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

[steering-discuss] Re: [steering-discuss] Recent incomplete or non-existent records of SC meetings


Hi David, 

thanks for sharing your thoughts...
(and for adding the smiley allowing me to try not to take this message as 
offense against the tremendous work the SC members to at the moment).

David Nelson wrote:
Hi, :-)

In addition to the recording of the SC meeting of 2011-05-12 [1] being
incomplete 

appearing to you incomplete

(which is a pity since it contained some *interesting*
discussion about the Brazilian community and about the MC), the same
also applies to:

* 2011-05-06 [2]
* 2011-04-30 [3]
* 2011-04-21 [4]
* 2011-04-06 [5]
* 2011-03-26 (no recording at all)
* 2011-03-16 [6]

All the recordings are cut short, with some containing very little audio.

I didn't experience this when I downloaded some of them in the past 
(I'm not allowed to access web pages with .mp3 here at work, so I 
can't test it now -  I can't even have a look at the wiki pages).

Have they been replaced by new files lately?

If not it is *very* unlikely that there is a general problem with the files.

They all have been announced here and *nobody* complained about 
them during weeks and months.

If they are cut short  for everybody, we would have got more replies like
yours (perhaps in a more friendly tone "please could you re-upload the 
files again, they seem to be broken").

This is a pity since no notes were taken during some of those
meetings, meaning that there is no public record at all - including of
the open question time at the ends of the meetings, during which
community members have the chance to bring subjects up for discussion
with the SC.

As you probably have read this list for some time, you will know that there 
have been a request by the SC if anybody would be able to listen to the 
audio files and create a summary, as the SC members didn't have the 
time to do so.

This is a task easily to be delegated to other community members - 
nobody started to do so. 

So this is not a task for the SC members, but for you and everybody else
thinking that these summaries are important (it is my task too, because I 
agree with you that they are important - but I see other, even more important
tasks, so I don't start claim that others should do the job I consider as less
important)


Another aspect that is somewhat sad is the recent fall in attendance
at meetings, and the discussion about possibly greater use of e-mail
as a channel for debate and decision-taking - I am hoping that this
*does* mean open communication on the SC Discuss list, and not some
kind of non-public process...

You read here that the SC tries to find a compromise between fixed dates and
changing dates for their meetings. So their work on finding a solution should 
be mentioned too, if you refer to an existing problem. 

From people all over the world conference calls have ever been a problem, so 
decision making on a mailing list is probably the best way to avoid time zone
problems.

But where did you ever get the *idea* that these discussions would not be 
open and public? Please point me to any hint for such a assumption.

While I do realise that people also have other areas of life to take
care of, please can the SC reassure us that this is not going to be a
gradual and chronic deterioration in the high standards of governance
laid out in the bylaws?

No! They don't need to reassure us in any way that they still take care about
LibreOffice and The Document Foundation in any positive way they can contribute.

They have been deeply involved in creation of the Bylaws. And besides of you
nobody wants to deny their dedication to this community based on the Bylaws.

Of course they are human beings, they do make mistakes as everybody among us.
Sometimes they don't even use the best words to explain their positions.

But if they are pointed at some problems in a friendly way, they do react in a sensible
manner.

Sorry, David, your posting upsets me - perhaps because I have to rely on what I read
from the content and context of the mail.

I'm not a native speaker, so I can be wrong, but I take your mail as allegation against 
the Steering Committee not to follow our Bylaws. And I remember well, that you did 
something similar in the past...

Regards

Bernhard




-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

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.