|
List Info
Thread: 23 Dec 2007 meeting log
|
|
| 23 Dec 2007 meeting log |
 
United States |
2007-12-23 16:39:14 |
[13:03] <Dracos> ###################### MEETING BEGINS
######################
[13:03] * Dracos changes topic to 'Xaraya Development
meeting in progress'
[13:03] <Dracos> we have 3 topics on the agenda
today:
[13:03] <Dracos> 1. nls sites
[13:03] <Dracos> 2. logo
[13:03] <Dracos> 3. ddf dissolvement
[13:10] <Dracos> first up, nls sites
[13:10] * random suggests putting them out of their misery
[13:10] <Dracos> I agree
[13:11] <Dracos> I would like to see one unified
nls.xaraya.com site for
all the translators to work in
[13:14] <Dracos> this would also allow us tpo easily
install ferenc's
translation tool
[13:14] <Dracos> which seems very popular among those
who've used it
[13:15] <rodulfo> I agree for a number of reasons
[13:15] <Dracos> which are?
[13:16] <rodulfo> lack of maintenance: many nls
maintainers are long
disappeared, they have very old "news"
[13:16] <Dracos> true
[13:17] <rodulfo> the nls site should be a repository
of translated
material, not a mirror
[13:18] <Dracos> it would operate as a sandbox for the
translators, just
as the individual sites do now
[13:18] <rodulfo> any developer using xar (should)
understand English to
get support and read the manuals. I am not sure that Xaraya
targets an
"end user sale"
[13:18] <rodulfo> so no need to tell end users what
Xaraya is all about
[13:18] <Dracos> nls.xar wouldn't be a repository or a
mirror
[13:19] <rodulfo> at least, not at the level of detail
that currently
shows in the ns sites
[13:19] <Dracos> "end user" applies to
different people in different
contexts
[13:19] <Dracos> developers evaluating xaraya are end
users on xar.com
[13:20] <rodulfo> keeping nls as they are now does a
disservice to
Xaraya's image, I think
[13:20] <Dracos> agreed
[13:21] <rodulfo> and having one install of Ferenc's
tool also makes sense
[13:21] <random> (9:17:31 PM) rodulfo: keeping nls as
they are now does
a disservice to Xaraya's image, I think
[13:21] <random> +1
[13:23] <Dracos> yes, we should let intl communities
develop naturally
on their own sites, rather than attempt to incubate them
[13:23] <Dracos> ru has it's own site, even though
it's in the
xaraya.com domain
[13:24] <Dracos> it's not on our server, unlike all
the others
[13:24] <Dracos> we can manage dns records much more
easily than entire
sites
[13:25] <Dracos> if we even want to do that
[13:28] <rodulfo> anything else on this topic?
[13:28] <Dracos> I'm kind of waiting for others to
speak up
[13:29] <Dracos> if not, I'm sure there will be
replies when I post the log
[13:30] * Dracos waits another minute before moving on
[13:31] <Dracos> ok
[13:31] <Dracos> next is the logo
[13:33] * random suggests we adopt it already
[13:33] <Dracos> whcih version?
[13:33] <Dracos> I'm really liking the green/green
enclosure over the
original green/blue
[13:34] <random> I only looked at the original version
published
[13:34] <Dracos> I've added several variations since
the thread started
[13:35] <random> the long detailed sometimes contorted
thread yes
[13:35] <Dracos> http://ww
w.xaraya.com/~dracos/new_logo.html
[13:35] <random> as you know my opinion is based on
the idea that change
is good every now and then
[13:36] <Dracos> the last color variation is the one
I'm leaning toward now
[13:36] <random> and it's been a while since anything
in the look and
feel changed
[13:36] <Dracos> yes
[13:37] <Dracos> I want to improve how xaraya is
perceived
[13:37] <Dracos> first impressions last a long time,
and for us that is
xaraya.com
[13:39] <rodulfo> O like the last color variation over
all. I don't like
the form variation
[13:40] <rodulfo> somebody brought up how it looks
when reduced, did you
make that test?
[13:40] <Dracos> I have
[13:40] <rodulfo> I think it was part of the rational
in the articles
that jojo sent
[13:40] <rodulfo> then you're all set
[13:40] <Dracos> for very small sizes, the enclosure
is removed
[13:41] <Dracos> then the text is put on the right
side
[13:41] <rodulfo> vertical?
[13:41] <Dracos> meaning?
[13:42] <rodulfo> I'm sorry, I understood something
else, disregard
[13:43] <Dracos> I'm still playing with the size of it
in that
arrangement, though
[13:47] <Dracos> anything else on this topic?
[13:48] <random> how do we get to a decision here?
[13:48] <rodulfo> nope
[13:48] <random> this is one of these topics that
tends to get hashed
and rehashed
[13:48] <random> without any closure so to speak 
[13:49] <Dracos> agreed
[13:49] <Dracos> I haven't seen any explicit nays
[13:50] <random> it seems most ppl are positive to one
or the other versions
[13:50] <random> so perhaps it's just a question of
choosing the right
one at this point
[13:50] <rodulfo> I'm not sure us three should decide,
is there a way to
make a poll and secure that most regulars vote?
[13:50] <random> not sure, as I haven't followed the
details
[13:51] <rodulfo> maybe after the holidays?
[13:51] <random> why?
[13:51] <Dracos> most of the talk has centered around
the colors, not
the logo itself
[13:52] <Dracos> only jojo spoke about the form, in
that she doesn't
like the typeface
[13:52] <random> there are plenty of other ppl in this
room. they need
speak up
[13:53] <MrB_> no preference here
[13:53] <random> thx
[13:54] <Dracos> johnny is afk, I suspect jojo is
also
[13:55] <random> yes
[13:56] <random> to a degree I'm exaggerating, but I'm
trying to push
for a decision of sorts here
[13:56] <random> it's gratifying to see the response
to this topic on the ML
[13:56] <Dracos> yes
[13:57] <random> I think it therefore deserves not to
be delayed
[13:57] <random> as has happened in the past
[13:57] <Dracos> I don't see any concrete objections,
so I think the
decision is implicit
[13:57] <rodulfo> yes
[13:58] <Dracos> do we now need to decide which
variation to adopt?
[13:58] <rodulfo> I likew the last variation
[13:58] <random> at least a roadmap
[13:58] <random> set a deadline or something
[13:59] <Dracos> I can produce an image set this
coming week
[13:59] <Dracos> we can announce it for the new year
[13:59] <Dracos> but the theme will take more time
[14:02] <Dracos> anyone interested in helping get the
theme done?
[14:04] * random not a themer unfortunately
[14:04] <MrB_> same here
[14:04] <rodulfo> me neithe
[14:05] <Dracos> ok
[14:05] <Dracos> last topic, ddf dissolvement
[14:07] <Dracos> I agree with it, but I see the
problems in not having a
legal entity to operate under
[14:08] <rodulfo> why do you want it dissolved?
[14:08] <random> I think there are 2 issues here
[14:08] <random> past and future
[14:08] <random> the first is:
[14:08] <random> assuming we want to dissolve the DDF,
how is that to be
done?
[14:09] <random> I don't think the bylaws foresee it
for starters
[14:09] <Dracos> I don't either
[14:09] <random> there is likely a way
[14:09] <random> but I don't know how complicated this
would be
[14:09] * MrB_ has quit IRC (Quit: MrB_)
[14:09] * MrB_ has joined #devel
[14:09] <random> no offense but I'm not sure MrB can
just declare it
dissolved
[14:09] <Dracos> i suspect it has to do with new york
state law
[14:11] <Dracos> it could be as simple as sending a
letter to the state
declaring it dissolved
[14:11] <rodulfo> pls take me though why it should b
dissolved
[14:12] <Dracos> there's only one sitting board
member
[14:12] <Dracos> ddf conducts no business
[14:13] <Dracos> it's already defunct in every way
except for on paper
[14:13] <rodulfo> donations go there, don't they?
[14:13] <random> the DDF had a couple of flaws from
the outset. It
lacked insitutional processes to evlove in its membership
[14:13] <Dracos> afaik, we only have one donation
route: paypal
[14:14] <random> basically folks left and it was left
without a quorum,
strictly speaking
[14:14] <rodulfo> yes, and where does paypal route
tme?
[14:14] <Dracos> and everything about it was mingled
with xaraya
[14:14] <rodulfo> them*
[14:14] <random> it may well be that it is easier to
create a new entity
than to try and make DDF work
[14:14] <rodulfo> ah, that makes sense
[14:14] <random> but that is perhaps something that
needs to be evaluated
[14:15] <Dracos> yes
[14:15] <random> I am sort of verbalizing the idea
[14:15] <random> that an entity should be there
[14:15] <Dracos> and i beleive it's easier to create a
new entity in
other states, especially delaware
[14:15] <random> that's my opinion anyway
[14:15] <rodulfo> but then I would like to see the
item as "replacement
of DDF", instead of only dissolution, to avoid that
vacuum
[14:15] <Dracos> but if we form a new one, who would
run it?
[14:16] <random> right now all that we have is MrB's
suggestion to
dissolve it
[14:16] <random> the discussion has to flow from that
[14:16] <rodulfo> maybe ran by the team designated
leaders? Dracos and
Johnny?
[14:17] <Dracos> the ddf was intended to serve as an
umbrella for other
projects too, not just xaraya
[14:17] <Dracos> that never happened
[14:18] <Dracos> if we form a new one, I suggest it be
for xaraya (and
it's possible subprojects) only
[14:18] <rodulfo> I need to leave momentarily. I'd
like to see something
replacing DDF, not a headless xaraya
[14:18] <Dracos> fyi, drupal didn't have a legal org
until last year, I
think
[14:19] <rodulfo> form a formal and institutional
point of view, nto
that xar is necessarily out in the wild
[14:20] <Dracos> hte only real needs for an org are to
hold copyright
and handle money
[14:20] <Dracos> perhaps the ddf could be
reduced/reorganized to just
those purposes?
