I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I do not completely understand your point Daniel. It is not the first time the Foundation is supporting a project. I have many times said that we will try and help people or organizations that have an idea that is in the general interest of MMBase. Of course I always add a few obligations: the result MUST be open source (MPL) and available for everyone.
The package manager was developed as part of the MMBased project you ran, when you were still at Submarine. There was a huge budget thanks to external funding, Submarine, Kennisnet, VPRO. And the Foundation supported the project. That didn't mean the Foundation was the initiator of the project, nor checking any lines of code, nor telling you what to do. Just supporting the initiative because I thougt it was (is) a good initiative. The same goes for MMBob. Several organizations helped and/or spent money to make this forum open source. Now I would like to support a project on workflow. A project that was initiated by some users, because they don't want the divergency on crucial CMS-functions to widen, as is the case now. That is not some-ones fault or mistake, no one ever said that, it just happened over the years. In between the 'functionality' of content management systems in general became more clear. And also the commercial partners have an interest in offering some more out of the box basic functionality as they have to compete with systems that have. The Foundation represents many users and technical partners, so it would be very strange if I would not support an initiative that is widely considered to be necessary. The idea was to propose to the MMC to make this an MMBase project. By the way, I think it is a bit strange we are debating and (pre)voting even before the plan is even seen. I think that should be the other way round. Regards, Jo. MMBase Foundation E: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T: +31 (0)35 6288088 M: +31 (0)6 53292887 >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Daniel Ockeloen >Sent: woensdag 9 maart 2005 11:03 >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [Developers] Debate on MMBase (Dutch only) > > > >On Mar 9, 2005, at 8:45 AM, Jo Lahaye|MMBase Foundation wrote: >> >> However the answer is very simple and in the first lines of the mail >> you are >> returning to me. We will (soon start to) work on a framework for >> workflow, >> versioning and some other functionalities. The initiative comes from >> some >> end-users that have seen to much divergence in their applications and >> wil be >> supported by some technical partners and the Foundation. This will be a >> project within the guidelines of MMBase. The MMC was informed, I've >> stated >> this several times and Hessel Rosbergen explained another time on the >> developersmeeting at Ordina (You might have missed that one Erik). > >Why didn't these parties use the normal structure we have in place, >flowcontrol was discussed several >times but they never formed a group. Also the mmc doesn't need to be >informed its they who start a project >when asked and agree on. I don't mind the foundation helping setting up >things it should not do (development) but with >all the discussion we are having on how to grow the developers >community and how to be more open its us >(the developers) who need to learn from the mistakes we made in the >past and this is not helping us in learning >why they didn't follow the normal route. > >Flowcontrol is a good example, the parties involved know there are >mixed feelings that _need_ to be hashed out by >the commitors these issues won't go away by regrouping in a smaller >setting. > >Changes are you will gain negative votes once votes are asked for. > >Ive been following the patent wars of late and it seems veto'ing to >make sure our normal way of working doesn't get confused is the >in thing today :). > >It would be helpful for these parties to help us define a new way of >working with eachother something nearly all the commitors are trying >todo by redesigning ourselfs (and its costing us alot of private time i >might add) instead of seperating themselfs this way. Might i remind the >foundation that to this date non of these sub-group deals have resulted >it code added to the cvs we currently hold. > >If these is anything i have personally learned its better to make alot >of small steps with the community than trying to make several large >steps by >yourself. frameworks need to evolve inside 'us' not presented to us >(and yes i do hint at the packagemanager, something i have been >fighting myself over >with myself for more than a year now). > >I hope the partners involved reconsider opening the discussion also >with us the developers, the one creating the product. > >Greetings, > >Daniel Ockeloen. > >_______________________________________________ >Developers mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers > _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
