Before answering through your lines, I would just like to say that I
feel sad because you even don't try to understand who we are before
accusing us with very strong words.
But ok, I've choose to be in the SC and I assume it, even if that means
being judged harshly, my aim is and will remain to get a truly open
source project and product.
On 09/01/2011 12:27, David Nelson wrote:
Hi Bernhard, guys, :-)
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:38, Bernhard Dippold
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?
Yes, all what we want is being dictators that hold everything in secrecy ;)
More seriously, we have meetings, discussions, exchanges that are not
always public when they are strategical or when we meet with a person
who does not want to be known. This is exactly the same in all open
source projects, some decisions need to be discussed privately before
being published and discussed publicly.
Then, it has not been announced may be because it was Christmas time.
Florian is taking care of the meetings, and he is still in vacations
Don't you have a work, a family, a life out of this project. The same
for all of us, our time here is short, even if we try to extend it.
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?
Do you know the work it needs to consult the lawyers, to read the
documents, to get the good contacts?
Do you know that we also are producing a version that needs a lot of
work from several of us?
The first mail I wrote you was explaining exactly the same thing, that
we need time. And still I really don't see why we should rush. Could you
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
Did you work on the OpenOffice.org project ? Did you participate in this
OOo project for more than 6 months ? How could you judge us when you
have spend only 1 or 2 month of your life in a project, even in a job
you get 3 months to demonstrate your capacities...
You are expecting actions that the SC won't take because it is bad
actions that will for sure damage the project.
Also, I don't see the answers to the question Bernhard has asked you,
could you please answer his question.
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.
I find this really normal. For example, if I have an interview to do,
for sure I'll refer to Italo because he has the knowledge and the
authority here that I have absolutely not. He knows from where he is
speaking while I don't. Same if I have to discuss a new dialog box, I'll
go to the design team, because I'm absolutely not skilled here, even if
I have a big interest in design and would like to learn more.
This is not to refrain your contribution but to avoid errors and waste
of time to every body if a more experienced person comes to help you.
You may have feel to be directed, but in this case you can also discuss
with the person, not every body has an educational way to approach things.
Also writing in another language give a harder tone to the message, this
is something we should all take care of.
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,
Some work is not visible for you because it's not on your sphere or
activity, but work is done however.
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*.
Bernhard already answers here and his answer is really right.
You have a problem because we don't answer positively to your request.
The scenario you depicted that the community is dying and the SC members
resigning or having dispute is your scenario.
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.
Did you go on the list and forum to measure the activity? did you
measure the number of commit done by new members? How many new
localization did we get last month? So before putting affirmation that
the project is in a strong danger, please produce all the necessary
measurements for each side of the project.
The area you are taking care of actually is a piece of the project, not
the whole project. There is a lot of other areas where the activity is
going on and fortunately much more smoothly than in the website list.
I hope that we will find a solution soon, and I will vote for the team
Christian and Bernhard have selected, I'm confident it will solve a big
part of the issue.
So of course, the sooner the better for the TDF to have his legal
structure (and it will relief me of this kind of mails), but if it needs
9 month it will take 9 month - period.
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? ;-)
You can not decide in 5 minutes what will be the future of such a
project. Knowing where to establish the Foundation is not the easiest
task I've seen. Writing the bylaws was not also the easiest task and
having all of us reading them and agreeing on them was not an easy task
too, you know it.
Each step need to be well thought, for the long time and agreed by all
the stakeholders. I prefer we take one more month but we get every body
aligned on the decision that have been taken. This is not your point of
view, I know, but this is how an open source project work, and work for
the long time, not the next month only.
On the other hand we are also human, you know we need to eat, we need to
sleep, etc. we have a real life out of this project.
So please be patient. And I have a request: could you try to be as
confident as we have been for you?
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. ;-)
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to email@example.com
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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