> The whole "board" concept was to provide a financial base for the > distribution. That failed, multiple times.
I think that we are offering a financial base, in a sense. :-) > Having patches refused and modified is a normal part of development. As long > as those discussions were openly tracked in Bugzilla, I think it's perfectly > reasonable to come to the decision that you need to fork individual > components for your use This, again, is normal. Ideally those forks would be > available in the contribs repository to simplify a merge at some later stage > if others felt your changes in direction were correct. The forked packages are available in our repositories and, in patch form, in bugzilla. > However, I am concerned that a wholesale rewrite of so many components has > been done and it will simply not be possible to reverse that without a huge > effort. I don't want to sound bold, but if everybody agrees that changes are needed we will obviously make our part of the job. We want a good product. >> But the discussion that took place in the close Board mailing list led >> us to think that a new effort to further develop sme was doomed to >> failure. > That is quite sad, but I understand this view. I think you should completely > ignore the failure of the board (and any attempts to do such again) and > concentrate on the technical aspects. That's what we did: we developed NethServer. We planned to share it with this community much earlier, but I was sidetracked by other problems while development continued. I'm sorry for my mistakes, I'm listening to every suggestion or complaint, trying to fix the errors. I really appreciate your comments, thank you Gordon. -- Ciao, Filippo _______________________________________________ Discussion about project organisation and overall direction To unsubscribe, e-mail [email protected] Searchable archive at http://lists.contribs.org/mailman/public/discussion/
