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

[Dave Hall]

On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 10:26 +0200, Mailings - Christian Boettger wrote:
>  Hi,
> 
> > From: Dave Hall [mailto:address@hidden 
> > Subject: Re: [Phpgroupware-developers] Communication ... again (was
PHPDoc
> s for head)
> 
> > On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 10:31 -0400, Alan Langford wrote:

> 
> > 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 :)
> 
> Apart from the math... 

No lets look at the math, not on this list, but I am happy to discuss
the math with anyone who would seriously consider being the patron of a
great groupware suite.

> If we don't find a sponsor in the sense the one
> Ubuntu found, any "normal" sponsor will like to have a say in
development
> plans etc. So I guess there will be discussion about a hostile
take-over etc

Yes, sponsor was a poor choice of words.  I would suggest an ubuntu
style patron would be more appropriate.  At the same time I think I can
make a strong case for the business plan I have in the mountain of paper
which is one part of the fire hazard which is my office :)

I would not support a take over of the project.  Also I am happy to be a
gun for hire, but I can't be bought off - as you well know Christian
(btw I am not suggesting probiz have attempted to buy me off)

I would like someone who shares a common vision to put some serious
resources into the project.  For those of you who are interested I have
already locked in some capital from people who wish to fund my ideas.
That said these are purely commercial arrangements between myself and my
clients.  I think something broader is needed.


> > Major work is required in most areas, it is actually 
> > depressing to look at the code base and list everything.  
> 
> ACK

Sometimes I can imaging the 1990s calling and asking for their groupware
implementation back - (Queer Eye viewers will get it :P)

> 
> > Some of it is fundamental design flaws, which can't be fixed 
> > quickly.  
> 
> So true, sadly.
> 
> > Some "competing" projects have hoped that some eye candy will
distract
> people from the flaws.
> 
> Well, the prblem is: it actually works. People seem to expect software
to be
> exactly like that when they have use M$ "long enough". :-(
> eGW and OpenGroupware are rather widespread, at least over here in
Germany.
> And mainly because they actually look nice and look like they can be
used
> easily. (Note: this NOT a statement about the code quality of either
of
> these projects, AFAIK OpenGroupware has a rock solid code base in
addition
> to the looks!)  

I think most people know which project I am referring to.  btw from what
I have heard and seen OGW.o isn't fabulous, but it does somethings
nicely - pity it is written in Objective C.

> 
> Developers like writing good, interesting code with heaps of features
and
> functionalities. Users don't want to know about that, they just want
to do
> some, mostly very few, things. Decision makers should have a good look
at
> both sides of the coin, but tend more and more to only look at the GUI
> look&feel.

Well yes this is a reality we must face.  At the same time we should not
be as conservative as a bean counter.  We should push what is possible.
My desktop template was an attempt at this, it failed due to lack of
time and inadequate CPU power.  I think in the next 12-18mths it will be
possible to do it properly.  I am not in the process of redesigning it
(as in code wise).  The fixed version in cvs is a first attempt at this.

> 
> So: the basic idea to add some "eye candy" is NOT bad. It's actually
very
> necessary. We may dislike this, but who cares?

Hey I am all for eye candy.  The more GNOME-ish phpGW looks all the
better I say :)  We need to make the WebGUI rich, attractive and
implement quality current technology.  We have some JS code which only
supports IE4+ and NN4 - It is 2005 people !

> 
> > 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.
> 
> We don't have them at the moment. Anyone willing to pay for that
amount of
> work (and for exactly these tasks) (whether by putting in own
resources or
> by paying the current developers) will want to influence the
development
> plans etc. So we are back to the "hostile takeover" thing.

Maybe within your organisation.  Let me paint a scenario for people.

You run XYZ Services.  Your business is providing solutions to clients.
You have people saying we want this that the other.  phpGW now might do
70% of it.  Now you can have a back room hacker put together the other
30% of a certain cost.  Now if phpGW did 90% of the work you could have
the same backroom hacker working on your mods and developing features
which grow your business rather than hacking in the stuff people want.
I know that deadlines and client budgets usually dictate that you
implement an internal hack rather than a quality solution.

You may say we have done XYZ's backroom hacker out of a job, but I don't
think so.  I think we have given them a more efficient platform to build
upon.  So they can actually deliver more for less.  So instead of XYZ
having to tell clients the lead time of Xmonths.  They can reduce the
lead time and send some of the cost savings the project's way.

XYZ would put their money in on the basis of supporting the project's
clear roadmap.  

I don't think we need many XYZs to make this a reality.

There does not need to be a trade off between the project's goals and
their commercial interests, I think there is a lot of scope for the
coming together quite nicely.

> 
> No easy solution here.

Life isn't easy :)

You can always go to the dentist after being kicked in the teeth.
Alternatively you might actually end up surprising yourself.

> 
> > Lack of agreement.  There are too many people who want to run their
own
> race.
> 
> As in any "community project"? Or: too few people really putting an
effort
> in working *together* and not just side-by-side or against each other.
> 
> Whatever. It a voluntary effort. People are welcome for want they are
> willing to contribute. In this situation it's no good in critizing the
> contributors for what they are not willing or able to contribute;
otherwise
> they just leave and the total number of contributions is lower than
before.

I am not saying we should criticise people for not putting in 200% (or
even 50%).  I would prefer a large group of volunteers than a smaller
bunch of people who run themselves in to the ground.

> 
> > 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.
> 
> Basic change: get more developer power. All else can be looked after
> afterwards.

But with the fundamental flaws most decent developers will look at our
code base and look for greener pastures.

> 
> > Now I have a young son so my family and my bank balance are 
> > more important to me.
> 
> Very understandable. As stated above: this is a voluntary effort. I
think:
> noone has to justify himself. Everyone has his own reasons for
constributing
> just the amount he does. 

s/himself/themselves :P
s/him/him\/her :P

> Contributions are welcome. Pressing for more than
> is given voluntarily is counterproductive as it will just demotivate
people.

I am not asking anyone who is actively contributing to put in more than
they are now.  What I am saying is that we need to get those who get
something from the project to put something back.  I am not asking for
donations or hand outs either.  I am offering a pretty attractive deal,
we will give you something useful, so cough up :)

> 
> BTW: the thing with the bank balance has to be taken into account over
here
> (probusiness) as well. From the beginning aand for every step.

I know.  I was just pointing out that I am now keeping an eye on my
income stream.  I think phpgw can be profitable, maybe Jens should call
me ;)

> 
> > 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.
> 
> Could you elaborate a bit more on who else apart from coders have to
show
> commiment, how it could be showns and in which way it would help?

Everytime there is a spat on the lists we get people who never post
posting.  I don't mind them jumping in.  I would like to see them be
involved or drive the general discussions more.  Looking back through
the archives the project looks pretty stagnant, but there is actually a
fair bit happening behind the scenes.

> 
> Are you thinking about people writing handbooks and docs, maintaining
the
> wiki and website and such? Yes, those people would be very welcome.

ACK! :)

I have CC'd the user list, as I think this discussion is also relevant
there.  As this is a broader community issue, I would encourage people
to move to that list to continue this discussion.

Cheers

Dave