Robert Kropiewnicki writes:
> I've spoken definitively to no such thing. What Ken Jones will do now
> that he has been granted admin access (bravo Tom!) is not at the core of
> my argument. My argument is that he has done enough in the past for
> vpopmail development to warrant his inclusion as an admin.
I disagree with you there. What Ken did in the past prior to the
last six months is sufficient to get him many mentions and many praises.
And if he had continued doing the same in the past six months then he
would still be project leader. It is those past six months, and the
responses from Inter 7 in the past few days, which are critical.
I give you a preview of the next UK Olympics Selection Committee
A: who are we going to select for the 1500 metres?
B: I suggest Roger Bannister. He was the first person to run
the mile in under 4 minutes. He has a proven track record.
C: *groan* Bad pun!
D: I want to know how he has performed recently. Surely that is
B: It doesn't matter how he has performed recently. What matters
is that he used to be the best!
E: Do any of you bozos know that Roger Bannister is DEAD?
B: That doesn't matter. What matters is that he once broke an
important world record. Therefore we should select him.
> Many of the projects I spoke about in terms of personal experience had
> more to do with internal infrastructure projects. Actually, it was
> projects for external paying clients that would often be the reason they
> were put on hold. With any business, the needs of the paying clients
> come first.
You said it. With Inter 7, as long as people keep paying them to install
vpopmail BECAUSE they have their name on the project, their motivation in
times of difficulty will be to divert resources to paying clients and let
vpopmail development go unattended for six months. In fact they DID
let vpopmail development go unattended for six months and only paid
attention to it once more when it appeared that the Inter 7 name would
no longer be listed as its developer.
If it takes that to motivate them into paying attention to this list then
they are NOT good candidates for an admin position. Because if they can
delete the other admins then we return to a situation where vpopmail
development is a lower priority than Inter 7's paying customers and can
be neglected for half a year at a time.
> For the most part I can agree with this argument. If Ken were going to
> have complete and total administrative control again to the exclusion of
> Tom, I would completely agree with this argument.
As I understand Tom's assessment of things, if Ken has equal powers
to Tom then Ken can kick Tom out. As I understand the mail from the
Cat, that is something I consider to have a significant probability of
> However, as it stands right now, Ken and Tom are both listed as
Can one administrator delete the other administrators? Can one
administrator copy the whole CVS tree then delete it? As I understand
it, Tom's only defence against a sneak attack of that nature is to
maintain his own local CVS tree (which is a pain).
Would Inter 7 do anything like that to re-assert the brand ownership
of vpopmail so that they continue to be the first port of call for people
who have problems and are willing to pay for answers? I don't know. But
after the Cat's catty mail and Ken's equivocating mail I cannot deny the
possibility. That may be grossly unfair to Inter 7, but they are the ones
who control what they did and what they wrote, not I. If what they did and
wrote causes me, and many others, to distrust them then that is their
If I needed urgent support, so urgent that paying an outside consultant
were warranted, then Tom would be top of my list and Inter 7 would be
the very bottom, just below the option of selling my soul to the devil
for an answer. The position of Inter 7 on my list is absolutely nothing
to do with anything that Tom has done and everything to do with what Inter
7 have failed to do for six months and have done for the past few days.
As a user of vpopmail, I am no longer happy with an Inter 7 involvement of