[Users] Re: [Serdev] Re: [Serusers] OpenSER release

Hi guys. I'm just any other SER user in the world that I have taken advantage of this project to deploy SIP service. I haven't contribute with the project as far as I have tried to replay some posts at the mailing list. There are many people that is dedicated and compromised with this project. I have seen people like SER Team (Jiri, Jan and Andrei), Juha, Marie, Bodgan, Daniel, Iqbal, Greger, Paul, and many others that have been giving their time and effort to SER project without asking for a compensation. The open source development philosophy goes in this way: Everybody contributes with it and there isn't any payment (money) back. Then we have a project like SER when there should be a leader for the benefit and success of the project. There are rules and policies about how to use the software, how to make the documentation, how to integrate the improvements, new code, etc. and everybody should follow this rules and policies. And what about the people that is dedicated 100% to the project, how they are handling their incomes? Some body need to pay the bills. I don't know about SER guys like Jan, Jiri and Andrei what other thinks are they doing besides SER Project but I can imagine they have a lot work to do at the project. I don't know this is true but I though the main concern about Bodgan and Daniel is that SER development group aren't dedicating the 100% to the project because they have as main target the iptelorg commercial project. There are some post at the mailing list that have shown the feelings from some people about it. I have seen many people that have posted improvements, corrections, add-on, etc. They are asking to integrate their contributions to the project but they haven't received a positive answer and that is not motivate it for anybody. And maybe they start to feel like "Something is wrong, why this guys are not taking my code? Is there other kind of interest here?" Why you don't make an agreement about this? Why don't to make a re-engineering at the SER team and define team groups by features or by modules which the team leader and members could be as from iptel-group as from any other organization? In this way you could have a decision maker by module or feature that could decide what o when to integrate new code or features. Maybe you could adopt the way like the IETF organization works. Maybe this could help to have a better communication and to improve the time to release the new stable versions of SER. These are my personals thougths I would like everything goes well and everybody be happy.It's a little difficult to approach this kind of goal but with a little effort, tolerance and good will everything is possible. Regards Alberto Cruz reticent wrote: >Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote: > > > >>On Jun 14, 2005 at 20:10, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <bogdan(a)voice-system.ro> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>Hi SER community, >>> >>>there are almost two years from the last official SER release and things >>>do not promise too much right now. Not only that the progress stuck >>>somewhere on the way (rel 0.9.0 was started more than half a year ago), >>>but even any attempt to push thing forward seems to be denied - I tried >>>along with Daniel to push the release, but seems that not everybody >>>shares our and comunity's interest regarding the public part of SER - >>>upgrades were rolled back, new software contributions haven't found >>>their way in (like TLS and other new modules), modules maintained by >>>other developers are inaccessible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>The release is delayed due to lack of time. >>Current show stoppers were me reviewing the whole tcp code (after finding >>a minor bug) and some radius makefile problem. >>Forking ser is a very bad ideea and your exposed reason are far from >>enough to motivate it. >>Anyway anybody can cvs co -rrel_0_9_0 . >> >> >> >> >> >> >I agree, forking will have a negative effect on SER in the long-run by >reducing the amount of available resources (programmer time, >administrative time) >If there is a problem it should be worked out as a community instead of >forgoing the difficult task of enacting change (if you think somthing >needs to change) and simply creating a parallel project. >I think it is important that not every patch and module simply be added >to the project but put aside so that someone can review the code and >make sure it safe and integrates well. > >I wouldn't say there has been a lack of progress just because there >hasn't been a stable release for some time, your own changlog can attest >to this, there has been many improvements. > >I do agree, however, that there should be some facility it place to >centralize the development of unstable modules that may eventually be >included in the mainstream distribution or at least in a stable "addons" >package, so that work may progress more efficientely in those area's. > > > > > >>>Unfortunately this is not a good environment if we what to have some >>>future progress for SER. And this is the main reason for starting a new >>>project called OpenSER - http://www.openser.org . >>> >>>It's called open because its most important attribute is its opening to >>>new ideas and contributions, fast developing and more involvement of the >>>comunity. Along with quality, the progress is the main concern. >>>We will continue to support and develop the SER project as much as so >>>far and as much as possible, but OpenSER will give the liberty for more. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>ser just got an experimental module repository for new stuff that is not >>tested and/or not reviewed by a core developed (so that it can be added >>to the ser main repository). >> >> >> >> >> >>>OpenSER serves the interest of all SER users and will not change its >>>purpose - as a fact I have the pleasure to announce its first release - >>>OpenSER 0.9.4. The web site offers a comprehensive listing of new >>>features and fixes - http://www.openser.org/index.php#features. For >>>people already familiar to SER 0.9.3, going to >>>http://www.openser.org/diffs-0.9.0.php will be more helpful. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>Some of the changes listed in the diffs will break compatibility with >>current ser configuration scripts. I wonder also when have you tested >>all your changes. >> >> >> >>Andrei >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >>