Sandbox

Hi again man_of_mr_e :

I'd disagree somewhat with your interpretation of "Association"

man_of_mr_e wrote:I disagree with you that an internet forum can legally be considered an "association" with "members".  Apart from the fact that there is no way to identify whether that's 40,000 individual people or 1 person with 40,000 email addresses, there's also no way to validate any kind of vote that could take place.  If the Mambo web forum required unique identifying informaiton, other than a working email address, you might have a point.  Further, how many of those 40,000 people could be considered "active" members?  There are just too many grey areas to consider this a real "association".  There are no meetings.  No minutes.  No nothing.

Miro setup the forum using standard forum software (which has provision for full member details, but these don't need to be filled in), but I'm confident that it contained 40,000+ "real people" (hopefully nowhere near that number now ).

I'm sure Miro thought that this constituted a "real Group" as that's where they posted their "Notice" of the Foundations formation ! Why tell people about something if you don't think it is of interest to them ? And if this is the case (and you're supposedly doing something on their behalf) you usually seek input from them before proceeding.

Lastly on "Active members" .... I'm not active in politics, but does that mean that I can't vote, or shouldn't be allowed to vote, or my vote shouldn't count - or be counted ?

man_of_mr_e wrote:In my opinion, the only real "group" here was the Mambo Steering Comittee, which by the core devs own admission was made up of devs, and authorized the creation of the foundation.

The "real group" as I see it (and indeed how the people that formed "opensourcematters.org" have defined it - as they stated in a very early post) comprises everyone - Core devs, Doc people, Forum moderators, 3rd Party developers, End users etc.

man_of_mr_e wrote:They didn't like the way things turned out, which is a valid complaint, but this has been blown into something else entirely.  It's been said over and over again that nobody was consulted.  Yet the core devs say they AUTHORIZED it.  That seems like they were consulted to me.  It's that little fact that has me doubting EVERYTHING that's being said.

I think the core devs thought the "idea" of a Foundation (of some sort) was great - so did I and a lot of other people - I still do.

However, what we got was Peter LAMONT going off and implementing it on his own, without consultation, stacking the "Board" in his (Miro's) favour and also (apparently) "appointing people" without approaching them !

That's something I (and most/all of the others here in this "group") will never be a part of.

Lastly, irrespective of how "Mambo Foundation | The Mambo Open Source organisation" got started, as it stands I would never join it - the "Open" Source part of it is a lie.

Also, the wording on their "Welcome to" on the front page is also now a lie.

And, in reply to your last quote:-

man_of_mr_e wrote:The core devs authorized the formation of the foundation, by their own admission. Taking their toys and going home at the first sign of disagreement doesn't say a lot for the future of the project.  

If you don't like the way the foundation was incorporated and don't want to be a member, fine.  Start your own, but geez, don't go on a warpath and accuse people of everything under the sun.  Just Do it.

Indeed, they (Core Devs) plus the Doc people, Support people, Forum moderators and a lot of the International mambo groups, plus End Users have left and are here now - starting something (as you've suggested).

What (structure) gets created now is yet to be decided (and open to debate), but the code (and the community) goes on.

man_of_mr_e wrote:As I said, I believe that the core devs have a legitimate complaint that the foundation didn't include them as board members, or the MSC.  However, my issue is the way this whole thing has been portrayed.  Making big deals about "nobody was consulted" yet the fine print says that core devs on the MSC approved the creation of the foundation. 

But not in the structure that it was announced. Therein the difference.

man_of_mr_e wrote:It's the way the issues have been portrayed, both in articles written, in the letters issued, and most importantly, by everyone "championing the cause" that I take issue with.  I appreciate that you feel strongly about your position.  That doesn't mean you can bend the facts to portray something that doesn't seem to be true.

