I think its not particularly useful and an I'm engine, because we have I'm anywhere. I'm surprised by the fact that it was yanked so close to a release.
I'm not surprised it happened. I am reserving my comments to see what happens next, as I fully expect there to be a next. What if I pull the code from cvs and contribute to it and add it back, does it then make it part of the open source release in its entirety? I think the whole I'm bot thing was ONLY useful for 3 things: Some one is calling me Someone left me a message Is scott on the phone or not The first 2 matters a little, the 3rd one makes a difference (to me) a little more. I thinks its ENTIRELY important to set expectations for ANY project. Right now the expectatuons were set, and Avaya changed them after the fact. If avaya wants to close source the entire project one assumes by the precedent they can do so at any point. It should have been handled better, and that in now way reflects how or what was said or done to try to prevent it. If someone inside the IP ladder at avaya is trying to fracture or kill the open source part of the project, they've taken a good first step toward doing so. On 4/1/10, Josh Patten <[email protected]> wrote: > This all seems like a bad April fools joke... > > I'm not mad at anyone, just a bit frustrated (understandably). > Fortunately I hadn't made any promises regarding the features of the IM > engine to anyone so I'm not having to save my own butt on anything, I'm > just hoping no one else made promises to their clientele about it. One > of the more important aspects to me of the IM bot features was the call > screening capabilities. I don't quite understand how that all worked but > I'd like to look into asking the dev guys here at my office to help > implement a feature code to get this feature back sans IM. The > discussion can be taken off list if need be. > > Josh Patten > Assistant Network Administrator > Brazos County IT Dept. > (979) 361-4676 > > > On 4/1/2010 8:33 AM, Josh Patten wrote: >> Since IM bot is being yanked would it be possible to implement feature >> codes for call screening? >> >> Josh Patten >> Assistant Network Administrator >> Brazos County IT Dept. >> (979) 361-4676 >> >> >> On 4/1/2010 8:24 AM, Josh Patten wrote: >> >>> Am I to understand that there will be no IM bot functionality in 4.2? If >>> that is the case then why even include the IM engine? This was one of >>> the main reasons I was looking forward to 4.2, namely the call screening >>> functionality. >>> >>> Without the IM engine the IM system is rather "ordinary" and could >>> easily be implemented without the aid of sipX AND be properly integrated >>> with LDAP. I am still taken aback that this completed feature is being >>> yanked. >>> >>> Josh Patten >>> Assistant Network Administrator >>> Brazos County IT Dept. >>> (979) 361-4676 >>> >>> >>> On 4/1/2010 8:02 AM, Alfred Campbell wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 4/1/2010 7:17 AM, Andy Spitzer wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Woof! >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 14:21:40 -0400,<[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> remove sipximbot from the public repository and sipX build >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> And so it begins. Anyone care to comment on the reason for this? >>>>> >>>>> "The Avalanche has begun. It's too late for the pebbles to vote." >>>>> - The Vorlon Ambassador, Babylon Five >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --Woof! >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Business decisions being made with respect to content and the commercial >>>> offering is all. >>>> >>>> This should have been communicated ahead of time and we will need to do >>>> a better job of that going forward. Reality is as the project matures >>>> there will be more content that we only put in the commercial offering. >>>> This doesn't mean there won't be anymore open source content. The >>>> business folks at Avaya believe there is a need to have a difference in >>>> content between the open source and commercial offering. We can debate >>>> that premise however it won't change anything. Believe me when I tell >>>> you its all been debated... >>>> >>>> The one thing I am sorry about with this content is we never should have >>>> made it available IF we were going to end up removing it. >>>> >>>> On a positive note really hoping we can release 4.2 soon. Just working >>>> out some last bugs. When this query hits zero you should see an open >>>> source release: >>>> http://track.sipfoundry.org/secure/IssueNavigator.jspa?reset=true&jqlQuery=project+%3D+XX+AND+priority+in+%28Blocker%2C+Critical%29+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+AND+fixVersion+%3D+%224.1.7%22+ORDER+BY+key+DESC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] >>>> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev >>>> Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev >>>> sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] >>> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev >>> Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev >>> sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/ >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] >> List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev >> Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev >> sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/ >> > _______________________________________________ > sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] > List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev > Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev > sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/ > -- Sent from my mobile device ====================== Tony Graziano, Manager Telephone: 434.984.8430 Fax: 434.984.8431 Email: [email protected] LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk: Telephone: 434.984.8426 Fax: 434.984.8427 Helpdesk Contract Customers: http://www.myitdepartment.net/gethelp/ Why do mathematicians always confuse Halloween and Christmas? Because 31 Oct = 25 Dec. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
