[steering-discuss] Base - a new mailing list?

Hi Tom,

I am sorry but there is NO suitable list to discuss Base. Almost no-one that has expressed any interest in working on Base is on the list you discuss and they are not willing to join a high-traffic list that knows nothing about using Base.

this is the *wrong* list to discuss about base. *Please* move the discussion over to discuss@, as Thorsten asked.

Thanks,
Florian

Hi Tom,

Perhaps one way would be to cross-post any discussion about Base so that all the lists got any post about Base? That would neatly avoid having to set-up a new list and still reach the various different people:)

do you want me to blacklist you in our mail servers?

Florian

Hi Florian,

this is the *wrong* list to discuss about base. *Please* move the discussion
over to discuss@, as Thorsten asked.

Well, maybe it's not really so off-topic, IMHO. I think it's an issue
that Tom - and maybe even others - really want to put before the SC.
Every time I read about Base in the lists, people seem to be
complaining that not only is it not improving or being developed from
release to release but that it's even regressing over time.

Yet, IMHO, having a database component in LibO is a tremendous asset,
both functionality-wise and marketing-wise.

While I'm sure that people understand that the SC can't create
resources (manpower or financial) out of nothing, there is nonetheless
a not-inconsiderable number of people that would like to see the SC
regard Base as an urgent issue for which to try and find *some*
solution: fix it? Bring in another database product with an active
developer community to replace it?

2 cents.

I think part of the problem is the rise of client server databases with
the
internet. It's a bit of an irony because to start with OOo used the
principle of connecting to a database rather than including the old
Addabas
that was with StarOffice. Snag now is that even if the use of Base is
minority it's difficult to withdraw it without upsetting them.

Ian
Sent from my Android Smartphone.
www.theingots.org

Hi :slight_smile:
Done that. Been there. It didn't work. Base is dying. Can we just admit
that and remove it from LO?
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Why not find a way to integrate connectivity to all the major databases
such as mysql and MsSQL servers?

This was the method in the early days. I assume it still works. At the
weekend at the Apache Bar Camp I was talking to PostgreSQL developers who
are very interested in better integration with OOo/Libo. We are likely to be
working together on training and certification so there are possibilities to
get some funding to this development but its going to take a little time.
They are applying for FP7 funding through the EU and we can complement that
with Lifelong Learning projects.

That is great news to hear, but what about trying to get support from big companies to encourage big name database companies to help us integrate support for their project into base, it would in a way create a very easy to use front end.

One similar database program i have found is kexi. It allows a user to create a new database on a remote back end such as mysql etc and work on it and even access existing databases as well.

Hi David,

you wrote:

While I'm sure that people understand that the SC can't create
resources (manpower or financial) out of nothing, there is nonetheless
a not-inconsiderable number of people that would like to see the SC
regard Base as an urgent issue for which to try and find *some*
solution: fix it? Bring in another database product with an active
developer community to replace it?

Personally, I do consider the situation around Base as not
satisfying - whether it is urgent yet I cannot fully ascertain,
since I don't really use it.

Beyond that, what do you expect us to do - since the items you list
there all require significant work? The general notion here was that
having a separate Base list would not serve the purpose - so what
other, concrete proposals are there to discuss within the SC?

If there are none yet, I'd indeed appreciate it if general
brainstorming would *not* happen on this list.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Hi David,

you wrote:
> While I'm sure that people understand that the SC can't create
> resources (manpower or financial) out of nothing, there is nonetheless
> a not-inconsiderable number of people that would like to see the SC
> regard Base as an urgent issue for which to try and find *some*
> solution: fix it? Bring in another database product with an active
> developer community to replace it?
>
Personally, I do consider the situation around Base as not
satisfying - whether it is urgent yet I cannot fully ascertain,
since I don't really use it.

Hi =)

I understand you are not one of those who would work on Base at this moment,
just like Tom and the others he's citing are willing.

Beyond that, what do you expect us to do - since the items you list
there all require significant work?

How about giving them the resources they are asking for developing their
job, and foster their activities? =)

The general notion here was that
having a separate Base list would not serve the purpose - so what
other, concrete proposals are there to discuss within the SC?

The general notion you're saying, IMHO, comes from people who are not
directly involved in Base's issue itself. How many of those people who are
saying "no" to the creation of the new list will be directly working on
Base?