I've talked to all sides that I can get involved with in this, including having a meet and greet with Peter Lamont of Miro yesterday. Doesn't mean I have a better chance of having the facts than you ? What proof of impartial judgement and a knowledge of the facts do you have ?

man_of_mr_e wrote:The core devs authorized the formation of the foundation, by their own admission.  Taking their toys and going home at the first sign of disagreement doesn't say a lot for the future of the project.

The project will continue. Sure, it won't have the copious amounts of corporate governance entropy that I've seen in the organisational chart for Mambo, but then again, who wants entropy in a project?

man_of_mr_e wrote:Just Do it.

They are.

absalom wrote:But not in the structure that it was announced. Therein the difference.

But, and this is key, that's not the way it's being presented.  Numerous times i've seen it written, such as this article over at ars technica http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050818-5223.html , that:

During the 2005 San Francisco LinuxWorld Expo, the CEO of Miro announced that he was forming a new non-profit organization called the Mambo Foundation. On the surface, such a maneuver seemed like noble idea for maintaining and ensuring the longevity of Mambo. The only problem with this announcement was that not a single core developer of Mambo was informed of these changes in advance.

This article clearly states that the entire concept of the foundation was a complete surprise to the devs.  I've seen post after post from people that have said the same thing.  The message is clearly getting lost.

I've talked to all sides that I can get involved with in this, including having a meet and greet with Peter Lamont of Miro yesterday. Doesn't mean I have a better chance of having the facts than you ? What proof of impartial judgement and a knowledge of the facts do you have ?

I have no facts other than the publicly known information, and that's precisely my problem.  The publicly available information says one thing, but everyone else is saying another.

man_of_mr_e wrote:The core devs authorized the formation of the foundation, by their own admission.  Taking their toys and going home at the first sign of disagreement doesn't say a lot for the future of the project.

The project will continue. Sure, it won't have the copious amounts of corporate governance entropy that I've seen in the organisational chart for Mambo, but then again, who wants entropy in a project?

I didn't say it wouldn't continue.  My argument is that, instead of upheaving the entire community with a fork, wouldn't it have been easier to simply join the foundation, call for an election, and vote in the people you want?  Instead, there is this war of rhetoric and half-truths being waged, not to mention outright warping of the stated facts.

The fact that the core devs have decided to clam up, and use "we've been advised not to talk about it" just makes me bash my head against a wall.  That was the whole reason for splitting off from Miro in the first place, now they're doing it. 

man_of_mr_e wrote:The fact that the core devs have decided to clam up, and use "we've been advised not to talk about it" just makes me bash my head against a wall.  That was the whole reason for splitting off from Miro in the first place, now they're doing it. 

For someone who says he has nothing to do with Miro, doesn't use the software and has only visited the Mambo website once in the past, your concern (as demonstrated by the length of your posts here and at Slashdot) is a bit curious to me.

I'm not making accusations but you seem to have already made your point. Beyond that, why do you care? Hopefully it isn't merely to win an argument.

WOW! Greate letter and greate movement. With you all the way.

man_of_mr_e wrote:I have no facts other than the publicly known information, and that's precisely my problem.  The publicly available information says one thing, but everyone else is saying another.

Part of that may be related to the fact Miro wants to maintain IP over Mambo. It wasn't a very convincing OSS-based argument that Peter Lamont put forward that the Foundation get itself a perpetual GPL licence for Mambo. In fact, it seemed contradictory - Miro wants to get out of the pilot seat for Mambo through the Foundation, but then doesn't have the graciousness to operate in a bazaar environment, seeking to cathedral the IP to itself.

And don't get me started on NDA for the core teams..

Peter. again I have to disagree.

Your confidence that there are 40,000 real live people is great, but can you prove it?  You can't hold a legally binding vote if you can't even prove who the members, or if they're real or not.  That's how elections are rigged.

Again, given the fact that there was never any kind of "meeting" or "minutes" or "rules" or even a statement when you create an account that you are agreeing to be a member of an "association", i really don't think an internet forum would count.  Posting it to the forum doesn't prove anything either, since posting a notice toa newspaper doesn't indicate that everyone that reads the newspaper is a member of an association either.

