[Kolab-devel] Samba KEP (Re: Enhancing Kolab decision making(re: Is it okay to commit the samba patch to cvs?))

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Monday 15 September 2008 23:11, Richard Bos wrote:
> > The next point is one of the target group for Kolab Server users.
> > Any IT solution, just like Kolab or a competitor will not conquer the
> > market in one go. It better to first target specific markets.
> > So the question is: Will adding a feature (like Samba) help us to conquer
> > the next market we would want to go for with Kolab and its Server?
> > Samba integration seems to be possible so the problem is not keeping
> > anybody from "buying" Kolab Server.
>
> But now at least 2 people needs to patch, and patch, and patch kolab to
> provide kolab support.  It shows that there is a desire to have kolab
> support samba.

Maybe them not needing to patch would increase the efforts for other to patch.
Okay, those others are not explicitely named in the discussion - yet.

> > It certainly is, so thanks for progressing it. :)
>
> I don't have the feeling that we are progressing at all with the issue at
> hand (2997). 

Each argument in the open is progress.
If the arguments are on the non-technical side, 
this is something which is common to many decision and update processes.
So yes, I believe there is progress, even when it is only in my mind.
As a community we need to develop ways to deal with this and we do have a 
backlog.

> It looks like that we need to develop a KEP, invite 
> Univention and Gonicus to the table to ask for their view on samba
> integration with kolab. While all the folks that are working on issue2997
> want to have their code integrated into kolab (I think).  I understand that
> a process is needed,

Again progress. :)

> but it's not something that I and I think Albrecht are 
> going to setup and foster...  Now is the kolab core team 

I consider you and Marcus part of the core team. Of course I respect if you do 
not want or can set up such a process. I am just trying to make this all more 
explicit. Other Kolab Server developers like Thomas should also not do such a 
large change without consulting with others. And it fact we did not do large 
changes for a longer time. That is one symtom of the problem to me.

> going to setup a 
> samba KEP and see if it works by e.g. getting Univention and Gonicus to
> provide information to the samba KEP.  I'm afraid that this is going to
> result in a dead lock situation situation, in which the issue2997
> attributors must work out a KEP and the core team must setup a KEP.  In the
> end nothing would happen, which would be a pity as the current samba patch
> is quite nice!

I want something to happen and yes I am taking this issue as occasion
to point out to the larger problem we (as a community) have.
Possible deadlock is a problem of any process.

The problem I have with just dealing with the issue is 
that we would set precedent and the pile of other issues is getting higher in 
the end. So an improvement in the process should be our priority to get things 
moving. Note I am not interesting in getting buerocracy build up, but in a 
good decision. I think we should produce a summary discussion and then 
approach Univention and others, seek opinions and decide.

Bernhard 

-- 
Managing Director - Owner: www.intevation.net       (Free Software Company)
Germany Coordinator: fsfeurope.org. Coordinator: www.Kolab-Konsortium.com.
Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998
Geschäftsführer Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.kolab.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20080917/71cdebbd/attachment.sig>