[14:20] <rodulfo> I am not familiar with Drupal. Xar
is a highly
centralized project by design, so that "center"
should be clearly
defined, IMHO
[14:21] <random> the problem I see with the DDF is its
bylaws Dracos
[14:22] <rodulfo> either that or replaced
[14:22] <random> unfortunately I think it is a bit
unwieldy
[14:22] <rodulfo> need to leave, bye
[14:22] <Dracos> and the bylaws need a quorum to
change, which isn't
possible
[14:22] <Dracos> so there's no escaping it
[14:22] <random> sort of a vicious circle yes
[14:23] <random> if the only reason(s) an org is
required
[14:23] <random> (and I'm not sure myself)
[14:23] <random> are copyright and money
[14:24] <random> then presumably that could be handled
through a nimbler org
[14:24] <random> equally well
[14:24] <Dracos> i think so, yes
[14:24] <random> or rather, without disadvantage to
the stakeholders
[14:25] <random> if I had to choose here and now
[14:25] <random> without a lengthy analysis of
pros/cons/benefits/risks
[14:25] <random> I'd say abandon the DDF and create
something new
[14:26] <random> imho anyway
[14:27] <Dracos> agreed
[14:27] <Dracos> but what about finding an exisitng
org?
[14:31] <Dracos> I didn't find one by a quick google
search, but that
doesn't mean something doesn't exist
[14:32] <random> you mean like FSF ?
[14:33] <random> seems to me that was looked at once
[14:33] <Dracos> yes, but smaller
[14:33] <random> tigris
[14:33] <Dracos> link?
[14:33] <random> I'm not well versed here
[14:34] <random> http://www.tigris.org/
[14:34] <Dracos> I think I saw that
[14:35] <Dracos> I don't think we fit the type of
projectthey focus on
[14:35] <random> this would likely be a topic for
further dicussion
[14:35] <random> MrB's proposal was to dissolve the
DDF
[14:35] <random> I don't see anyone saying no at this
point
[14:36] <Dracos> I don't knowoff hand... who own the
paypal account?
[14:36] <MrB_> I do
[14:37] <fcd_> part of the DDF was to avoid the
postnuke situation?
[14:37] <Dracos> perhaps, don't remember how exaclty
[14:38] <fcd_> by keeping one person from having
control of things like
the domain name
[14:38] <Dracos> yes, that's right
[14:40] <Dracos> perhaps I'm wrong about tigris...
midgard is there
[14:42] <fcd_> this might be an good read
ht
tp://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html to try
to understand
other peoples solutions to the same problem
[14:43] <Dracos> at one point there was talk of
joining ASF, but there
are lisense conflicts
[14:44] <Dracos> looks like ddf was modelled closely
on asf
[14:47] <Dracos> MrB, would you consider delaying the
dissolvement until
a replacement can be found/formed?
[14:48] <MrB_> not really
[14:48] <MrB_> I don't see anyone stepping forward
[14:49] <Dracos> is it even possible for johnny and I
to become board
members?
[14:49] <Dracos> so you can step down?
[14:50] <MrB_> the latter is independent of the first
[14:50] <MrB_> and yes, you can get voted on
[14:50] <Dracos> by whom?
[14:51] <MrB_> the ddf members
[14:52] <Dracos> most of which aren't around, are
unfindable, or
otherwise have no interest
[14:52] <MrB_> yes, no, yes
[14:53] <Dracos> so again, the ddf traps itself in
status quo
[14:53] <Dracos> when you say "no" on the
second, is there up to date
contact info for the members?
[14:53] <random> the4 same folks would have to vote to
dissolve the DDF
prtesumably
[14:54] <MrB_> pretty much, yes
[14:54] <Dracos> or change the bylaws
[14:55] <MrB_> formalities aside, no one is doing
stuff, period
[14:56] <Dracos> MrB, can you send me the bylaws so I
can review them?
[14:56] <MrB_> sure
[14:56] <Dracos> thx
[14:58] <random> would an uptake in DDF activity be
areason not to
dissolve it?
[14:58] <Dracos> i doubt it
[14:58] <random> then why bother to join the board?
[14:59] <MrB_> I had the same Q
[14:59] <random> Mrb?s argument is: nothing is going
on, so lets
dissolve it. if I understand correctly
[14:59] <random> so under that assumption
[14:59] <random> if there is activity it would be
worth saving?
[15:00] <Dracos> no, because the bylaws are flawed
[15:00] <MrB_> in theory, sure
[15:00] <random> my own argument was it was unwieldy
and inert
[15:00] * MrB_ has quit IRC (Quit: MrB_)
[15:00] * MrB_ has joined #devel
[15:00] * MrB_ has quit IRC (Quit: MrB_)
[15:00] * MrB_ has joined #devel
[15:02] <Dracos> I move that we move this back to the
mail list
[15:02] <random> careful there I think
[15:02] <Dracos> if a member vote is required for
dissolvement, then the
ddf may be headless until it can properly die
[15:03] <random> you're putting the question to the
public? not good I think
[15:03] <Dracos> no, the committer list
[15:03] <Dracos> imo, this should really be on the ddf
list, but that
would be whispering in a vacuum
[15:04] <random> for starters you could look into
joing the board, and
MrB could resign if he desires
[15:04] <MrB_> committer list was not that responsive
either
[15:04] <Dracos> that's why I want to review the
bylaws
[15:05] <random> I can give you a members list if you
need one. only
about a year old
[15:05] <Dracos> that would help
[15:05] <Dracos> does it include email addresses?
[15:07] <random> yes
[15:07] <Dracos> please
[15:07] * random will look for it
[15:08] <Dracos> I think this topic has been exhausted
for now
[15:08] <Dracos> I intend to push 1.1.4 out in the
next couple of days
[15:09] <random> cool
[15:10] <MrB_> I just want to make clear, I will
resign, regardless of
continuation
[15:10] <random> that's your right
[15:10] <Dracos> yep
[15:14] <Dracos> any other meeting business?
[15:17] <Dracos> ok
[15:17] <Dracos> ###################### MEETING ENDS
######################
_______________________________________________
Xaraya_devel mailing list
Xaraya_devel xaraya.com
http:
//xaraya.com/mailman/listinfo/xaraya_devel
|
|
| Re: 23 Dec 2007 meeting log |
United States |
2007-12-23 17:31:16 |
I was not able to attend the meeting, as mentioned in
advance, but hoped to
get there in anycase before it ended, given the meetings
held this year
these past few weeks have all gone for at least 4 hours.
I did get there, at about what is the halfway point usually
in the meeting,
and started to read back (i should have read it all but was
in a hurry on
my way out. I had seen that i was misquoted and wanted to
get my point in
the log, unknowing the meeting had ended).
For the record:
1. Yes, I objected to the logo contrary to what was in the
log, and had
mentioned it on IRC directly to dracos, and in the mailing
list. For it to
be taken up I wanted to at least see some scaled
representations of how it
might look in actualy use cases (apart from a draft graphic
on a website).
Obviously only a view and if out voted so be it, but my view
for the record.
2. Yes, I objected to the DDF being dissolved, if the bylaws
could be
practically changed to make it a useful working
organization. Preposted
prior to the meeting, a request on the commiter list
directly to Dracos, to
have my suggestion noted in the meeting, about how the
current DDF, wtih
adjusted bylaws could be used. I don't see it noted so here
it is:
I note that I probably won't be in the weekly meeting again
as it is right
in the middle of running around time for me early on monday
mornings.
However i noted a topic could be DDF so, I'd like to put my
say here in
advance.
I think this is a great opportunity to shift everything not
related
directly to code development, out to the DDF - the
promotion, the marketing,
the administration, website, copyright admin and so on, and
just leave the
coding and qa (anything else ?) in the Xaraya project. I
think this would be
a great way to free developers and focus on code, yet allow
those that
really want to help with marketing, documentation, website,
administration
and so on to do it without distracing the coders. I still
value the
marketing and promotional side for xaraya, and development
of a passionate,
and bustling community for the project as a whole. But it
shouldn't detract
from the code development - all year there has been, in
reality none in 1x
line, and only a few people working in 2x (marcel, marc).
Communications
of course for ddf/xaraya to top it off, but only coding/qa
in the xaraya
project.
I think we tried in the past, but no one wanted to run with
it at that
time.Maybe now is right? I think this could be a really an
exciting way to
get the coding distractions out of the way, have the DDF
look after things
that xaraya project needs, but doesn't want to handle. I
also think this
probably what might have originaly been intended with the
DDF or if not,
then should have been
ie DDF does the support, xaraya project does the coding and
both arms stick
to those areas rather trying to mix the management.
Then we could actually use the DDF list for all this and
keep committer
for commiter security issues, talk needed prior to public
release of code or
public decisions on code, or other necessary stuff that
should go here
Anyway, just my note for the meeting in case it comes up.
Jo
"Marty Vance" <marty.vancegmail.com> wrote in message
news:fkmo0b$gqm$1newton.xaraya.com...
> [13:03] <Dracos> ###################### MEETING
BEGINS
> ######################
> [13:03] * Dracos changes topic to 'Xaraya Development
meeting in progress'
> [13:03] <Dracos> we have 3 topics on the agenda
today:
> [13:03] <Dracos> 1. nls sites
> [13:03] <Dracos> 2. logo
> [13:03] <Dracos> 3. ddf dissolvement
> [13:10] <Dracos> first up, nls sites
> [13:10] * random suggests putting them out of their
misery
> [13:10] <Dracos> I agree
> [13:11] <Dracos> I would like to see one unified
nls.xaraya.com site for
> all the translators to work in
> [13:14] <Dracos> this would also allow us tpo
easily install ferenc's
> translation tool
> [13:14] <Dracos> which seems very popular among
those who've used it
> [13:15] <rodulfo> I agree for a number of
reasons
> [13:15] <Dracos> which are?
> [13:16] <rodulfo> lack of maintenance: many nls
maintainers are long
> disappeared, they have very old "news"
> [13:16] <Dracos> true
> [13:17] <rodulfo> the nls site should be a
repository of translated
> material, not a mirror
> [13:18] <Dracos> it would operate as a sandbox
for the translators, just
> as the individual sites do now
> [13:18] <rodulfo> any developer using xar
(should) understand English to
> get support and read the manuals. I am not sure that
Xaraya targets an
> "end user sale"
> [13:18] <rodulfo> so no need to tell end users
what Xaraya is all about
> [13:18] <Dracos> nls.xar wouldn't be a repository
or a mirror
> [13:19] <rodulfo> at least, not at the level of
detail that currently
> shows in the ns sites
> [13:19] <Dracos> "end user" applies to
different people in different
> contexts
> [13:19] <Dracos> developers evaluating xaraya are
end users on xar.com
> [13:20] <rodulfo> keeping nls as they are now
does a disservice to
> Xaraya's image, I think
> [13:20] <Dracos> agreed
> [13:21] <rodulfo> and having one install of
Ferenc's tool also makes sense
> [13:21] <random> (9:17:31 PM) rodulfo: keeping
nls as they are now does a
> disservice to Xaraya's image, I think
> [13:21] <random> +1
> [13:23] <Dracos> yes, we should let intl
communities develop naturally on
> their own sites, rather than attempt to incubate them
> [13:23] <Dracos> ru has it's own site, even
though it's in the xaraya.com
> domain
> [13:24] <Dracos> it's not on our server, unlike
all the others
> [13:24] <Dracos> we can manage dns records much
more easily than entire
> sites
> [13:25] <Dracos> if we even want to do that
> [13:28] <rodulfo> anything else on this topic?