If there are none yet, I'd indeed appreciate it if general
brainstorming would *not* happen on this list.

Maybe you should invite people who are willing to contribute on Base to jump
in this discussion, wherever it should happen.

My 2 cents.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Cheers.

> The general notion here was that
> having a separate Base list would not serve the purpose - so what
> other, concrete proposals are there to discuss within the SC?

The general notion you're saying, IMHO, comes from people who are not
directly involved in Base's issue itself. How many of those people who are
saying "no" to the creation of the new list will be directly working on
Base?

> If there are none yet, I'd indeed appreciate it if general
> brainstorming would *not* happen on this list.

Maybe you should invite people who are willing to contribute on Base to
jump
in this discussion, wherever it should happen.

Why would a Base list not help? It would at least provide a potential focus?
So providing a Base list seems like a concrete proposal :slight_smile:

My 2 cents.

Hello Ian, Tom, Paulo,

>
> > The general notion here was that
> > having a separate Base list would not serve the purpose - so what
> > other, concrete proposals are there to discuss within the SC?
>
> The general notion you're saying, IMHO, comes from people who are not
> directly involved in Base's issue itself. How many of those people who
are
> saying "no" to the creation of the new list will be directly working on
> Base?
>
> > If there are none yet, I'd indeed appreciate it if general
> > brainstorming would *not* happen on this list.
>
> Maybe you should invite people who are willing to contribute on Base to
> jump
> in this discussion, wherever it should happen.
>

Why would a Base list not help? It would at least provide a potential
focus?
So providing a Base list seems like a concrete proposal :slight_smile:

Concrete proposals are:

- a bugfix
- a patch for a new feature (might be matching one or more easy hacks)
- bug reports
- UX testing
- marketing collaterals
- Design Requests For Enhancements studies
- documentation writing
- localization work

The rest is not a concrete proposal. A concrete proposal of a new mailing
list is nothing. It's an invitation to talk, and talk is *very cheap*.
Talking is not doing. Talking is not contributing. As far as I can see no
one of the "several volunteers demanding a Base mailing list" are doing
anything of the above. You have a patch? you have code? you have bug
reports? Do you have anything of the above? If you have anything of the
above, you will realize something: it's already happening and being
documented through a mailing list :slight_smile:

Thanks,

Charles.

Charles I have now had 2 responses from you in the last few minutes which
have a tone that seems at best pretty negative. I'm not sure why you are
upset with me. I certainly know talk is cheap, but then courtesy doesn't
cost anything either.

Don't worry, I will go to places where things are a little more cordial.

Ian,

> Hello Ian, Tom, Paulo,
>
>
> > > > The general notion here was that
> > > > having a separate Base list would not serve the purpose - so what
> > > > other, concrete proposals are there to discuss within the SC?
> > >
> > > The general notion you're saying, IMHO, comes from people who are not
> > > directly involved in Base's issue itself. How many of those people
who
> > are
> > > saying "no" to the creation of the new list will be directly working
on
> > > Base?
> > >
> > > > If there are none yet, I'd indeed appreciate it if general
> > > > brainstorming would *not* happen on this list.
> > >
> > > Maybe you should invite people who are willing to contribute on Base
to
> > > jump
> > > in this discussion, wherever it should happen.
> > >
> >
> > Why would a Base list not help? It would at least provide a potential
> > focus?
> > So providing a Base list seems like a concrete proposal :slight_smile:
> >
> >
> Concrete proposals are:
>
> - a bugfix
> - a patch for a new feature (might be matching one or more easy hacks)
> - bug reports
> - UX testing
> - marketing collaterals
> - Design Requests For Enhancements studies
> - documentation writing
> - localization work
>
> The rest is not a concrete proposal. A concrete proposal of a new mailing
> list is nothing. It's an invitation to talk, and talk is *very cheap*.
>

Charles I have now had 2 responses from you in the last few minutes which
have a tone that seems at best pretty negative. I'm not sure why you are
upset with me. I certainly know talk is cheap, but then courtesy doesn't
cost anything either.

Don't worry, I will go to places where things are a little more cordial.

I'm sorry if my answer(s) sounded unpolite. They're not only meant to be
clear.

best,
Charles.