At best, you could consider the "core devs" to be part of an association, since they were accepted and have roles of responsibility spelled out, had meetings, etc..  It's like saying all the guys you meet at your local pub are "an association".  They're not unless you've explicitly stated it to be, and everyone has agreed to be a member.  Merely paying your cover charge doesn't make you an association.

Just a short note to say I'm with you and fully support the decision. Bad luck that I will have to find a new name for my $amboByMail-$ambot not :/

I didn't say it wouldn't continue.  My argument is that, instead of upheaving the entire community with a fork, wouldn't it have been easier to simply join the foundation, call for an election, and vote in the people you want?  Instead, there is this war of rhetoric and half-truths being waged, not to mention outright warping of the stated facts.

The fact that the core devs have decided to clam up, and use "we've been advised not to talk about it" just makes me bash my head against a wall.  That was the whole reason for splitting off from Miro in the first place, now they're doing it. 

In principle i agree with you completely... in fact, if more people thought this way in the USA (for example) a lot of unpopular, yet powerful political action groups would be nullified by popular opinion. 
Example, how do you beat the NRA's control of congress with respect to gun control laws? Every bleeding heart, tree hugging liberal join the damn NRA and call a vote... easy 

If you read through the bylaws of the Mambo Foundation, you will find that to be a member capable of voting on issues and board members you must jump through a series of hoops that most individuals either aren't capable or willing to jump through.  $1000 annual 3rd Party developer membership fee comes to mind.

Also, with respect to the "clam up" status of the core developer team I would hope that they keep quiet while this all gets sorted out.  Do bear in mind, as i'm sure you have (you obviously have thought through a lot of this), that we are dealing with individuals that in an imperfect world of ridiculous lawsuits over coffee being too hot risk a lawsuit for saying the wrong thing.  This being the case, and whether the case has any merit does not matter as legal costs are expensive regardless of how ridiculous the charge against you, the core development team must protect themselves more carefully.  Another consideration is that tension is obviously high, and emotions are obviously all over the place, and most likely no one wants to say something they regret later.  In these cases I personally find it best to just stay silent.

Essentially, we know what we need to know as a community.  The project is safe, the infastructure is being ironed out as we speak, and we will move forward.

I personally agree with you that a foundation is a good thing, and something that ought to be considered in the not-to-distant future.  Also, just because Andrew, Brian, or whoever else "authorized" the formation of a foundation does not imply that anything other than a simple, "yeah, we should get something together on that" was discussed.  Does that mean I'm saying thats what happened? NO! But I am saying that its possible that this was the extent of it, and until we know more details I think everyone should calm down about it.

Truth be told, I don't understand what all the up-in-arms stuff is all about.  Anyone who spent any time at all in this community should know that it wasn't going to fall apart easliy, and the bashing of miro is unneccessary.  They can do whatever they like, and sink or swim with it.  Just as the rest of us can do whatever we like and sink or swim with it.  It has always been amazing to me how people get all wrapped up in some sort of freedom fight over something that can be solved without the need of getting ugly and throwing crap around.

Also, to Mr E... I can't speak for all, but I will tell you the part of the mambo foundation that angered me has nothing to do with who is or isn't on the board.  That is somewhat irrelevant to me, what IS relevant is their bylaws and how they would affect me as a mambo user.  Membership status, copyright ownership, and direction.  Of the three, reading through the bylaws on membership status I find thier system both arrogant and ignorant (powerful combination), from what has been said copyright ownership was to remain with miro instead of the foundation which is also unacceptable, and project direction is up in the air.


To everyone, lets just calm down the rhetoric and concentrate on what is truly important.  Those of you working on components, get your hand on the latest thing out of the CVS tree and continue working against that version as it is the next generation of the new CMS.  Same goes for those working on modules and templates.  Those working on documentation or help please continue as your work is nearly as valuable as the product itself for newcomers and spreading the project.  The core team has much to do without having to monitor pissing matches and ALSO get the infrastructure ready for the next generation of the CMS we all are here to support.