> [13:28] <Dracos> I'm kind of waiting for others
to speak up
> [13:29] <Dracos> if not, I'm sure there will be
replies when I post the
> log
> [13:30] * Dracos waits another minute before moving on
> [13:31] <Dracos> ok
> [13:31] <Dracos> next is the logo
> [13:33] * random suggests we adopt it already
> [13:33] <Dracos> whcih version?
> [13:33] <Dracos> I'm really liking the
green/green enclosure over the
> original green/blue
> [13:34] <random> I only looked at the original
version published
> [13:34] <Dracos> I've added several variations
since the thread started
> [13:35] <random> the long detailed sometimes
contorted thread yes
> [13:35] <Dracos> http://ww
w.xaraya.com/~dracos/new_logo.html
> [13:35] <random> as you know my opinion is based
on the idea that change
> is good every now and then
> [13:36] <Dracos> the last color variation is the
one I'm leaning toward
> now
> [13:36] <random> and it's been a while since
anything in the look and feel
> changed
> [13:36] <Dracos> yes
> [13:37] <Dracos> I want to improve how xaraya is
perceived
> [13:37] <Dracos> first impressions last a long
time, and for us that is
> xaraya.com
> [13:39] <rodulfo> O like the last color variation
over all. I don't like
> the form variation
> [13:40] <rodulfo> somebody brought up how it
looks when reduced, did you
> make that test?
> [13:40] <Dracos> I have
> [13:40] <rodulfo> I think it was part of the
rational in the articles that
> jojo sent
> [13:40] <rodulfo> then you're all set
> [13:40] <Dracos> for very small sizes, the
enclosure is removed
> [13:41] <Dracos> then the text is put on the
right side
> [13:41] <rodulfo> vertical?
> [13:41] <Dracos> meaning?
> [13:42] <rodulfo> I'm sorry, I understood
something else, disregard
> [13:43] <Dracos> I'm still playing with the size
of it in that
> arrangement, though
> [13:47] <Dracos> anything else on this topic?
> [13:48] <random> how do we get to a decision
here?
> [13:48] <rodulfo> nope
> [13:48] <random> this is one of these topics that
tends to get hashed and
> rehashed
> [13:48] <random> without any closure so to speak
> [13:49] <Dracos> agreed
> [13:49] <Dracos> I haven't seen any explicit
nays
> [13:50] <random> it seems most ppl are positive
to one or the other
> versions
> [13:50] <random> so perhaps it's just a question
of choosing the right one
> at this point
> [13:50] <rodulfo> I'm not sure us three should
decide, is there a way to
> make a poll and secure that most regulars vote?
> [13:50] <random> not sure, as I haven't followed
the details
> [13:51] <rodulfo> maybe after the holidays?
> [13:51] <random> why?
> [13:51] <Dracos> most of the talk has centered
around the colors, not the
> logo itself
> [13:52] <Dracos> only jojo spoke about the form,
in that she doesn't like
> the typeface
> [13:52] <random> there are plenty of other ppl in
this room. they need
> speak up
> [13:53] <MrB_> no preference here
> [13:53] <random> thx
> [13:54] <Dracos> johnny is afk, I suspect jojo is
also
> [13:55] <random> yes
> [13:56] <random> to a degree I'm exaggerating,
but I'm trying to push for
> a decision of sorts here
> [13:56] <random> it's gratifying to see the
response to this topic on the
> ML
> [13:56] <Dracos> yes
> [13:57] <random> I think it therefore deserves
not to be delayed
> [13:57] <random> as has happened in the past
> [13:57] <Dracos> I don't see any concrete
objections, so I think the
> decision is implicit
> [13:57] <rodulfo> yes
> [13:58] <Dracos> do we now need to decide which
variation to adopt?
> [13:58] <rodulfo> I likew the last variation
> [13:58] <random> at least a roadmap
> [13:58] <random> set a deadline or something
> [13:59] <Dracos> I can produce an image set this
coming week
> [13:59] <Dracos> we can announce it for the new
year
> [13:59] <Dracos> but the theme will take more
time
> [14:02] <Dracos> anyone interested in helping get
the theme done?
> [14:04] * random not a themer unfortunately
> [14:04] <MrB_> same here
> [14:04] <rodulfo> me neithe
> [14:05] <Dracos> ok
> [14:05] <Dracos> last topic, ddf dissolvement
> [14:07] <Dracos> I agree with it, but I see the
problems in not having a
> legal entity to operate under
> [14:08] <rodulfo> why do you want it dissolved?
> [14:08] <random> I think there are 2 issues here
> [14:08] <random> past and future
> [14:08] <random> the first is:
> [14:08] <random> assuming we want to dissolve the
DDF, how is that to be
> done?
> [14:09] <random> I don't think the bylaws foresee
it for starters
> [14:09] <Dracos> I don't either
> [14:09] <random> there is likely a way
> [14:09] <random> but I don't know how complicated
this would be
> [14:09] * MrB_ has quit IRC (Quit: MrB_)
> [14:09] * MrB_ has joined #devel
> [14:09] <random> no offense but I'm not sure MrB
can just declare it
> dissolved
> [14:09] <Dracos> i suspect it has to do with new
york state law
> [14:11] <Dracos> it could be as simple as sending
a letter to the state
> declaring it dissolved
> [14:11] <rodulfo> pls take me though why it
should b dissolved
> [14:12] <Dracos> there's only one sitting board
member
> [14:12] <Dracos> ddf conducts no business
> [14:13] <Dracos> it's already defunct in every
way except for on paper
> [14:13] <rodulfo> donations go there, don't
they?
> [14:13] <random> the DDF had a couple of flaws
from the outset. It lacked
> insitutional processes to evlove in its membership
> [14:13] <Dracos> afaik, we only have one donation
route: paypal
> [14:14] <random> basically folks left and it was
left without a quorum,
> strictly speaking
> [14:14] <rodulfo> yes, and where does paypal
route tme?
> [14:14] <Dracos> and everything about it was
mingled with xaraya
> [14:14] <rodulfo> them*
> [14:14] <random> it may well be that it is easier
to create a new entity
> than to try and make DDF work
> [14:14] <rodulfo> ah, that makes sense
> [14:14] <random> but that is perhaps something
that needs to be evaluated
> [14:15] <Dracos> yes
> [14:15] <random> I am sort of verbalizing the
idea
> [14:15] <random> that an entity should be there
> [14:15] <Dracos> and i beleive it's easier to
create a new entity in other
> states, especially delaware
> [14:15] <random> that's my opinion anyway
> [14:15] <rodulfo> but then I would like to see
the item as "replacement of
> DDF", instead of only dissolution, to avoid that
vacuum
> [14:15] <Dracos> but if we form a new one, who
would run it?
> [14:16] <random> right now all that we have is
MrB's suggestion to
> dissolve it
> [14:16] <random> the discussion has to flow from
that
> [14:16] <rodulfo> maybe ran by the team
designated leaders? Dracos and
> Johnny?
> [14:17] <Dracos> the ddf was intended to serve as
an umbrella for other
> projects too, not just xaraya
> [14:17] <Dracos> that never happened
> [14:18] <Dracos> if we form a new one, I suggest
it be for xaraya (and
> it's possible subprojects) only
> [14:18] <rodulfo> I need to leave momentarily.
I'd like to see something
> replacing DDF, not a headless xaraya
> [14:18] <Dracos> fyi, drupal didn't have a legal
org until last year, I
> think
> [14:19] <rodulfo> form a formal and institutional
point of view, nto that
> xar is necessarily out in the wild
> [14:20] <Dracos> hte only real needs for an org
are to hold copyright and
> handle money
> [14:20] <Dracos> perhaps the ddf could be
reduced/reorganized to just
> those purposes?
> [14:20] <rodulfo> I am not familiar with Drupal.
Xar is a highly
> centralized project by design, so that
"center" should be clearly defined,
> IMHO
> [14:21] <random> the problem I see with the DDF
is its bylaws Dracos
> [14:22] <rodulfo> either that or replaced
> [14:22] <random> unfortunately I think it is a
bit unwieldy
> [14:22] <rodulfo> need to leave, bye
> [14:22] <Dracos> and the bylaws need a quorum to
change, which isn't
> possible
> [14:22] <Dracos> so there's no escaping it
> [14:22] <random> sort of a vicious circle yes
> [14:23] <random> if the only reason(s) an org is
required
> [14:23] <random> (and I'm not sure myself)
> [14:23] <random> are copyright and money
> [14:24] <random> then presumably that could be
handled through a nimbler
> org
> [14:24] <random> equally well
> [14:24] <Dracos> i think so, yes
> [14:24] <random> or rather, without disadvantage
to the stakeholders
> [14:25] <random> if I had to choose here and now
> [14:25] <random> without a lengthy analysis of
pros/cons/benefits/risks
> [14:25] <random> I'd say abandon the DDF and
create something new
> [14:26] <random> imho anyway
> [14:27] <Dracos> agreed
> [14:27] <Dracos> but what about finding an
exisitng org?
> [14:31] <Dracos> I didn't find one by a quick
google search, but that
> doesn't mean something doesn't exist
> [14:32] <random> you mean like FSF ?
> [14:33] <random> seems to me that was looked at
once
> [14:33] <Dracos> yes, but smaller
> [14:33] <random> tigris
> [14:33] <Dracos> link?
