Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On 1/7/11 4:12 PM, David Nelson wrote:

To do that job, I would ask - for a period of 4 months, subsequently
renewable on condition of the SC's approval - for complete authority
and final veto on all content on the website. I want
to be considered *the boss* of the website, and my
decisions would only be overridden by a majority vote of SC members.
Anything short of that, my decision wins.

Hi David, I am totally against such a decision.

You have done a very good job for the progress of the web site, but I do not think that anyone inside the project deserves the title of boss of a specific project.

TDF is a community project, and we must respect the community way of doing things. Consensus is key for the progress of the project, and for the progress of sub projects within the main project. Forced consensus, even if backed by the SC, is not going to work.

This would give me the necessary authority to try some imaginative and
ambitious plans that I will put to Marketing.

You are invited and welcome to share your ambitious plans with the community of volunteers interested in marketing TDF and LibreOffice. Any marketing plan must be shared and agreed before being put into practice.

I would ask for the title of "Executive editor of the
website". The only reason I have for asking for this title is that it
gives me a handle to use in relations with outside parties, such as
the press.

David, this is puzzling and worrying me at the same time. Why should you talk to the press outside TDF communication activities, which are coordinated by the SC and have already four official spokespersons? If it is appropriate for you to talk with the press on behalf of TDF, we will be more than happy to put you forward after having been media trained (the entire SC has been media trained).

If you feel able to grant me this trust, you can be sure that I will
act responsibly and wisely, and that my sole aim will be to advance
and protect the interests of the LibreOffice project and community.

I am just one out of eight the SC members, but I will strongly disapprove any decision in the direction requested by your message.

I believe in teamwork and community-building. I would be keen to
listen to and to learn from others, and to take the smartest decisions
possible. I would seek to leave behind a positive contribution.

David, so far, you have been a good community member, and you have done a lot for the project. In my opinion, though, your request is not a demonstration of respect for teamwork and community building. Even if we are used to work in a corporate environment, we must accept that the community environment is a different one, and even if we hate lengthy discussions we need to cope with them using different weapons from traditional corporate hierarchy.

You have already got something unusual, i.e. a few days of extraordinary empowerment - and I am sure that you have used them to the advantage of the project - but this, in my opinion, does not qualify for another request of the same kind, and for a longer span of time.

So said, I am keen to listen to the opinion of the other members of the SC. Ciao, Italo

Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation
Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813
Skype: italovignoli - GTalk:

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
List archive:
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


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.