Hello Daniel, just a few additional lines. In my opinion there really is no difference between the situations. And if a project is accepted by the MMC, we are talking about a project "within". At least, if I understand the rules correctly. What you are explaining in your reply to me, might be one of the major challenges MMBase is facing. Principally I don't think it matters if functionality comes from within or not. I would argue that as long as it is in the interest of MMBase as a whole, well coded, documented, MPL, etc. We shoulkd just take advantage of the functionality offred. The committers (mmc) can than upgrade their ambitions for the next release. But that is of course your decision, not mine. 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 13:10 >To: Discussion list for developers >Subject: Re: [Developers] Communication on this list /workflow etc.. > > > >On Mar 9, 2005, at 12:38 PM, Jo Lahaye|MMBase Foundation wrote: > >> 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 question is why don't they talk to the developers first like i did >with my projects... >> >> 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. > >All opensource is supported in one way by people with money since we >also want to >eat. None of my projects was started by the companies you quote they >where supported >by them. All of them where made avaliable to the community as soon as >possible as a result >both the package manager and the mmbob have been in shared cvs for a >long time open for >comments and within the rules shared for changes. > > >> 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. > > >Sure my aim is more at the ones starting this, why did they stop >talking to the people who >develope (their peers) : > >quote : 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 > >If we want more developers then the 3 or 4 people who now commit to the >core, the partners should stop making >so much code (and alot is programmed trust me) without sharing at the >earliest stage possible. > >> >> The same goes for MMBob. Several organizations helped and/or spent >> money to >> make this forum open source. > >indeed helped as in pushed to make it go faster but it was and is >something that is based on the MPL from >the start not at some stage in the game. Ive been very direct in >allowing people to sponser me and others to >work on it (as is normal in opensource) but never talked about 'we' the >sponsers of the project to have control its >the MPL in control. > > >> >> 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. > > >Its not the task of us as long as i am involved with it to extend the >product in ways >that commercial partners have a interest in offering as a extra ontop >we want a better >product under the MPL license. If they share this view they should help >us by explaining >to us why the developers community was not enough to get this party >started. I am in no >way saying the foundation should not support where it can but it should >be in a supporting >role to help projects that originate from within. > > >> >> 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. > >Well sorry you feel you are under attack, If the techincal partners >feel they only need to >be represented by the foundation they have problem. At best the >foundation can support >us and them but its the commitors they should be talking to why the >projects where stopped and >what mistakes we made that resulted in this. > >> >> 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. >> > >Well maybe the above quote explained by you explained the reason for >the reaction, I am not >voting on anything just wondering why they stopped talking to us and >pleeding to them todo so >and use the developers as the platfiorm for development and not the >foundation. > > >Daniel. > >_______________________________________________ >Developers mailing list >Developers@lists.mmbase.org >http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers > _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list Developers@lists.mmbase.org http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