> [14:33] <random> I'm not well versed here
> [14:34] <random> http://www.tigris.org/
> [14:34] <Dracos> I think I saw that
> [14:35] <Dracos> I don't think we fit the type of
projectthey focus on
> [14:35] <random> this would likely be a topic for
further dicussion
> [14:35] <random> MrB's proposal was to dissolve
the DDF
> [14:35] <random> I don't see anyone saying no at
this point
> [14:36] <Dracos> I don't knowoff hand... who own
the paypal account?
> [14:36] <MrB_> I do
> [14:37] <fcd_> part of the DDF was to avoid the
postnuke situation?
> [14:37] <Dracos> perhaps, don't remember how
exaclty
> [14:38] <fcd_> by keeping one person from having
control of things like
> the domain name
> [14:38] <Dracos> yes, that's right
> [14:40] <Dracos> perhaps I'm wrong about
tigris... midgard is there
> [14:42] <fcd_> this might be an good read
> ht
tp://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html to try
to understand
> other peoples solutions to the same problem
> [14:43] <Dracos> at one point there was talk of
joining ASF, but there are
> lisense conflicts
> [14:44] <Dracos> looks like ddf was modelled
closely on asf
> [14:47] <Dracos> MrB, would you consider delaying
the dissolvement until a
> replacement can be found/formed?
> [14:48] <MrB_> not really
> [14:48] <MrB_> I don't see anyone stepping
forward
> [14:49] <Dracos> is it even possible for johnny
and I to become board
> members?
> [14:49] <Dracos> so you can step down?
> [14:50] <MrB_> the latter is independent of the
first
> [14:50] <MrB_> and yes, you can get voted on
> [14:50] <Dracos> by whom?
> [14:51] <MrB_> the ddf members
> [14:52] <Dracos> most of which aren't around, are
unfindable, or otherwise
> have no interest
> [14:52] <MrB_> yes, no, yes
> [14:53] <Dracos> so again, the ddf traps itself
in status quo
> [14:53] <Dracos> when you say "no" on
the second, is there up to date
> contact info for the members?
> [14:53] <random> the4 same folks would have to
vote to dissolve the DDF
> prtesumably
> [14:54] <MrB_> pretty much, yes
> [14:54] <Dracos> or change the bylaws
> [14:55] <MrB_> formalities aside, no one is doing
stuff, period
> [14:56] <Dracos> MrB, can you send me the bylaws
so I can review them?
> [14:56] <MrB_> sure
> [14:56] <Dracos> thx
> [14:58] <random> would an uptake in DDF activity
be areason not to
> dissolve it?
> [14:58] <Dracos> i doubt it
> [14:58] <random> then why bother to join the
board?
> [14:59] <MrB_> I had the same Q
> [14:59] <random> Mrb?s argument is: nothing is
going on, so lets dissolve
> it. if I understand correctly
> [14:59] <random> so under that assumption
> [14:59] <random> if there is activity it would be
worth saving?
> [15:00] <Dracos> no, because the bylaws are
flawed
> [15:00] <MrB_> in theory, sure
> [15:00] <random> my own argument was it was
unwieldy and inert
> [15:00] * MrB_ has quit IRC (Quit: MrB_)
> [15:00] * MrB_ has joined #devel
> [15:00] * MrB_ has quit IRC (Quit: MrB_)
> [15:00] * MrB_ has joined #devel
> [15:02] <Dracos> I move that we move this back to
the mail list
> [15:02] <random> careful there I think
> [15:02] <Dracos> if a member vote is required for
dissolvement, then the
> ddf may be headless until it can properly die
> [15:03] <random> you're putting the question to
the public? not good I
> think
> [15:03] <Dracos> no, the committer list
> [15:03] <Dracos> imo, this should really be on
the ddf list, but that
> would be whispering in a vacuum
> [15:04] <random> for starters you could look into
joing the board, and MrB
> could resign if he desires
> [15:04] <MrB_> committer list was not that
responsive either
> [15:04] <Dracos> that's why I want to review the
bylaws
> [15:05] <random> I can give you a members list if
you need one. only about
> a year old
> [15:05] <Dracos> that would help
> [15:05] <Dracos> does it include email
addresses?
> [15:07] <random> yes
> [15:07] <Dracos> please
> [15:07] * random will look for it
> [15:08] <Dracos> I think this topic has been
exhausted for now
> [15:08] <Dracos> I intend to push 1.1.4 out in
the next couple of days
> [15:09] <random> cool
> [15:10] <MrB_> I just want to make clear, I will
resign, regardless of
> continuation
> [15:10] <random> that's your right
> [15:10] <Dracos> yep
> [15:14] <Dracos> any other meeting business?
> [15:17] <Dracos> ok
> [15:17] <Dracos> ###################### MEETING
ENDS
> ######################
_______________________________________________
Xaraya_devel mailing list
Xaraya_develxaraya.com
http:
//xaraya.com/mailman/listinfo/xaraya_devel
|
|
| Re: 23 Dec 2007 meeting log |
United States |
2007-12-23 17:42:09 |
re: the possible logo change -- if indeed the logo and
xaraya.com theme
are changed -- I would think that doing so in concert with
(or
following) some news about the direction of the project (1.5
and 2.x)
would maximize the impact of the design/branding changes.
Or, in any
case, logo/design changes shouldn't *precede* other
meaningful news
about the project, as that might create the impression that
you're
painting a sinking ship. I would think it would make a
better
impression to release 1.1.4, and also post news about
development
decisions (1.5 vs 2.x), and *then* do the design/branding
changes. Or
do it all in concert. Perhaps? Maybe it's not important...
I dunno.
I still think the idea to change the logo seems abrupt and
unsupported
by any kind of consensus at all. It would seem odd for you
folks to put
so much time and effort into the project and then change the
logo on a
whim, with very little consensus. I know consensus requires
people to
speak up, and in some cases people might not care so much
about the
logo. I'm just saying I don't think the logo should change
only because
Dracos and one or two other people say so.
It's perhaps worth noting that Drupal has a logo that is
pretty
incomprehensible. It's a droplet with a face, but for the
longest time
I thought it was an alien. Sometimes it looks like a
gobstopper with
ski goggles. Drupal is a very popular CMS, so maybe logo
ambiguity is
not a huge problem. And the fact that Dracos' design might
look more
like an unmanned spy plane to some people, vs. a manta, is
perhaps not
an issue? Kinda looks like one of those CIA drones.
That's just an
example of what someone who isn't close to the project might
think...
something unanticipated like that. And the fact that the
existing logo
looks like a kite is perhaps not an issue? Ambiguity about
what the
existing logo represents is, after all, one of the reasons
Dracos
mentioned for changing it. So that's why I raise the issue.
Just
another reason why more voices might be good.
-Ryan
Marty Vance wrote:
> [13:03] <Dracos> ###################### MEETING
BEGINS
> ######################
> [13:03] * Dracos changes topic to 'Xaraya Development
meeting in progress'
> [13:03] <Dracos> we have 3 topics on the agenda
today:
> [13:03] <Dracos> 1. nls sites
> [13:03] <Dracos> 2. logo
> [13:03] <Dracos> 3. ddf dissolvement
> [13:10] <Dracos> first up, nls sites
> [13:10] * random suggests putting them out of their
misery
> [13:10] <Dracos> I agree
> [13:11] <Dracos> I would like to see one unified
nls.xaraya.com site for
> all the translators to work in
> [13:14] <Dracos> this would also allow us tpo
easily install ferenc's
> translation tool
> [13:14] <Dracos> which seems very popular among
those who've used it
> [13:15] <rodulfo> I agree for a number of
reasons
> [13:15] <Dracos> which are?
> [13:16] <rodulfo> lack of maintenance: many nls
maintainers are long
> disappeared, they have very old "news"
> [13:16] <Dracos> true
> [13:17] <rodulfo> the nls site should be a
repository of translated
> material, not a mirror
> [13:18] <Dracos> it would operate as a sandbox
for the translators, just
> as the individual sites do now
> [13:18] <rodulfo> any developer using xar
(should) understand English to
> get support and read the manuals. I am not sure that
Xaraya targets an
> "end user sale"
> [13:18] <rodulfo> so no need to tell end users
what Xaraya is all about
> [13:18] <Dracos> nls.xar wouldn't be a repository
or a mirror
> [13:19] <rodulfo> at least, not at the level of
detail that currently
> shows in the ns sites
> [13:19] <Dracos> "end user" applies to
different people in different
> contexts
> [13:19] <Dracos> developers evaluating xaraya are
end users on xar.com
> [13:20] <rodulfo> keeping nls as they are now
does a disservice to
> Xaraya's image, I think
> [13:20] <Dracos> agreed
> [13:21] <rodulfo> and having one install of
Ferenc's tool also makes sense
> [13:21] <random> (9:17:31 PM) rodulfo: keeping
nls as they are now does
> a disservice to Xaraya's image, I think
> [13:21] <random> +1
> [13:23] <Dracos> yes, we should let intl
communities develop naturally
> on their own sites, rather than attempt to incubate
them
> [13:23] <Dracos> ru has it's own site, even
though it's in the
> xaraya.com domain
> [13:24] <Dracos> it's not on our server, unlike
all the others
> [13:24] <Dracos> we can manage dns records much
more easily than entire
> sites
> [13:25] <Dracos> if we even want to do that
> [13:28] <rodulfo> anything else on this topic?
> [13:28] <Dracos> I'm kind of waiting for others
to speak up
> [13:29] <Dracos> if not, I'm sure there will be
replies when I post the log
> [13:30] * Dracos waits another minute before moving on
> [13:31] <Dracos> ok
> [13:31] <Dracos> next is the logo
> [13:33] * random suggests we adopt it already
> [13:33] <Dracos> whcih version?
> [13:33] <Dracos> I'm really liking the
green/green enclosure over the
> original green/blue
> [13:34] <random> I only looked at the original
version published
> [13:34] <Dracos> I've added several variations
since the thread started
> [13:35] <random> the long detailed sometimes
contorted thread yes
> [13:35] <Dracos> http://ww
w.xaraya.com/~dracos/new_logo.html
> [13:35] <random> as you know my opinion is based
on the idea that change
> is good every now and then
> [13:36] <Dracos> the last color variation is the
one I'm leaning toward now
> [13:36] <random> and it's been a while since
anything in the look and
> feel changed
> [13:36] <Dracos> yes
> [13:37] <Dracos> I want to improve how xaraya is
perceived
> [13:37] <Dracos> first impressions last a long
time, and for us that is
> xaraya.com
> [13:39] <rodulfo> O like the last color variation
over all. I don't like
> the form variation
> [13:40] <rodulfo> somebody brought up how it
looks when reduced, did you
> make that test?
> [13:40] <Dracos> I have
> [13:40] <rodulfo> I think it was part of the
rational in the articles
> that jojo sent
> [13:40] <rodulfo> then you're all set
> [13:40] <Dracos> for very small sizes, the
enclosure is removed
> [13:41] <Dracos> then the text is put on the
right side
> [13:41] <rodulfo> vertical?
> [13:41] <Dracos> meaning?
> [13:42] <rodulfo> I'm sorry, I understood
something else, disregard
> [13:43] <Dracos> I'm still playing with the size
of it in that
> arrangement, though
> [13:47] <Dracos> anything else on this topic?
> [13:48] <random> how do we get to a decision
here?
> [13:48] <rodulfo> nope
> [13:48] <random> this is one of these topics that
tends to get hashed
> and rehashed
> [13:48] <random> without any closure so to speak
> [13:49] <Dracos> agreed
> [13:49] <Dracos> I haven't seen any explicit
nays
> [13:50] <random> it seems most ppl are positive
to one or the other versions
> [13:50] <random> so perhaps it's just a question
of choosing the right
> one at this point
> [13:50] <rodulfo> I'm not sure us three should
decide, is there a way to
> make a poll and secure that most regulars vote?
> [13:50] <random> not sure, as I haven't followed
the details
> [13:51] <rodulfo> maybe after the holidays?
> [13:51] <random> why?
> [13:51] <Dracos> most of the talk has centered
around the colors, not
> the logo itself
> [13:52] <Dracos> only jojo spoke about the form,
in that she doesn't
> like the typeface
> [13:52] <random> there are plenty of other ppl in
this room. they need
> speak up
> [13:53] <MrB_> no preference here
> [13:53] <random> thx
> [13:54] <Dracos> johnny is afk, I suspect jojo is
also
> [13:55] <random> yes
> [13:56] <random> to a degree I'm exaggerating,
but I'm trying to push
> for a decision of sorts here
> [13:56] <random> it's gratifying to see the
response to this topic on the ML
> [13:56] <Dracos> yes
> [13:57] <random> I think it therefore deserves
not to be delayed
> [13:57] <random> as has happened in the past
> [13:57] <Dracos> I don't see any concrete
objections, so I think the
> decision is implicit
> [13:57] <rodulfo> yes
> [13:58] <Dracos> do we now need to decide which
variation to adopt?
> [13:58] <rodulfo> I likew the last variation
> [13:58] <random> at least a roadmap
> [13:58] <random> set a deadline or something
> [13:59] <Dracos> I can produce an image set this
coming week
> [13:59] <Dracos> we can announce it for the new
year
> [13:59] <Dracos> but the theme will take more
time
> [14:02] <Dracos> anyone interested in helping get
the theme done?
> [14:04] * random not a themer unfortunately
> [14:04] <MrB_> same here
> [14:04] <rodulfo> me neithe
> [14:05] <Dracos> ok
> [14:05] <Dracos> last topic, ddf dissolvement
> [14:07] <Dracos> I agree with it, but I see the
problems in not having a
> legal entity to operate under
> [14:08] <rodulfo> why do you want it dissolved?
> [14:08] <random> I think there are 2 issues here
> [14:08] <random> past and future
> [14:08] <random> the first is:
> [14:08] <random> assuming we want to dissolve the
DDF, how is that to be
> done?
> [14:09] <random> I don't think the bylaws foresee
it for starters
> [14:09] <Dracos> I don't either
> [14:09] <random> there is likely a way
> [14:09] <random> but I don't know how complicated
this would be
> [14:09] * MrB_ has quit IRC (Quit: MrB_)
> [14:09] * MrB_ has joined #devel
> [14:09] <random> no offense but I'm not sure MrB
can just declare it
> dissolved
> [14:09] <Dracos> i suspect it has to do with new
york state law
> [14:11] <Dracos> it could be as simple as sending
a letter to the state
> declaring it dissolved
> [14:11] <rodulfo> pls take me though why it
should b dissolved
> [14:12] <Dracos> there's only one sitting board
member
> [14:12] <Dracos> ddf conducts no business
> [14:13] <Dracos> it's already defunct in every
way except for on paper
> [14:13] <rodulfo> donations go there, don't
they?
> [14:13] <random> the DDF had a couple of flaws
from the outset. It
> lacked insitutional processes to evlove in its
membership
> [14:13] <Dracos> afaik, we only have one donation
route: paypal
> [14:14] <random> basically folks left and it was
left without a quorum,
> strictly speaking
> [14:14] <rodulfo> yes, and where does paypal
route tme?
> [14:14] <Dracos> and everything about it was
mingled with xaraya
> [14:14] <rodulfo> them*
> [14:14] <random> it may well be that it is easier
to create a new entity
> than to try and make DDF work
> [14:14] <rodulfo> ah, that makes sense
> [14:14] <random> but that is perhaps something
that needs to be evaluated
> [14:15] <Dracos> yes
> [14:15] <random> I am sort of verbalizing the
idea
> [14:15] <random> that an entity should be there
> [14:15] <Dracos> and i beleive it's easier to
create a new entity in
> other states, especially delaware
> [14:15] <random> that's my opinion anyway
> [14:15] <rodulfo> but then I would like to see
the item as "replacement
> of DDF", instead of only dissolution, to avoid
that vacuum
> [14:15] <Dracos> but if we form a new one, who
would run it?
> [14:16] <random> right now all that we have is
MrB's suggestion to
> dissolve it
> [14:16] <random> the discussion has to flow from
that
> [14:16] <rodulfo> maybe ran by the team
designated leaders? Dracos and
> Johnny?
> [14:17] <Dracos> the ddf was intended to serve as
an umbrella for other
> projects too, not just xaraya
> [14:17] <Dracos> that never happened
> [14:18] <Dracos> if we form a new one, I suggest
it be for xaraya (and
> it's possible subprojects) only
> [14:18] <rodulfo> I need to leave momentarily.
I'd like to see something
> replacing DDF, not a headless xaraya
> [14:18] <Dracos> fyi, drupal didn't have a legal
org until last year, I
> think
> [14:19] <rodulfo> form a formal and institutional
point of view, nto
> that xar is necessarily out in the wild
> [14:20] <Dracos> hte only real needs for an org
are to hold copyright
> and handle money
> [14:20] <Dracos> perhaps the ddf could be
reduced/reorganized to just
> those purposes?
> [14:20] <rodulfo> I am not familiar with Drupal.
Xar is a highly
> centralized project by design, so that
"center" should be clearly
> defined, IMHO
> [14:21] <random> the problem I see with the DDF
is its bylaws Dracos
> [14:22] <rodulfo> either that or replaced
> [14:22] <random> unfortunately I think it is a
bit unwieldy
> [14:22] <rodulfo> need to leave, bye
> [14:22] <Dracos> and the bylaws need a quorum to
change, which isn't
> possible
> [14:22] <Dracos> so there's no escaping it
> [14:22] <random> sort of a vicious circle yes
> [14:23] <random> if the only reason(s) an org is
required
> [14:23] <random> (and I'm not sure myself)
> [14:23] <random> are copyright and money
> [14:24] <random> then presumably that could be
handled through a nimbler org
> [14:24] <random> equally well
> [14:24] <Dracos> i think so, yes
> [14:24] <random> or rather, without disadvantage
to the stakeholders
> [14:25] <random> if I had to choose here and now
> [14:25] <random> without a lengthy analysis of
pros/cons/benefits/risks
> [14:25] <random> I'd say abandon the DDF and
create something new
> [14:26] <random> imho anyway
> [14:27] <Dracos> agreed
> [14:27] <Dracos> but what about finding an
exisitng org?
> [14:31] <Dracos> I didn't find one by a quick
google search, but that
> doesn't mean something doesn't exist
> [14:32] <random> you mean like FSF ?
> [14:33] <random> seems to me that was looked at
once
> [14:33] <Dracos> yes, but smaller
> [14:33] <random> tigris
> [14:33] <Dracos> link?
> [14:33] <random> I'm not well versed here
> [14:34] <random> http://www.tigris.org/
> [14:34] <Dracos> I think I saw that
> [14:35] <Dracos> I don't think we fit the type of
projectthey focus on
> [14:35] <random> this would likely be a topic for
further dicussion
> [14:35] <random> MrB's proposal was to dissolve
the DDF
> [14:35] <random> I don't see anyone saying no at
this point
> [14:36] <Dracos> I don't knowoff hand... who own
the paypal account?
> [14:36] <MrB_> I do
> [14:37] <fcd_> part of the DDF was to avoid the
postnuke situation?
> [14:37] <Dracos> perhaps, don't remember how
exaclty
> [14:38] <fcd_> by keeping one person from having
control of things like
> the domain name
> [14:38] <Dracos> yes, that's right
> [14:40] <Dracos> perhaps I'm wrong about
tigris... midgard is there
> [14:42] <fcd_> this might be an good read
> ht
tp://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html to try
to understand
> other peoples solutions to the same problem
> [14:43] <Dracos> at one point there was talk of
joining ASF, but there
> are lisense conflicts
> [14:44] <Dracos> looks like ddf was modelled
closely on asf
> [14:47] <Dracos> MrB, would you consider delaying
the dissolvement until
> a replacement can be found/formed?
> [14:48] <MrB_> not really
> [14:48] <MrB_> I don't see anyone stepping
forward
> [14:49] <Dracos> is it even possible for johnny
and I to become board
> members?
> [14:49] <Dracos> so you can step down?
> [14:50] <MrB_> the latter is independent of the
first
> [14:50] <MrB_> and yes, you can get voted on
> [14:50] <Dracos> by whom?
> [14:51] <MrB_> the ddf members
> [14:52] <Dracos> most of which aren't around, are
unfindable, or
> otherwise have no interest
> [14:52] <MrB_> yes, no, yes
> [14:53] <Dracos> so again, the ddf traps itself
in status quo
> [14:53] <Dracos> when you say "no" on
the second, is there up to date
> contact info for the members?
