[Kamailio-Users] openser board summary

Hello guys, first I apologize for the situation we are in and for my silence in the last days as I tried to get the release out and not put gas on fire. The board looks like being now an evil thing, maybe it is our fault we haven't given more details about insights, but there were not many as ones could imagine and the decisions were presented to community. Here are the outlines of the discussions on the board, since September 2005, when first mail came there: 2005-09 DCM: decide release number => resulted in openser 1.0.0 DCM: business mailing lists => resulted in creation of the list 2005-10 AG: asks about making AG a trusted CA for default delivery of openser => self signed or something invalid to force users to change 2005-11 DCM: starts discussion about making an openser statute DCM: puts in dicussion the behavior of Harry on the mailing lists DCM: contacts Harry 2005-12 ALL: continuation of previous mail discussions 2006-03 DCM: plans for new release 2006-04 JH: discussion about presence implementation 2006-05 BIA: about project hosting: still sourceforge or move out ALL: Sourceforge problems discussions JH: presented some options for hosting 2006-06 AG: sip summer code JH: about 1.1.0 2006-07 JH: presence server AG: minutes if SIMPLE WG at IETF DCM: GPL issue with openssl and debian 2006-08 BIA: openser summit 2006-09,10 ALL: openser summit 2006-11 AG: history update in relation with old project BIA: TLS discussion 2006-12 ALL: history update 2007-01 KD: FOSDEM DCM: openser 1.1.1 BIA: openser at spring von 2007-02 BIA: openser donnations DCM: openser events 2007-04 BIA: Linuxtag 2007-09 DCM: summit 2007 2007-10 CS: retires from board BIA: proposes Henning => no decision as no rules for electing, makes that a point in todo BIA: openser 1.2.3 2007-11 DCM: openser business environment => hosting it within the website couldn't get a decision, posponed with alternative for dedicated site BIA: new developer Maxim Sobolyev 2008-03 BIA: on the 28th announces to board the issues with trademark, apparently some board member and other people were already aware AG: openser pages update 2008-04 ALL: agreed with rename - started the idea of a foundation to register trademark, takes on managing resources HW (not a member at that time but was included in the discussions related to TM) - proposes new developer Iouri 2008-05 BIA: on the 12th started the discussion about new name foreseeing 2 directions: something similar, to remember about the old project, or something totally different 2008-06 DCM: 9th: paypal report for last year => total donations to project's sourceforge account 52.05Euro (DCM Paypal account closed, the money still at DCM, proposed to use them for buying domains for new name) DCM: 9th: forwards a proposal received at end of April to team(a)openser.org from PacktPub to donate 2% or 5% (if we keep news on the site about the book) of openser book sales to the project. DCM asked for decision as there was no legal entity to deal with. (note: team(a)openser.org was created at the time openser forked in 2005, to get private feedback at that time, was used for the summit 2006 for contact, open for any post, includes the founders, about 10 good mails out of thousands spams per year) BIA: 9th: adds that in a discussion with PacktPub (not on team or board, as I haven;t seen such) proposed to give the 5% for openser devel course organized by him. The course was announced to the lists on the 4th of June. DCM: 9th: expressed surprise as he thought that was a different deal, made privately between BIA and PacktPub BIA: ask the board about donation, saying that actually the 5% donation was not really accounted ALL: There was no decision of what to do with the sponsorship as the board has no treasurer and we are working towards creating a foundation that can accept legally fundings. There was no ask for some amount of money for the devel course, no costs presented, no other details given. Nobody expressed a disagreement of giving funds for the devel course. BIA: 9th : replacement for Cesc as quick solution to deal with TM => suggests Henning Westerholt, all the other agree up to 17th DCM: asks Henning and then sends short announcement to community BIA: complains that he actually hasn't voted and the replacement was made in hurry (?!?!) DCM: presents that all other announcements were done more or less in the same fashion in the past, asking to propose improvements DCM: 24th - asks decision about local_route, board discusses and agrees to enclose in #ifdef HW: 25th - announces the result and asks BIA if he agrees, no response, he was away HW: after 1 day since asking BIA for agreement SVN is updated enclosing local_route in ifdefs BIA: 27th - disagrees with board decision, considering it was not the business of the board (sent to public as well) -- Note from DCM: opensips was registered at June 25, 2008, 17:30 according to http://sourceforge.net/projects/opensips/ Discussions with name proposals and foundation 2008-07 Others: discussions related to name and foundation HW: proposes a project renaming plan HW: on the 16th, vote for name: proposes Kamailio, majority reached on the 17th, last that agree (with a mention that he does not really like the name) BIA, on the 28th, after a call from HW where he mentioned he was away. AG: 17th - registers kamailio.org, ... AG: prposes unification of 1.4. and renaming => decided to announce first to allow time for renaming without pressure AG: 28th - announces renaming to public HW: some drafts of foundation if in Germany AG: details about alternative in Netherlands 2008-08 DCM: 4th - discovers news on voip-info.org that openser becomes opensips, Dan Pascu sends a mixed recipient message and some others see something is going on DCM: after short investigation and learning that behind opensips is bogdan decide to take some precaution actions and send details about them on board to decide if they still remain or roll back BIA: comes later on the mailing lists and announces the fork From then on most of the things were reflected on the public. No one was kicked out from the project, as developer, board member or simply list user, just some administrative rights were limited. Of course last three months have a lot of messages for the topics above. I hope I haven't missed something important and I ask other board members to correct or improve. With this one I hope things are a bit more clear about what board did so far, where were mistakes and wrong decisions. You judge! Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel-Constantin Mierla http://www.asipto.com