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


Hi David, *,

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 4:12 PM, David Nelson <commerce@traduction.biz> 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 libreoffice.org website.

I have to agree with the others that I don't like this way of handling
the situation.

I'm rather with Michael: Whose who do the work have the say anyway.

I want
to be considered *the boss* of the libreoffice.org website, and my
decisions would only be overridden by a majority vote of SC members.
Anything short of that, my decision wins.

I'd rather prefer if that would not be needed in the first place -
being the boss because one is the person who does the work gives me a
better feeling than "I'm the boss because that's written on my
nametag"

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

Well - in that case I even more have to say -1
If you're the only one to think your plans are great (and in only this
case you'd need to have "Boss"-powers), then I'd rather not follow
that plan. If other people agree, then you're the boss because you're
driving things forward.

I would ask for the title of "Executive editor of the libreoffice.org
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.

Regarding representing the TDF/the project to the press, others have
responded already.

[...]
What do you say, guys? ;-) Can we try this experiment and see what it produces?

I'd say now (but I'm no SC member) - the goals of the TDF are to drive
community collaboration in the end, not "one party can do as they
please".
Experience, and actual contribution/work done should weigh more than a
title. That is nothing wrong with giving you a title "Executive
editor" - but the "I can veto whatever I want" part is what I don't
agree with. I'm sure you wouldn't abuse that power, but is the message
it signals to the outside, the principle behind it that doesn't please
me.

The community should be "ruled" based on rationale decisions, on
discussions where people can provide input, etc (and that quality of
the opinion/person behind it weighs more than just quantity of votes).
Having a mini-dictatorship is OK for special cases, but is not a
long-term situation.

ciao
Christian

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/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.