Louis

Well, lets beat a dead horse. And kick it a couple of times for good measure. What difference does it make who did what to who? I'm for the solution to the problem, not adding to the problem. I was core developer of a program 20 years ago that, even though I knew the goals of the company (being the VP/R&D) it still didn't stop the fact of the company changing horses in the middle of the race, which DID kill the horse.

My goals were different than what they had in mind, and so I left that company, lock and stock with my R&D in my pocket. Intellectual property rights are still a tough act to enforce, even Bill with all his microsoft money still can't lock that down and especially with a global group. The overall theme here is that you should NEVER exclude your idea guys. I really would like to meet the idiots at miro who thought they could pull this off without the dev team support. Must be a bunch of lawyers...

Can we just wrap code around them and send them away? a quick hilite and delete?

Recently I started a host biz and I went thru weeks and a day looking over all the CMS and one-stop shops, yea, nuke and post nuke, pre nuke and a little wiki on the side... I find the perfect CMS and start to Mambo, now you're telling me the dance is over?

Guys, I've been on a computer since 1.2K modems. A 1M download took an hour, if you were lucky to keep the connection that long. We had lists of BBS' that we had to dial each one, and be careful of the long distance! When we got aol at $2 an hour, I was a happy man. I ran out and bought a 300M hd for $210, and a 9.6k modem to celebrate! Now, 25 years later, I still have it all, encased in a Mac SE/30, and you know I have that all decked out, all 6 rows of memory slots filled, a whopping 16M.... in my closet.

I grew up in little Billy Gate's backyard, wrote a bit of basic and c+, assemblies and all kinds of code, html and am really finding php quite fun. I've tweaked templates thru the roof (forgive me, and cudos to the fine template devs) and have even looked at components, and made a module or two already. All in the last month while trying to install Mambo on my own host site, two churches, a realtor, home school and a couple of personal sites as well.

I am having a blast. My deepest respects to you guys who are mos, and to all the people who send in their own add-ons, I hope to be one very soon, so tell me, where are we sending them to? And I hope you figure out an easy way for my customers and myself to "upgrade" from this mambo. I can't do them all, but I don't want any clients hanging back after the switch either, my support desk may not support older CMS products like that...   keep us posted!

Boy, if I could just write code like I ramble on here....  no, I don't think you want to see that template...  

Best of luck, and always stick to your ideals, because in the end, that, really, is all that matters.

absalom wrote:Part of that may be related to the fact Miro wants to maintain IP over Mambo. It wasn't a very convincing OSS-based argument that Peter Lamont put forward that the Foundation get itself a perpetual GPL licence for Mambo. In fact, it seemed contradictory - Miro wants to get out of the pilot seat for Mambo through the Foundation, but then doesn't have the graciousness to operate in a bazaar environment, seeking to cathedral the IP to itself.

This is no different than many other open source projects.  The FSF requires that you sign over copyright to them if you submit patches to anything they manage.  This is so that they can adequately deal with licensing issues.  Mozilla is the same way.

I just read the IP Policy document, and it doesn't even MENTION Miro.  How exactly does Mico maintain IP over Mambo when the document doesn't even mention them?

And don't get me started on NDA for the core teams..

Fine, but I can't find any reference to one.

I've also seen references to people complaining about membership fees.  From what i can tell, you only pay fees if you're a sponsoring organization.  There are apparently three levels of free membership, depending on how deep you want to go.

And again, the rules, bylaws, etc.. of any organization are not set in stone.  Members can vote to change them.  Members can vote out people they don't like on the board.  Hell, if you wanted to, you could completely take over the foundation and divorce it from Miro if you wanted to, and had enough support from the other members to do so.

If the community is so much in agreement, it seems like it would have been a cakewalk to simply change the foundation to whatever you wanted.

Hey Everyone,

Only just back from vacation and hell what a welcome back to my PC  .

