proud of. 

I think it has the potential to be this, but this is almost the middle
of 2005.  We need to make some pretty radical changes if we are to stay
relevant.

> Sure there's lots of work to do, 
> lots of features to add, and bugs to fix. 

Have a quick look at savannah and you will see that.

> Maybe nobody as the time, tools, 
> or inclination to step up and manage the development more aggressively 
> (before anyone jumps on this, please note I'm talking about managing the 
> project, not managing the people -- these are vastly different things). But 
> the project has come a hell of a long way without that kind of effort, and 
> there's nothing to say that it won't continue to do so. 

I think you will find a lot goes on which isn't always obvious on the
surface.  I have spent 3 years working on the project.  That doesn't
mean I have generated as much code as I would have liked, but I think I
have tried to keep a good balance and the interests of the project as
the priority.  Now I have a young son so my family and my bank balance
are more important to me.

> I can understand 
> Alfonso's frustration, but posting a diatribe and running away is hardly 
> useful. It's also not useful to just discount what he was trying to say, 
> just because he said it in an inappropriate way. Better to adapt, evolve, 
> and just stay focused on producing better software.

I think a lot of us know where Alfonso is coming from, but I think his
attitude meant we all switched off.

phpGW can be great again, but it will take more than a few emails, it
will take months of solid work.  It will take heated discussions.  It
will take a real commitment from everyone, not just the handful of
active coders.

I would love to see this happen, but lets not kid ourselves about the
work involved.

Cheers

Dave
-- 
Dave Hall (aka skwashd)
API Coordinator
phpGroupWare
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think if Bill Gates got laid in high school, do you think there'd 
be a Microsoft?  Of course not.
Underwear Goes Inside The Pants by Lazy Boy