>>> [!note] Migrated issue <!-- Drupal.org comment --> <!-- Migrated from issue #772790. --> Reported by: [john.kenney](https://www.drupal.org/user/232913) >>> <p>Apologies in advance for the lengthy post.</p> <p><a href="http://drupal.org/user/190427">Andrew Ariotti</a> and I have sponsored the development of some extremely useful code for handling HTML tables in nodes in D6. We're prepared to contribute the code back to the community, but there is a complication.</p> <p>The complication is that, by design, the code largely/wholly duplicates the functionality of an existing module called TableManager. That said, our code is for a D6 version of which there is no official release under TableManager, so it isn't actual duplication of code, but rather of concept and functionality. <a href="http://drupal.org/project/tablemanager">http://drupal.org/project/tablemanager</a>.</p> <p>We tried some months back to collaborate with the maintainer to get this code done for an official D6 release, but instead we created a big controversy. See these threads: <a href="http://drupal.org/node/234139">http://drupal.org/node/234139</a>, <a href="http://drupal.org/node/623482">http://drupal.org/node/623482</a>. As a result, we had no option but to go out on our own to produce the code independently. </p> <p>The problem then, as now, being that the TableManager code has never been fully upgraded to work properly on D6 and is released only in a .dev version that is still not fully functional 2 yrs after it's original release. Even now, the maintainer has offered no definite timetable for the upgrade to D6, let alone D7. He has also introduced concerns about who even owns the code as some of it may arguably belong to clients of his company (<a href="http://drupal.org/node/599722#comment-2209146">http://drupal.org/node/599722#comment-2209146</a>). He has also made clear he will not bring on co-maintainers (<a href="http://drupal.org/node/623482#comment-2231592">http://drupal.org/node/623482#comment-2231592</a>) to help him.</p> <p>At the time of those threads, we offered to work with the maintainer to update his excellent module - to pay to have it entirely re-written if necessary. We first offered to pay him and then when that didn't work, we offered to pay other developers who might collaborate with him. But that didn't work out either, so in the end were told to take a hike.</p> <p>Since Andrew and I needed fully working TM functionality for D6 production sites, we moved forward to build out a new version of the code upgraded to D6 and with all features working. We hired two freelancers to write the code. The project has involved many manhours and a meaningful amount of our money to complete. The code is essentially completely rewritten from the ground up consistent with D6 APIs and coding standards (whereas TM has it's roots in D4 code).</p> <p>While there are still some bugs to be worked out, the module substantially works now and has been tested by several people so far. We also have commitments from two developers to be co-maintainers of the module out of the gate.</p> <p>We have an interest in posting it back to d.o. for use by the community. We imagine that among the hundreds of other people using the .dev version, there are others like us who could benefit from it. Here's an example from just the other day: <a href="http://drupal.org/node/771800">http://drupal.org/node/771800</a>.</p> <p>What we need from webmasters is guidance on is how to move forward on this. In some sense, it should be a new version of TableManager, but the history and personalities involved makes that difficult. On the other hand, the code base is essentially completely rewritten and looks nothing like the original code, even if the functionality is similar.</p> <p>Our preference is to establish a new module that starts fresh with our two co-maintainers. The project name NodeTable has been tentatively reserved. </p> <p>However, we are open to working within the framework of TableManager, if we can settle on mutually agreeable terms with the current maintainer (e.g., our co-maintainers are welcomed, we take the lead on D6 version, and so forth). Obviously, things didn't go so well there the first time around, but ...</p> <p>Of course, there's a 3rd option: we drop the whole thing and keep the code private. We wouldn't prefer that, but it's probably the easiest for us.</p> <p>We are posting a note to the TableManager queue at the same time we are posting here to ensure the situation gets a full and open hearing. We look forward the community's suggestions as to the best way to proceed.</p>