3.0 is an RC no doubt about that. It should of never been released as a going concern. Its jumped ahead and the Zentyal site doesn't even have any links to get the ver 2 product.
If you try and install Zentyal from the ubuntu repo's which state 2.0 you end up with 3.0.
Its ok if you have a previously installed server but anyone who is about to install zentyal or use zentyal are stuck with an experimental product.
Why we can't have a repo that is experimental and at least freeze a working version, which at times we almost have is something that causes me confusion.
Surely we need to allow some of the community to bug check the bleeding edge side of things and allow others access to a working product.
I have pushed like mad for new features as Samba has been critical due to my win7 client base. Anyone can push for new features but this has nothing to do with the manner of release which has been shoddy to say the least.
I am asking these questions to a community council member and they can't answer about bug and non-regression tests?
We don't need a community council as the dev's could work direct with the community. Module version updates need to be released in a bleeding edge repository as it is not fair to the community to be used as a guineapig without choice.
We need to post against version and module so that the data of our activity is concise and returns clarity.
Its such a simple thing to do and just requires a couple of child forums that don't require any programatic skill and are part of the normal SMF functionality.
The devs are superb and the work arounds amazingly quick, the problem lies in the interface to the community. Which is the council as they don't seem to be able to communicate to either the devs or community.
I am generally angry because you can call this missinformation, chinese whispers, denial or even lies.
Where does it say that zentyal 3.0 is only fit to run in a 'sandbox' and don't worry about bugs? Its presented as a finished product.
I feel sorry for the dev's as this situation must apply terrible pressure knowing that they are developing on a live release.
This whole manner of this release in my mind is so reminiscant of closed source denial releases such as M$ that yes I am spitting feathers.
Zentyal Community Council
The social structures and community processes of Zentyal are supervised by the Zentyal Community Council. It is the Community Council that approves the creation of a new team or project, along with team leader appointments. The council is also responsible for the Code of Conduct and tasked with ensuring that community members follow its guidelines.
The council is ultimately responsible for dispute resolution, should it be required.
The Community Council uses the forum (public or private boards) for coordination and meets every two weeks when required on Internet relay chat (IRC). You can propose an item for discussion at the council on the Zentyal Wiki.
Can someone point me to an item of co-ordination that the community council has provided?
There is absolutely no need for a community council in its present guise as it provides absolutely no co-ordination, it creates a barrier between community and zentyal development.
SABDFL
This is not a democracy, it's a meritocracy. We try to operate more on consensus than on votes, seeking agreement from the people who will have to do the work. Ignacio Correas, as self-appointed benevolent dictator for life (SABDFL), plays a happily undemocratic role as sponsor of the project. He has the ability, with regard to Zentyal employees, to ask people to work on specific projects, specific feature goals and specific bugs.
He also has a casting vote on the Community Council, should it come to a vote. This capacity is not used lightly. The community functions best when it can reach broad consensus about a way forward. However, it is not uncommon in the open-source world for there to be multiple good arguments, no clear consensus, and for arguments to divide communities rather than enrich them. The argument absorbs the energy that might otherwise have gone towards the creation of a solution. In many cases, there is no one 'right' answer, and what is needed is a decision more than a debate. The sabdfl acts to provide clear leadership on difficult issues, and set the pace for the project.
The meritocracy just makes me laugh, this isn't supposed to be your drinking buddies. A meritocracy is an organic community free of restraint that provides value via peer review. Its not about voting, but as a community we don't even get the chance to vote for a council. We are so far away from a meritocracy that again we are in the territory of chinese whispers, falsities maybe lies.
A meritocracy allows value to be added to contribution and contributor. Votes, karma, likes allow metrics for the community to express a preference. This doesn't mean in any way that these are control methods that dictate direction.
They are purely modern open-source community models that seem to be totally lacking.
For me and in my own opinion and why I am angry is that from what the website states and what is the working reality. In my definition I call it a lie. Something that I really hate and do get angry about.
The community-council isn't a community council if its main perspective faces towards the commercial body. Its a Zentyal council and currently 80% are zentyal employee's. In my books its a lie to call it a community council.
If you are going to publish, meritocracy, community councils, open-source then run at as so. If you are going to run as a commercial offering which gets mentioned so often then retract those lies. Publish Zentyal as what it is, but quite frankly cut the crap.