Topic: SME Community - Poll - should we have a formal structure?

[girkers]

It is great to see that some new people are taking an interest in this topic.  Like this thread was viewed over 150+ times since my last post, but we have only had 9 more votes and 3 posts.

It is great that it is generating so much interest, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.  Yes people generally agree on what needs to be done, but how are we going to get started.

My question as to if we can use contribs.org or not is still outstanding and I [personally] feel that this is pivitol point before going forward.  Please folks correct me if I am wrong.

It is great debating the points of this structure or that, but from what I have read most (read nearly all) agree that we need a leader and then a comittee of people and an executive.  When should we start nominations?

[Buddha_Joe]

there is another part of this discusion happening on the discussion-mailing list..

Here is a link to the most recent thread.. please keep in mind no descions have been made yet, this is all just a discussion. Try not to read to much into it.

http://lists.contribs.org/mailman/public/discussion/msg00316.html

[dave_d]

Errr .... Harking back to Buddha's signature that 'the only stupid question is the one never asked', can someone enlighten me as to exactly what 'contribs.org' is and why it's so important that it continue?

I had always thought that it was just a domain that someone owned and it got hosted by whoever happened to be the 'owner' of SME server today or by whichever kind soul was feeling generous towards orphan server systems.  However, reading into some of the posts it appears that 'contribs.org' may have a deeper meaning.  If it's just a domain then surely it doesn't matter what it's called as long as those that need it can find it (I know folk don't like change, but that's not the point).  If, on the other hand, contribs.org has a deeper meaning I would like to know what it is! Does hosting 'contribs.org', for instance, give the hoster (?) any sway over the system?  Is the hoster the owner of the system.

Please excuse my ignorance in these matters, but when one has to dip in and out of a situation because of pressures of other work, these things cause confusion!!!

Regards,

Dave

[Buddha_Joe]

lol.. I'll try to answer your question by summarizing.

someone please correct me if I am wrong here.

The crux of the situation appears to center around your questions..

As I understand it Mitel actually owns the code and released a version of it to the community at large via the GPL.. Contribs.org is an effort to continue to support and develop community based release. RSI (Jeff Coleman)  took on the role of steward for the community and provided this domain name and server space.

There are some that feel since that time there has been no coherent structure to the community or development process and that attempts to organize have been stymied and as well as questions regarding ownership of the communities data (wether this is real or imagined is another story) . the current goings are are an effort to change that by implementing a structure that has clearly defined processes and goals for the future development of SME. This also includes effectively communicating these goals to the rest of the community at large.

Hope that help some.. again if any one sees any factual errors plaese correct them.

[wallyrp]

Good Evening,

Let's not forget the forums. One of my reasons for keeping contribs.org in the hands of the community instead of some <adjective> company is because of the forums. I still have yet to get an explanation as to who owns the forums. The forums is a huge knowledge base that I refer to time and time again to do things with SME. Some of the older how-to's that apply to 4.x and other versions still point me down the right road to fix things. I've been using SME since it was version 3.x.

So, if someone were to start another website other than contribs.org, could they get the forums? Here's another idea, since the forums are such a fluid asset when it's beneficial to certain folks, why can't we put them on a <adjective> CD and sell them as some kind of knowledge base that provides monies to the "community."

[Buddha_Joe]

Jeff Kind of explained this a bit on the mailing list at one point, And when you think about it, it makes sense.

Contribs.org holds rights to the actual compilation of forum posts but not the posts themselevs... The posts themselevs belong to their individual authors who are free to do as they will with their individual contributions to the forum.

as an example, take a publisher who puts out a book containing several works by Shakespear.. while they do not own the copyrights to shakesspear's works, they do however have rights to that particular book that they published. The same applies here.

As such who ever is acting as steaward for the community is under no obligation to make the current compilation available in a portable format. But as stewards to a community work there is an implied promise that the work will always be made publicly available.

Part of the concerns of some is that while this promise was implied it was never explicitly stated (or maybe just not stated clearly enough), and for what ever reason  ( I don't have all the details, but I don't think they are neccessary for this particular explanation) a lack of trust developed in RSI's stewardship of this content.

As far as making the content available on CD is concerned, you have to go back to the fact that each post is copyrighted by it's author. There is the implied consent of these authors to use there works and make them available only in their current medium of the online forum. To make them available on a CD would be publishing these works in a diffrent medium and just to protect contribs.org and or it's stewards from liability would require recieving permission from each of these authors individualy to produce such a CD.

At least that's how I understand it.

[guest22]

I guess there is no immediate need anymore to go into full technical or theoratical details.

Ruffdogs informed the community about their 'transition plan' and the publishing of the 'community contract'.

To me would be important that this 'community contract' would include:
- Positive community and Open Source attitude
- Pro-active 'management' of the site's health
- Contribs.org domain name, DNS record and site need be consideren as 'The Community site".
- Clear site policy
- 1 or 2 pro-active community members as 'Site management commitee members'

So maybe it is wise to hand over some tips to Ruffdogs, so they can take that into account and see if it matches their capabilities of what they are prepared to offer.

guest

[Buddha_Joe]

Those are some of the issues currently being discussed and worked out now with the work being done on the social contract.

[wallyrp]

Good Morning,

I understand your response, I understand the plan of the transfer to Ruffdogs, and I understand the copyright stuff, to a point, surrounding the posts. I know I'll never get a complete answer but I just can't understand how things can be moved from company to company but they can't be given to someone that is trying to start another website about SME. It appears that the forums are an exclusive asset of contribs.org and they only can do any transfers to any other website.

Oh well, beside that, I'm excited about the Ruffdogs taking over. It appears from what I've seen that Ruffdogs is an above board operation. I'm not implying anything but my point is that they would definitely include the community before just up and handing off the site to another company.

[Buddha_Joe]

Good Morning,
... I just can't understand how things can be moved from company to company but they can't be given to someone that is trying to start another website about SME. It appears that the forums are an exclusive asset of contribs.org and they only can do any transfers to any other website.

You are correct here in s very real legal sense. The Contribs.org domain name, website, and compilation of forum posts is an asset. even if it was owned by a non-profit organization this would still be true. The only thing that makes it community property perse is the promise to keep the information publicly available for free, the social contract in this case.

I'm not implying anything but my point is that they would definitely include the community before just up and handing off the site to another company.

I know the Lycoris stuff was a surprise, but I want to make sure you are aware that in this instance, RSI was publicly approached by Ruffdogs on the disscusion mailing-list. However, I do understand what are you trying to say and I don't think that you will see a repeat of that.

[dave_d]

Cor!!! Things are moving fast at the moment, eh?

Anyway, I , for one, approve of the Ruffdogs move.  To me it's better to have someone at the helm than it is to have either no-one at the helm or (even worse) a committee at the helm (poor camel!)

Good luck, Garret and Rugffdogs.  I'm sure that with a little guidance on the tiller the community will continue to contribute towards SME server and that the product will continue to survive.

I look forward to developments.

BTW, I know that companies have to make money - we all do!  I know too that when I install SME servers for my clients I charge them for the time and effort involved.  It may be controversial, but I, for one, would be happy to pay for some or all of an SME server as installed on my clients' sites as a contribution to making sure that the product survives in an homogenous form.  Maybe some sort of a split charging system would appeal to the more vociferous defenders of the GPL system - get the base system for free, pay something towards the more complex add-ins?  Maybe some sort of honour system? - you install a server in exchange for money, then you're honour bound to make a contribution. Maybe a topic for another post?  Maybe best to keep quiet about the whole unsavoury business of discussing money?

Regards,

Dave