Well done, on making a "United" stand. I believe you are 100% correct in your actions and the majority of the community will follow you.

Will there more official statements released on a more frequent basis??
This to ensure that all independent consultants, can manage our clients that are :
a) Running Mambo as a core service.
b) Proposals accepted, and due to sign contracts on a mambo based solution.
c) Any other future business leads related to our beloved CMS.

I have already had a few panic emails and phone calls from worried clients and the more Official Statements from the Dev Team available, the more ammunition I have in retaining them as clients.

I look forward to the rebranding debate, and I am sure that the new name will encompass the spirit of the community and the courage taken to make such a stand.

Well done.

2XS

webImagery wrote:In principle i agree with you completely... in fact, if more people thought this way in the USA (for example) a lot of unpopular, yet powerful political action groups would be nullified by popular opinion. 
Example, how do you beat the NRA's control of congress with respect to gun control laws? Every bleeding heart, tree hugging liberal join the damn NRA and call a vote... easy 

I would agree with you if this community weren't so focused and catalyzed.  Unlike the US, people here are active.

If you read through the bylaws of the Mambo Foundation, you will find that to be a member capable of voting on issues and board members you must jump through a series of hoops that most individuals either aren't capable or willing to jump through.  $1000 annual 3rd Party developer membership fee comes to mind.

I don't get that when I read the bylaws.  From what I can tell, all members can vote.  You don't have to pay any money.  You can even be a contributing member with responsibility (ie core dev) without paying a fee.  The fee based memberships appear to be ways to get more industry "empowerment" by giving corporations that wish to participate voices in the process (voices, not control).

There is one vague part of the bylaws that I do find unsettling.  It says the board decides how many voting "points" a member gets.  This implies that some members have more points than others.  If the community as a whole has more points than, say the board, then I don't see anything wrong with that, but if the board can effectively veto the membership anytime it likes, then that's bad.  But, I don't really want to jump to conclusions about how this would be structured.  But, apart from that, I find nothing to back up your claim that only paying members get votes.

Essentially, we know what we need to know as a community.  The project is safe, the infastructure is being ironed out as we speak, and we will move forward.

I don't agree that we know the project is safe, or that it's moving forward.  Forks are seldom pretty.  Look at Xorg versus XFree86.  it was long and messy, and eventually things turned around, but that didn't mean it wasn't painful.

man_of_mr_e wrote:This is no different than many other open source projects.  The FSF requires that you sign over copyright to them if you submit patches to anything they manage.  This is so that they can adequately deal with licensing issues.  Mozilla is the same way.

The IP I was talking about was trademark, and so on. The very things Peter Lamont said he didn't want to sign away.

man_of_mr_e wrote:I just read the IP Policy document, and it doesn't even MENTION Miro.  How exactly does Mico maintain IP over Mambo when the document doesn't even mention them?

Peter Lamont was quite vehement (and dare I say, betrayed) by the fact the initial idea for the foundation was that all IP and trademarks were to go to it. Which is, of course, one of the key points raised on the front of this website in the Letter to the Community.

TomH wrote:and as wikipedia told me - the dance 'mambo' evolved into 'salsa'

Nice name and good description
And the member of this project will be SALSERS 

I want to voice my support for the core devs. A Foundation is a good idea but Mambo devs and users' comments should have been sought througout the whole process.

Once things are settled and you guys have a Paypal account, I would gladly donate.

@man_of_mr_e

As a dumm Dutchie I have to ask you:

Can you explain to me why I must be 'member' of the "Association" and pay a huge amount of money to create addons for the project ?? I asked our company lawyer and he told me that (at least in Europe) an "Association" / "Foundation" cann't have members only donators.

Further on I want to congrat you with long postings. For me, writing so munch and well informed, I should have Mr. Lamont as a neighbour.

Regards

Ad

Oh Yeh, don't forget,....  it always "Takes Two to Tango".

Hi to all,
I am using myself mambo in an older version, stumbling over these developments and this forum while searching for solutions to change my  mambo-installation to one which produces Accessible-HTML.