> [14:53] <random> the4 same folks would have to
vote to dissolve the DDF
> prtesumably
> [14:54] <MrB_> pretty much, yes
> [14:54] <Dracos> or change the bylaws
> [14:55] <MrB_> formalities aside, no one is doing
stuff, period
> [14:56] <Dracos> MrB, can you send me the bylaws
so I can review them?
> [14:56] <MrB_> sure
> [14:56] <Dracos> thx
> [14:58] <random> would an uptake in DDF activity
be areason not to
> dissolve it?
> [14:58] <Dracos> i doubt it
> [14:58] <random> then why bother to join the
board?
> [14:59] <MrB_> I had the same Q
> [14:59] <random> Mrb?s argument is: nothing is
going on, so lets
> dissolve it. if I understand correctly
> [14:59] <random> so under that assumption
> [14:59] <random> if there is activity it would be
worth saving?
> [15:00] <Dracos> no, because the bylaws are
flawed
> [15:00] <MrB_> in theory, sure
> [15:00] <random> my own argument was it was
unwieldy and inert
> [15:00] * MrB_ has quit IRC (Quit: MrB_)
> [15:00] * MrB_ has joined #devel
> [15:00] * MrB_ has quit IRC (Quit: MrB_)
> [15:00] * MrB_ has joined #devel
> [15:02] <Dracos> I move that we move this back to
the mail list
> [15:02] <random> careful there I think
> [15:02] <Dracos> if a member vote is required for
dissolvement, then the
> ddf may be headless until it can properly die
> [15:03] <random> you're putting the question to
the public? not good I think
> [15:03] <Dracos> no, the committer list
> [15:03] <Dracos> imo, this should really be on
the ddf list, but that
> would be whispering in a vacuum
> [15:04] <random> for starters you could look into
joing the board, and
> MrB could resign if he desires
> [15:04] <MrB_> committer list was not that
responsive either
> [15:04] <Dracos> that's why I want to review the
bylaws
> [15:05] <random> I can give you a members list if
you need one. only
> about a year old
> [15:05] <Dracos> that would help
> [15:05] <Dracos> does it include email
addresses?
> [15:07] <random> yes
> [15:07] <Dracos> please
> [15:07] * random will look for it
> [15:08] <Dracos> I think this topic has been
exhausted for now
> [15:08] <Dracos> I intend to push 1.1.4 out in
the next couple of days
> [15:09] <random> cool
> [15:10] <MrB_> I just want to make clear, I will
resign, regardless of
> continuation
> [15:10] <random> that's your right
> [15:10] <Dracos> yep
> [15:14] <Dracos> any other meeting business?
> [15:17] <Dracos> ok
> [15:17] <Dracos> ###################### MEETING
ENDS ######################
> _______________________________________________
> Xaraya_devel mailing list
> Xaraya_develxaraya.com
> http:
//xaraya.com/mailman/listinfo/xaraya_devel
>
>
--
Ryan Walker
www.WebCommunicate.net:
Insights and resources for effective websites.
_______________________________________________
Xaraya_devel mailing list
Xaraya_develxaraya.com
http:
//xaraya.com/mailman/listinfo/xaraya_devel
|
|
| Re: 23 Dec 2007 meeting log |
United States |
2007-12-23 18:24:04 |
jojodee wrote:
>
> For the record:
> 1. Yes, I objected to the logo contrary to what was in
the log, and had
> mentioned it on IRC directly to dracos, and in the
mailing list. For it to
> be taken up I wanted to at least see some scaled
representations of how it
> might look in actualy use cases (apart from a draft
graphic on a website).
> Obviously only a view and if out voted so be it, but my
view for the record.
If you requested to see scaled versions, then I missed it.
There is are
two smaller versions in the xartropics theme.
>
> 2. Yes, I objected to the DDF being dissolved, if the
bylaws could be
> practically changed to make it a useful working
organization.
The bylaws require a 50% quorum (perhaps 2/3, I can't recall
exactly) to
affect any change, be it dissolvement or changing the
bylaws. The DDF
originally had 36 lifetime charter members; I don't think
there is much
chance of getting 18 (or 24) of them to vote for anything at
this point.
But I'm going to attempt contacting them.
I doubt the bylaws address a situation like this (I'm going
to review
them as soon as I receive/find them). If they don't, the
DDF will be
perpetually stuck in a "clinically dead" state.
The only possible
loophole is for the board to make an executive decision in
the absence
of any member activity, which Marcel has done.
Does Xaraya need a legal entity for certain activities?
Probably.
Is the DDF achieving its stated goals? No.
Furthermore, is the DDF functional as it was designed? No.
Can it be made functional? Probably not.
If the answer to the last is "no", then the only
reasonable action is to
accept Marcel's executive decison. If the answer is
"yes", then further
discussion may be merited. The DDF has a sour taste for
many of its
members, so discussing its existence further is probably a
waste of time.
_______________________________________________
Xaraya_devel mailing list
Xaraya_develxaraya.com
http:
//xaraya.com/mailman/listinfo/xaraya_devel
|
|
| Re: 23 Dec 2007 meeting log |
United States |
2007-12-23 19:14:53 |
Ryan Walker wrote:
> re: the possible logo change -- if indeed the logo and
xaraya.com theme
> are changed -- I would think that doing so in concert
with (or
> following) some news about the direction of the project
(1.5 and 2.x)
> would maximize the impact of the design/branding
changes. Or, in any
> case, logo/design changes shouldn't *precede* other
meaningful news
> about the project, as that might create the impression
that you're
> painting a sinking ship. I would think it would make a
better
> impression to release 1.1.4, and also post news about
development
> decisions (1.5 vs 2.x), and *then* do the
design/branding changes. Or
> do it all in concert. Perhaps? Maybe it's not
important... I dunno.
I agree with this sentiment. There is a branch plan
floating around, it
just needs to be witten down and announced. There is a
series of
articles planned to introduce 2x, the first of which was
published a few
days ago.
>
> I still think the idea to change the logo seems abrupt
and unsupported
> by any kind of consensus at all. It would seem odd for
you folks to put
> so much time and effort into the project and then
change the logo on a
> whim, with very little consensus. I know consensus
requires people to
> speak up, and in some cases people might not care so
much about the
> logo. I'm just saying I don't think the logo should
change only because
> Dracos and one or two other people say so.
> It's perhaps worth noting that Drupal has a logo that
is pretty
> incomprehensible. It's a droplet with a face, but for
the longest time
> I thought it was an alien. Sometimes it looks like a
gobstopper with
> ski goggles. Drupal is a very popular CMS, so maybe
logo ambiguity is
> not a huge problem. And the fact that Dracos' design
might look more
> like an unmanned spy plane to some people, vs. a manta,
is perhaps not
> an issue? Kinda looks like one of those CIA drones.
That's just an
> example of what someone who isn't close to the project
might think...
> something unanticipated like that. And the fact that
the existing logo
> looks like a kite is perhaps not an issue? Ambiguity
about what the
> existing logo represents is, after all, one of the
reasons Dracos
> mentioned for changing it. So that's why I raise the
issue. Just
> another reason why more voices might be good.
At this point, I'm less interested in concensus than getting
Xaraya
moving again, getting more people involved, and cultivating
an active
community.
My opinion of the Drupal logo is that it's well reasoned and
executed,
but I always see it as having an evil sneer. Just by saying
that, it's
possible I have tainted everyone else's perception of the
Drop. Given
Drupal's popularity, either I'm alone in this or the merits
of their
product overshadows it.
Abstract designs accept the risk of a proportional amount of
misinterpretation or unintended identification. A rorschach
test is
based on this concept.
I know I can't eliminate this, I can only reduce it, and I'm
prepared to
accept that it *will* happen. The current logo has been
identified as:
- angelfish
- bird
- a section of the Sydney Opera House roof
- oven mitt
- mushroom
- Pengiun's (the Batman villain) hand
- crab's claw
- Klingon bird of prey
- hang glider
- Samurai helmet
That's just what my fiancee and her 9 year old daoughter
came up with in
5 minutes, I'm sure there are many more. As long as the new
logo is
(much) less open to interpretation, I'm happy. There are
ways we can
reinforce what the subject matter is intended to be. Before
someone
says the same can be done for the current logo, the problem
remains that
the current logo doesn't express much if anything about our
project:
it's a highly scalable, high contrast, very abstract manta,
which
satisfies the design goals set out for it.
>
> -Ryan
>
>
_______________________________________________
Xaraya_devel mailing list
Xaraya_develxaraya.com
http:
//xaraya.com/mailman/listinfo/xaraya_devel
|
|
| Re: 23 Dec 2007 meeting log |
United States |
2007-12-23 19:52:48 |
Marty
> The bylaws require a 50% quorum (perhaps 2/3, I can't
recall exactly) to
> affect any change, be it dissolvement or changing the
bylaws. The DDF
> originally had 36 lifetime charter members; I don't
think there is much
> chance of getting 18 (or 24) of them to vote for
anything at this point.
> But I'm going to attempt contacting them.
First, the DDF is what you as part of that group, started up
and it is
indeed a failure. The bylaws are unworkable due to the
membership
beaureucracy i posted about on the committer list - not just
this week, but
a number of years ago
Hoever - it seemes --- the bylaws are conveniently there to
be used when you
don't want something done, and conveniently disregarded by
when it is
convenient to do so. For years we had to have formal
elections for PMC and
voting, because the DDF bylaws required it - we went to
great detail to
ensure the requirements were met. When you came back to
xaraya - after being
away for years - and no history or contact with what had
been going on,
this stopped.
An example is how you got 'elected' this year in February,
by volunteering
yourself in a meeting as a candidate for management, that
few knew about,
and certainly none knew was the ONLY place as decided in
that meeting, that
they could put themself forward as a candidate for
'management'. Whether
anyone else would have put themselves forward is not a point
of issue.
There was a vote, yes on the private committer list, but
only for those
'candidates' that had volunteered in the meeting that no one
knew of
regarding the candidature. The whole process and DDF bylaws
were thrown away
then, and you were voted in without quorum, without any open
and fair
process according to bylaws.
So why did we have to go through all the process before?
Because the bylaws
demand it, but the above makes one wonder.
The DDF in it's last most recent reincarnation all voted
again to relect the
board and make DDF responsible for copyright support and to
redo the bylaws.
It was 99.99% preedicatable what would happen given that
everyone in the DDF
at that time bar a few had nothing to do with xaraya, were
never here.
Marcel was elected to manage it given he was the only member
here (miko was
in and out at that time).
