Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws


Hi David,

On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 20:33 +0800, David Nelson wrote:
I must admit that I don't really agree with you, Michael. There is
always need for organization and coordination in any human enterprise.

        Sure - we are all agreed on this :-) the question is whether that
requires formal job titles, or whether it scales and adapts better with
informal relationships backed up by transparency.

       Members are expected to refrain from any kind of expression of
       racism, xenophobia, sexism and religious or political
       intolerance.
..
Again, I'm afraid don't agree with you. One of the negative things
about many FOSS projects is the kind of negative behavior, attitudes
and treatment that people sometimes have to put up with - there have
been several threads in the TDF lists where it has occurred. I suspect
that there would be plenty of people who would support what I've
written.

        So - if you have cases where you would want to exclude people from
membership for these reasons, or to censor them - please do post links;
if people are not prepared to point the finger, then there is little
purpose served by the rule surely ? :-)

        Furthermore, I have a vast political intolerance for parties that lobby
for software patents (indeed I've lobbied against them), I have a
near-null tolerance for some religions that involve human sacrifice
[ there are some still extant ]  and/or the consumption of endangered
species, and I have a similar acute distaste for terrorism, and Israeli
oppression.

         Bingo - I just broke most of the rules. The current paragraph with its
incredibly broad scope forbids me to express any of these things in any
context - as such is over-broad as well as un-necessary :-)

        The excellent text forbidding ad-hominem attacks, abuse etc. seems to
cover all the interesting situations of inter-personal conflict that we
want to proscribe.

In any case, you've had lots of time to read and comment. ;-) Me, I
was extremely concerned from day #1 of the launch that TDF had not
prepared things properly, and that it did not have a "draft
constitution" to put before people right at the outset. But instead of
just standing back and criticizing from a distance, I wanted to get
involved in remedying the problem.

        And you did a great job :-) as I say - don't get the impression that I
don't like the overall result; it is IMHO nearly perfect.

In any case, I've done my best to be of practical help, and you guys
are free to do what you will. ;-)

        So - again, thank you ! it was wonderful to have you engaged. That we
disagree on some details doesn't nullify the great work you put in here,
the useful checks & balances, critical thinking, textual review etc. was
much appreciated by me at least.

        Thanks,

                Michael.

-- 
 michael.meeks@novell.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.