The fact that the core devs have decided to clam up, and use "we've been advised not to talk about it" just makes me bash my head against a wall.  That was the whole reason for splitting off from Miro in the first place, now they're doing it.

I must say, the devs have my full support. As beeing a Lawyer myself I think there will be reasons for the advice, not to talk about certain issues right now. Patience is a virtue only loosely related to internet forums.

As you are looking for a new name, why not call it "Jazz". Someone quoted there were nothing as open source as jazz...



pacodem

We understand the apprehension that this announcement this has caused in the community and as soon as possible we will keep the community abreast of developments.
We have posted a few FAQ's to try allay some questions:
http://www.opensourcematters.org/index. ... &Itemid=29

We realize these are only a small portion of the many questions people no doubt have, but we are following legal advice in regards to this matter.


We realize there is an information vacum and we would like nothing more than to fill it as it obviously goes against the whole idea of transparency and opennes which we obviously support - but our hands are slightly tied.  We have tried to provide as much infromation as we can within our orders.

I do ask that the community bear with us.  We would also ask that people to remain calm and not to become overly emotional, we are a community and not a mob.

....
I moved the rest of this post to a more visible area
http://forum.opensourcematters.org/inde ... 312.0.html

stingrey wrote:I do ask that the community bear with us.  We would also ask that people to remain calm and not to become overly emotional, we are a community and not a mob.

Thanks Rey... 

[me=vavroom]hits the panic button [/me]

christian wrote:Hello all,

great to see you all here. My English is not the best, therefore one hears few of me. I will follow the core dev, if necessarily I do not have a problem to rename my side mambonews.de to e.g. xxxxxxnews.de. I think Miro put a firecracker in mouth, hold it between front teeth, and light then the fuse. So crazy. I do not know a webmaster who will follow miro mambo, but I know enough webmaster those understood the open source thoughts and will follow you, too.

Greetings from Nuremberg, Christian

dito ... same here ....

greetings marcus

christian wrote:Hello all,

great to see you all here. My English is not the best, therefore one hears few of me. I will follow the core dev, if necessarily I do not have a problem to rename my side mambonews.de to e.g. xxxxxxnews.de. I think Miro put a firecracker in mouth, hold it between front teeth, and light then the fuse. So crazy. I do not know a webmaster who will follow miro mambo, but I know enough webmaster those understood the open source thoughts and will follow you, too.

Greetings from Nuremberg, Christian

Same here...absolutely!

Greetings

I want to express my support to the core dev team, the documentation team, the 3rd developers and the community. For me mambo died today. I hope we will be able to do something good of this.

I gave today idg.se a tip on what have happened. They are Swedens biggest publishers of computer magazines and they have published the following article (in Swedish):

http://www.idg.se/ArticlePages/200508/1 ... XW.dbp.asp

Thanks!

absalom wrote:

So long and thanks for all the fish
So sad that it should come to this
We tried to warn you all but oh dear?

You may not share our intellect
Which might explain your disrespect
For all the natural wonders that
grow around you

As I see this thing, it make me somehow sad and in the same time happy.
This is a strange feeling.

So core team if you have some issues with the infrastructure maybe I can help.

Regards

Mr. E (whose relation to these issues is the real mystery) was correct to point out in another thread that there would be no legal basis for voting without first verifying the identities of members. Do we really need everything to be official and legal at the outset? Preliminary consultation with the community, voting, etc. could easily be done outside the framework of a legally recognized entity. Mr. E has confined his thinking to a very small box.

Hi everyone,

I'm just in from my holiday. Lots of exiting news to read through. You guys have my personal support.

Another "me too" post. I see mambo from various different angles, as a developer of 3rd party modules, as a designer developing sites, and as a webmaster of a large mambo site (as well as many little ones). As such my decision of which way to leap will have to be a business one, and not some betamax is better than VHS exercise.
So far I am pleased to say both heart and head point in this direction