Those bylaws were never reviewed. The thing is, if one
wanted to have more
DDF members, to participate, they could have been nominated
and added (so i
was told ) and never were and only the mythical 'members'
who were never
involved in xaraya for the most part, were ever allowed to
vote or have a
say. Certainly not the majority of any committers and
contributors to the
xaraya project.
There have been many opportunities to 'fix' the DDF by
letting others
participate, but it was never done it seems.
We had some progress in the Xaraya Project when we had some
structure and i
believe Xaraya was going through a normal lifecycle as a
project.
Unfortunately we didnt' see it through, and threw off what
structure we had.
We have one 'voted in manager' this whole last year minus
one month with no
structure at all left in reality, except a skeleton of
bygone days with the
web and lists. Certainly nothing new has happened the last
year except for
the code of marcel and marc in 2x, and talk of a new logo.
> Does Xaraya need a legal entity for certain activities?
Probably.
Definitely for many activities to be sucessful as a project,
and one that
people feel confident in.
> Is the DDF achieving its stated goals? No.
I agree definitely not, and it never can due to the bylaws
as is. However,
if it is 'practical', as i said in my post, then it would be
useful to
change them so it is useful, functional and can achieve
--wanted-- goals
that promote, excite and support a great project such as the
Xaraya one was
once and can be.
> Furthermore, is the DDF functional as it was designed?
No.
>
> Can it be made functional? Probably not.
I agree that the bylaws may be -- impractical -- to change.
It needs a
proper evaluation to see what is the more effective path to
go. DDF with
changed bylaws, or a new association with all the work that
entails. I would
vote that you do not have an input in this as i already know
the outcome
from your views previously, and on committers list. If you
are serious about
having DDF reviewed, get someone who objective about it in
the review
process, or has a more positive outlook than you.
> If the answer to the last is "no", then the
only reasonable action is to
> accept Marcel's executive decison. If the answer is
"yes", then further
> discussion may be merited. The DDF has a sour taste
for many of its
> members, so discussing its existence further is
probably a waste of time.
I disagree that it is a waste of time if it can save time
and money and
effort in the long run, and provide a useful structure for
us in the role i
suggested. There are hardly any members from the DDF that
are remotely
assocaited with the xaraya, and some that have never been,
and some that
popped in that never contributed anything to the code or
maintenance of the
project. Certainly not for years. So, what is it to you and
them, and
really not of consequence if you are all not interested and
not involved.
Legally of course it is, but then i gather this has not
worried some till
usefully presented now? It's how the origanisation is
structured, used, and
presented to it's members and the public that will count.
Overall, what matters is that the Xaraya project has a means
to effectively
setup a functional, useful entity to take care of all those
things most
people would realize needs an entity to effectively take
care of. Also, to
manage all the non-coding work away from the xaraya project
itself. The DDF
should be there to support the xaraya project by taking care
of everything
that is not coding (or qa). If the DDF is possibly that
carrier, and can be
changed to do that, efficiently and effectively with less
effort and
investment than starting a new one I would definitley go
with it. I know and
understand what it takes to start up new organizations.
As for Marcel he has done a lot of work for Xaraya and the
DDF - i know too
well the many hours put in with various aspects of running
the DDF and it's
requirements for the xaraya members when I was on PMC with
Marcel and Marc
and John. He can, and should be allowed to retire when he
wants.
Jo
_______________________________________________
Xaraya_devel mailing list
Xaraya_develxaraya.com
http:
//xaraya.com/mailman/listinfo/xaraya_devel
|
|
| Re: 23 Dec 2007 meeting log |
United States |
2007-12-24 00:19:32 |
Marty Vance wrote:
> [13:03] <Dracos> ###################### MEETING
BEGINS
> ######################
> [13:03] * Dracos changes topic to 'Xaraya Development
meeting in progress'
> [13:03] <Dracos> we have 3 topics on the agenda
today:
> [13:03] <Dracos> 1. nls sites
> [13:03] <Dracos> 2. logo
[snip]
I know I don't really have any amount of clout, nor should
my voice really
carry any sort of weight at this point so please take what I
say with the
requisite grain of salt. Anyway, being the fringe observer
that I am, I am
still having a hard time understanding how changing the logo
is going to
"inspire the community to act."
With all the things that could be done to reach out to the
community to
bring more people in, changing the logo seems rather
insignificant and
myopic. Of course there very well could a larger plan that
has yet to be
released to the public, or I suppose I could have missed the
detailed
roadmap that was posted. If that's the situation and this is
part of a
larger campaign with explicit milestones, my apologies.
However, it's all well and good that you want to change the
look and feel of
Xaraya (e.g., new them + logo) but, just painting the house
a new color
doesn't change the fact that the house needs repairing. What
else is there
besides a new theme? What's the plan for attracting more
developers? What's
the plan for managing the server(s)? What happens if the
main developers
(Marc, Marcel, Jojo, Michael V., Jason (,etc) leave which,
granted, doesn't
seem likely at this point but ... is there a plan? What kind
of promotion of
Xaraya is being planned beyond just making the site look
different? What is
being done to bring in new faces to the team? What is the
roadmap for 1.x ->
2.x. When is the EOL for 1.x? What about the fact that there
are now two
different bug tracking sites being used for tracking
features/bugs. Has any
thought been given to merging them? On the topic of bugs,
what is being done
to handle most of the bugs that haven't been touched in
>2 years..?
There are sooo many questions that are still unanswered -
things that, imho,
need answering way before thought is given towards laying
on a new coat of
paint. Throwing on a fresh coat of paint will only get you
so far without a
plan for repairing the house, and is a waste of time if you
have to replace
the exterior siding or decide to extend the walls outward
(forgive the
analogy - best I could come up with right now). How about
posting a roadmap
so that interested parties have an idea of when they can
expect the features
they are interested in to be available. Not only that but,
it lets people
know where the project is in the development process. Right
now it's a bit
of a vacuum with only those working directly on the project
having any real
sense of where it is at, and where it is going.
Again, I know that I have no real voice here anymore and I
apologize for
intruding. Though, I do hope that you can take time to at
least think about
what I've written (in spite of the fact that I have been
away for so long).
Thanks and best wishes,
--
Carl
_______________________________________________
Xaraya_devel mailing list
Xaraya_develxaraya.com
http:
//xaraya.com/mailman/listinfo/xaraya_devel
|
|
| Re: 23 Dec 2007 meeting log |
United States |
2007-12-24 00:31:28 |
Carl P. Corliss wrote:
> Marty Vance wrote:
>> [13:03] <Dracos> ######################
MEETING BEGINS
>> ######################
>> [13:03] * Dracos changes topic to 'Xaraya
Development meeting in
>> progress'
>> [13:03] <Dracos> we have 3 topics on the
agenda today:
>> [13:03] <Dracos> 1. nls sites
>> [13:03] <Dracos> 2. logo
>
> [snip]
>
> I know I don't really have any amount of clout, nor
should my voice
> really carry any sort of weight at this point so please
take what I say
> with the requisite grain of salt. Anyway, being the
fringe observer
> that I am, I am still having a hard time understanding
how changing the
> logo is going to "inspire the community to
act."
Oh, and on the topic of dissolving the DDF - which I'm
fairly ambivalent
about - what's your plan as a PMC member for handling the
copyrights, and
other duties that were previously under the domain of the
DDF? (that just
opens up another can of questions)...
Thanks!
--
Carl
_______________________________________________
Xaraya_devel mailing list
Xaraya_develxaraya.com
http:
//xaraya.com/mailman/listinfo/xaraya_devel
|
|
| Re: 23 Dec 2007 meeting log |
United States |
2007-12-24 00:44:19 |
"Marty Vance" <marty.vancegmail.com> wrote in message
news:fkn146$pd9$1newton.xaraya.com...
I guess we had to go through this again .
> The current logo has been identified as:
> - angelfish
>- bird
> - a section of the Sydney Opera House roof
...
> That's just what my fiancee and her 9 year old
daoughter came up with in 5
> minutes, I'm sure there are many more..
I'm guess it was some value to you to present this when
assessment is on the
the current proposed logo, right? In terms of feedback from
people on the
proposed logo, I didn't have to ask, it was offered. The
winning suggestion
so far of those offered (4 people of those that made
suggestions) compared
to the rest with one unique suggestion each. The winning
suggestion ? that
the proposed logo is either strangelly phallic, or resembles
a flying
phallus (all males that put these views forward) ;) (who
couldn't help to
post, it was funny ...)
> As long as the new logo is (much) less open to
interpretation, I'm happy.
I think you could be disappointed.
> There are ways we can reinforce what the subject
matter is intended to
> be. Before someone says the same can be done for the
current logo, the
> problem remains that the current logo doesn't express
much if anything
> about our project: it's a highly scalable, high
contrast, very abstract
> manta, which satisfies the design goals set out for
it.
To be serious, I really would like to see examples of scaled
graphics of the
current proposal, including use cases such as badges, mini
banners and such,
suitable for a variety of colour websites such as was posted
for the current
logo. I think that even if people didn't like the current
proposed logo,
such as I (the lettering seems amateurish, and the flying
humpback whale
although nothing wrong in itself seems unsuitable to me).
Seeing real
examples of usage are important as in the end the important
thing for me at
this stage of the project, is that is identifiably xaraya
(with or without
the wording), is actually useable where we want to use it,
and if possible
(subjective but controllable) that the first impression of
the observer is a
good one that is also associated with the xaraya project.
Ryan did mention about people speaking up and offering
opinion I wanted to
comment too:
Re drupal logo ...
> . It's a droplet with a face, but for the longest time
I thought it was
> an alien
lol, yes, I thought so too, an evil one. And, tbh it did
indeed affect my
perception of the project and whether to bother trying it (i
did but only
after others told me it was worth having a look).
> I know consensus requires people to speak up, and in
some cases people
> might not care so much about the logo.
One of the things i have noticed (here and elsewhere) is
that when there are
closed rooms or simiar, for decision making it is often
lively, and
sometimes firey among friends, but people are much more
inclined to say what
they really think, or believe, instead of holding back. They
are also less
likely to be taken off course by those that have not been
involved in prior
discussions. Of course there are always those concerned with
image, but
generally I think the discussion is very open this way and
more likely to
reach an an actionable outcome. Even with our xaraya
'closed' rooms
previously, they have been open to anyone that has wanted to
join the
project and contribute in one form or another, so it is a
matter of
perceptions again of open vs closed.
