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

Hi Bernhard, guys, :-)

On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:38, Bernhard Dippold
<> wrote:
The Bylaws have been approved by the SC during their last call (or the one
before), so they are already adopted.

I have seen *no* announcement about this on the TDF Discuss list. Plus
I have monitored every public SC confcall, and I have seen no mention
of this in the minutes. Has the SC been holding meetings that were
unannounced and not public?

After the release of LibO 3.3.0 the Membership committee could start their
work in approving all the requests by active community members to become TDF

This will probably take a several weeks,

Why so long?

but the main part of their work
will be finished before we start the election process for the Board of
Directors, that has to be established in September latest (as proposed by
the Steering Committee limiting it's existence to not more than one year).

One year? Why so long? Maybe not all contributors are willing to wait
so patiently.

Reluctantly, I have to tell you that, IMHO, the SC is starting to fall
into some of the same habits and attitudes that they said they were
fleeing from within OOo.

Personally, I sometimes get the impression that there is currently a
three-tier membership in this project: new community members like me:
1 vote. past OOo community members: 1.5 votes. SC members 3 votes (or
simple dictation of decision). I have had this impression a number of
times while contributing work to the project. I know that there are at
least *some* other people who would agree fairly closely with this
assertion. I have an impression that, "All members are equal, but some
are more equal than others". :-D

Your assumption is not really wrong: Even if there are no real votes, merit
does count more than just discussion.

What I am talking about is my experience that, for example, some
ex-OOo people have seemed to feel in a position of authority to direct
my own work contributions, despite the fact that they don't seem to
have made any visible work contribution themselves since the launch of
the LibreOffice project. This also seems to apply to certain SC
members, too. This is contrary to the meritocratic and egalitarian
principles of the Community Bylaws - as is the assumption that former
OOo involvement gives you a free credit of authority and merit within
the LibreOffice project. The bylaws talk about *equality*.

Situations like this always tend to worsen over time, and fester. I
believe it's time to fix the problem before it causes irremediable
damage to the project.

But the SC has legitimacy until September - I didn't hear any possible
sponsor asking for a shorter period of time.

Please can someone explain, with no bullshit, why we have to wait 9
more months? ;-)

Bernhard, thanks for your responses. What I wrote above should be
understood to have been said in the friendliest of terms. ;-)

Frankly, I tend to lose track of long mailing list discussions - my
attention span for them is very short. I will look forward to talking
about this during an SC confcall, and i will happily read anyone who
posts back here in the meantime.

I do support TDF. I thoroughly support the values and principles
Charles wrote so admirably into the Community Bylaws. And I am very
keen to see a true and proper community life and governance started as
soon as possible. ;-)

David Nelson

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.