[Serusers] Re: [Serdev] Re: [Sems] Re: [Semsdev] IMPORTANT: Invitation to discuss the management of iptel.org

[Stefan Sayer]

Hello,

Raphael Coeffic wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> as for the small number of participant in the SEMS project, i'm convinced that 
I am just wondering why the number is so small, why there are not more 
people contributing. Either no one except us is using it, or people do 
not see clearly how the project is managed and therefore do not have 
enough trust in the project to contribute. Maybe a more clearly defined 
and stated contact and TB person would help here.

I would simply propose Raphael as TB member, then he can also coordinate 
things concerning SER/SEMS.

Stefan

> we do not need such a board for SEMS by now. Stefan and I are just ruling 
> this world and i like strong central administration ;-)
> 
> Cheers
> Raphael.
> 
> On Friday 13 April 2007 16:29, Bogdan Pintea wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Greger V. Teigre wrote:
>>> I try here to identify open issues not discussed/decided:
>>> * Should there be one TB for all iptel.org projects or one TB for each?
>> I would incline to a No. I'm not yet convinced that all (other) projects
>> need it, at least not now.
>> Convergence had already been naturally maintained.
>>
>>> * What should be the criteria for selecting people on the TB (if any)?
>> Contributor status should be a condition for the candidate-ship. As
>> proposed, the group is not a M(anagement)B, but a TB. So, as in-depth
>> knowledges as possible should be required.
>>
>>> * Who have voting rights when we vote on candidates for the TB?
>> Considering the above note, everybody interested.
>> Maybe, related would be (probably obvious, but not to me) how we'd vote?
>>
>>> * What should be the term for a TB member?
>> Would it be a per member or per board term? (If one member leaves, the
>> one to take his place stays in for how much longer?).
>>
>> I would propose a _first_ 1 year limit. This way we could see how/if it
>> works.
>>
>> Also, what would this number be? 3 or 5 (considering the tie resolution
>> solution already proposed and the "small" suggestion)?
>>
>> I'd like 5, for some fresh air. ;-)
>>
>>> * Should this TB handle any issues beyond development? (ex. website
>>> content, iptel.org in the wider SIP context, relationship with other
>>> projects, packaging, longer-term positioning of projects, longer-term
>>> development goals, and so on)
>> Not, if TB.
>> I bet a lot of skilled folks don't have a clue about websites ratings or
>> don't want to know what libs can be used on whatever distribution/OS.)
>>
>>> * If not, do we need another group that could handle such things?
>> No. IMO, the projects needs (back?) a larger community, not who should
>> manage this community. To me it seems things are moving slow but in a
>> good direction, as they are.
>>
>>
>> <troll'ish>
>> Probably one could propose a list of goals, but without the contributors
>> to provide them they'll stay in for nothing.
>> Thus, I would already provide the first goal criteria: make it sexy for
>> developers (users are necessary but not enough); if some guy wants to do
>> outrageous things with SER (like, say, IMS :)), or OO-like cfg or colors
>> in logs or whatever), let him do that, provided the robustness is kept.
>> Its much more likely to get good quality code if one has were to choose
>> from; if code is lousy, it'll get filtered out in time.
>>
>> The other way, as it seems, is to go split ways (the first two larger
>> ones are named starting with "Open" ...), and having code moved back and
>> forth is just ridiculous (besides not durable).
>> </troll'ish>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
> 

-- 
Stefan Sayer
Media Services Development

stefan.sayer at iptego.de
www.iptego.de

iptego GmbH
Am Borsigturm 40
13507 Berlin
Germany

Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, HRB 101010
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Alexander Hoffmann