I guess on a public list there are a lot of reasons why
people may not
comment for one reason or another they don't like being put
on the line in
public, or worried about embarrasing themselves in public,
taking sides, and
being misintepreted (written text is really soooo open to
misinterpretation), being criticizied and so on. Then those
that can't be
bothered of course ;) So i'm really appreciative of people
like Ryan and
Jalal who do take the time to think about things and
comment. This is good
for the project.
It is however a pity that imho we have to discuss this logo
at all on this
dev list. Look at the meeting agenda for Xaraya Project ....
DDF, logo and
NLS site maintenance (that is another issue..)....what a
pity we couldn't
have a real 'dev' meeting again. I'd much rather see
development discussion
here about the code, planned innovations, great ideas from
the public for
the next version of Xaraya, people asking about how to code
an app or
integrate one with Xaraya, and so on. It becomes much more
pertinent I think
when we see the code progress in Xaraya over the last year
and the lack of
development direction. Ideally I'd like to take all this
logo talk away and
put it in a separate list devoted to all the support areas
of Xaraya .. such
as the DDF list. This is a Dev list - right (/me checks
again) ?
Jo
_______________________________________________
Xaraya_devel mailing list
Xaraya_develxaraya.com
http:
//xaraya.com/mailman/listinfo/xaraya_devel
|
|
| Re: 23 Dec 2007 meeting log |
United States |
2007-12-24 01:12:25 |
jojodee wrote:
> Marty
>
>
>>The bylaws require a 50% quorum (perhaps 2/3, I
can't recall exactly) to
>>affect any change, be it dissolvement or changing
the bylaws. The DDF
>>originally had 36 lifetime charter members; I don't
think there is much
>>chance of getting 18 (or 24) of them to vote for
anything at this point.
>>But I'm going to attempt contacting them.
>
>
> First, the DDF is what you as part of that group,
started up and it is
> indeed a failure. The bylaws are unworkable due to the
membership
> beaureucracy i posted about on the committer list - not
just this week, but
> a number of years ago
Not all members of the original group held the same opinion
or level of
interest regarding forming the DDF. This action was
primarily put
forward by only two of the original members, who happen to
be among
those who disappeared the earliest.
>
> Hoever - it seemes --- the bylaws are conveniently
there to be used when you
> don't want something done, and conveniently disregarded
by when it is
> convenient to do so. For years we had to have formal
elections for PMC and
> voting, because the DDF bylaws required it - we went to
great detail to
> ensure the requirements were met. When you came back to
xaraya - after being
> away for years - and no history or contact with what
had been going on,
> this stopped.
I returned after 20 months, and I did maintain contact on a
personal
level with some of Xaraya members. While I was gone, the
DDF suffered a
net loss of board members. When I returned, there was only
one.
>
> An example is how you got 'elected' this year in
February, by volunteering
> yourself in a meeting as a candidate for management,
that few knew about,
> and certainly none knew was the ONLY place as decided
in that meeting, that
> they could put themself forward as a candidate for
'management'. Whether
> anyone else would have put themselves forward is not a
point of issue.
>
> There was a vote, yes on the private committer list,
but only for those
> 'candidates' that had volunteered in the meeting that
no one knew of
> regarding the candidature. The whole process and DDF
bylaws were thrown away
> then, and you were voted in without quorum, without any
open and fair
> process according to bylaws.
Until months after that meeting, all Xaraya business was
conducted in
private. Those present at that meeting were andream, andyv,
bigteeth,
Dracos, ftb, jason, johnny, jojodee, MichelV, MrB, Rabbitt,
random...
most of the active devs at the time. MrB, being the only
DDF board
mamber in place at the time, called the vote to elect new
Xaraya
leadership, which you stated was a waste of time. Yes, I'm
reviewing
the log of that meeting as I write this. The bylaws state:
Section 6.6. Vacancies. Any vacancy, however occurring, in
any office or
any Project Management Committee may be filled by the Board
of Directors.
"Filled" is a vague term. It is arguable that
Marcel, as the only
sitting board member, had the right to simply appoint
project management.
>
> So why did we have to go through all the process
before? Because the bylaws
> demand it, but the above makes one wonder.
We went through those processes before because Xaraya still
had momentum
at the time.
>
> The DDF in it's last most recent reincarnation all
voted again to relect the
> board and make DDF responsible for copyright support
and to redo the bylaws.
> It was 99.99% preedicatable what would happen given
that everyone in the DDF
> at that time bar a few had nothing to do with xaraya,
were never here.
> Marcel was elected to manage it given he was the only
member here (miko was
> in and out at that time).
The bylaws require that there be a board meeting and a
member meeting
every 13 months. Mike hasn't been around for far longer
than that.
The bylaws also state that 1/3 of the members be present to
acheive
quorum, and a simple majority of those present is required
to pass a
vote. So, with 12 members present, 7 yeas are required to
pass
anything. I doubt 12 members could be scraped up to
participate in a vote.
>
> Those bylaws were never reviewed. The thing is, if one
wanted to have more
> DDF members, to participate, they could have been
nominated and added (so i
> was told ) and never were and only the mythical
'members' who were never
> involved in xaraya for the most part, were ever allowed
to vote or have a
> say. Certainly not the majority of any committers and
contributors to the
> xaraya project.
The bylaws were reviewed by some, possibly not by all
involved at the
time. Obviously no one saw the flaws in the bylaws before
they were
adopted, or even until recently.
>
> There have been many opportunities to 'fix' the DDF by
letting others
> participate, but it was never done it seems.
Once a quorum became impossible, any opportunity to fix the
DDF was lost.
>
> We had some progress in the Xaraya Project when we had
some structure and i
> believe Xaraya was going through a normal lifecycle as
a project.
> Unfortunately we didnt' see it through, and threw off
what structure we had.
> We have one 'voted in manager' this whole last year
minus one month with no
> structure at all left in reality, except a skeleton of
bygone days with the
> web and lists. Certainly nothing new has happened the
last year except for
> the code of marcel and marc in 2x, and talk of a new
logo.
There are two voted in managers, Johnny and myself. With at
most a
dozen active participants, it's unnecessary to have as much
structure as
required when 30 participants are involved. Part of a
normal project
lifecycle is the loss and replacement of active
participants. Xaraya
has lost far more than it ever replaced, and this fault is
shared by
everyone.
You're right, not much has changed in the last year (or
more). Who has
positively and consistently participated during this time?
We all know
Xaraya is in a similar state as it was 11 months ago, who
has put effort
into changing that? It's easier to maintain a healthy
project than to
breathe life back into an ailing one. This is the situation
Johnny and
I stepped into, and and we're trying. I can't speak for
Johnny, but the
level of apathy is getting exasperating. Almost every time
I post
something, I ask for (new) people to participate, but those
efforts have
produced little.
>
>
>>Does Xaraya need a legal entity for certain
activities? Probably.
>
>
> Definitely for many activities to be sucessful as a
project, and one that
> people feel confident in.
Drupal didn't have a legal entity around it until last year,
yet it's
just as old as Xaraya.
>
> > Is the DDF achieving its stated goals? No.
>
> I agree definitely not, and it never can due to the
bylaws as is. However,
> if it is 'practical', as i said in my post, then it
would be useful to
> change them so it is useful, functional and can achieve
--wanted-- goals
> that promote, excite and support a great project such
as the Xaraya one was
> once and can be.
Having now reviewed the bylaws, achieving the required
conditions to
enact any change is unlikely at best.
>
>
>>Furthermore, is the DDF functional as it was
designed? No.
>>
>>Can it be made functional? Probably not.
>
>
> I agree that the bylaws may be -- impractical -- to
change. It needs a
> proper evaluation to see what is the more effective
path to go. DDF with
> changed bylaws, or a new association with all the work
that entails. I would
> vote that you do not have an input in this as i already
know the outcome
> from your views previously, and on committers list. If
you are serious about
> having DDF reviewed, get someone who objective about it
in the review
> process, or has a more positive outlook than you.
>
>
>>If the answer to the last is "no", then
the only reasonable action is to
>>accept Marcel's executive decison. If the answer is
"yes", then further
>>discussion may be merited. The DDF has a sour taste
for many of its
>>members, so discussing its existence further is
probably a waste of time.
>
>
> I disagree that it is a waste of time if it can save
time and money and
> effort in the long run, and provide a useful structure
for us in the role i
> suggested. There are hardly any members from the DDF
that are remotely
> assocaited with the xaraya, and some that have never
been, and some that
> popped in that never contributed anything to the code
or maintenance of the
> project. Certainly not for years. So, what is it to
you and them, and
> really not of consequence if you are all not interested
and not involved.
> Legally of course it is, but then i gather this has not
worried some till
> usefully presented now? It's how the origanisation is
structured, used, and
> presented to it's members and the public that will
count.
>
> Overall, what matters is that the Xaraya project has a
means to effectively
> setup a functional, useful entity to take care of all
those things most
> people would realize needs an entity to effectively
take care of. Also, to
> manage all the non-coding work away from the xaraya
project itself. The DDF
> should be there to support the xaraya project by taking
care of everything
> that is not coding (or qa). If the DDF is possibly
that carrier, and can be
> changed to do that, efficiently and effectively with
less effort and
> investment than starting a new one I would definitley
go with it. I know and
> understand what it takes to start up new
organizations.
>
> As for Marcel he has done a lot of work for Xaraya and
the DDF - i know too
> well the many hours put in with various aspects of
running the DDF and it's
> requirements for the xaraya members when I was on PMC
with Marcel and Marc
> and John. He can, and should be allowed to retire when
he wants.
>
You appear to be the only person with a desire to save the
DDF. In my
opinion, Xaraya needs to first focus on gaining momentum,
and I think
exerting effort on legal entities is not a requirement for
that.
I'm not belittling the efforts of anyone, in Xaraya or the
DDF.
However, in the absence of anything DDF related happening in
more than a
year, and no prospect for that to change, dissolving it is a
reasonable
decision.
Marcel could have simply dissolved it without any notice,
however he
gave more than the required ambount (18 days, versus 15)
specified in
the bylaws.
_______________________________________________
Xaraya_devel mailing list
Xaraya_develxaraya.com
http:
//xaraya.com/mailman/listinfo/xaraya_devel
|
|
|
|