Hello,

may I jump in here? I think the topic is cooking a bit too hot.

This list is *SOLELY* for discussions and votes of the steering committee, and for requests to the steering committee. The traffic here is groing and groing, and puts the initial purpose - track records of decisions - *TOTALLY* ad absurdum.

So, please *ONLY* use this list when you want to request something from the steering committee. Discussions that lead to these request *SHOULD* take place on the discuss mailing list, and *NOT* here.

We already have reached a level where it is totally impossible to track votes and decisions, as the "noise" on this list has grown rapidly. Everyone contributed to this, including SC members like myself who did reply on this list, but in the future, we really need to take care of this.

So, in a nutshell: Requesting the SC to vote on a mailing list is of course valid for this list, but discussions what Base lacks and what not, and what other products should be used, are simply *WRONG* on this list. Please use discuss@ instead. It helps all of us if we clearly know which list is used for what purpose. Ask yourself: Does my mail contain a direct request or question to the steering committee? If not, it does *NOT* belong to this list, but rather on discuss@, where all SC members read as well.

On the concrete request, of course the SC may be called to formally vote, but I want to repeat my thoughts:

I would *VERY* *MUCH* appreciate if we could *FIRST* see if things work out, by building a workgroup that can discuss on discuss@ and develop on libreoffice@fdo. If, and *ONLY* if, this group works constantly and has enough members, a separate mailing list makes sense.

As much as I do want to provide people any workground they need to engage, I *REALLY* would like to avoid thousands of unused lists. So, please *FIRST* show that something is going on, and *THEN* let's discuss if a separate list makes sense.

Sorry if that mail sounds harsh, but I hope it makes some things a bit clear...

So, please, any replies with regards to the mailing list question, on this list, and any other discussion about base on discuss@. Please, folks, we're really losing track on what we intend to discuss here.

Florian

Hi Thorsten,

Tom, Ian, please move the discussion over to the discuss@ list. If
there's any code questions (and there were people interested in the
long-dormant postgres-connector), that should go to
libreoffice@lists.freedesktop.org.

Thanks,

-- Thorsten

You'll probably read what I replied to Florian about this being
off-topic to the SC list. Maybe this is a matter of community members
wanting to be able to discuss an issue with the SC, and the SC discuss
list being the place to do it?

I know there are no easy, immediate solutions, but there are people
who would like to see the SC regard this Base issue as being something
important to deal with.

Hi David,

I know there are no easy, immediate solutions, but there are people
who would like to see the SC regard this Base issue as being something
important to deal with.

that's fine, of course. My point is not that the SC does not want to get involved into this - my point is that more and more discussions are moved to this mailing list rather than where they belong, effectively rendering the initial approach of this list useless (trackability and transparency of SC decisions and votes).

Try to look at the list archives, and try to identify the votes of the SC easily and quickly: it's impossible. That's my point.

Florian

Hi Florian,

I perfectly understand your point.

It is not helpful when you declare a thread to be a vote among SC
members and then people jump in with "friendly and encouraging
comments", because then the SC can't vote properly and unambiguously.

Maybe label vote threads as "SC VOTE:"?

Then people should definitely refrain from jumping-in on those threads.

Hi,

Maybe label vote threads as "SC VOTE:"?

the thing is: This whole list should be only

  - SC vote
  - SC discuss
  - request to SC

any *nothing* else. Any other discussion should be on the appropriate lists, i.e. discuss@. That's my point. :slight_smile:

Florian

Hi,

Hi,

Maybe label vote threads as "SC VOTE:"?

the thing is: This whole list should be only

- SC vote
       - SC discuss
       - request to SC

any *nothing* else. Any other discussion should be on the appropriate lists,
i.e. discuss@. That's my point. :slight_smile:

+1 :slight_smile:
Sophie

Hi David, *

Von: David Nelson <lists@traduction.biz>

I perfectly understand your point.

It is not helpful when you declare a thread to be a vote among SC
members and then people jump in with "friendly and encouraging
comments", because then the SC can't vote properly and unambiguously.

Maybe label vote threads as "SC VOTE:"?

Then people should definitely refrain from jumping-in on those threads.

I doubt that people would refrain - obviously some people (at least
one person) can not resist to countiously discuss here at the list,
even if asked to move the topic to other list (because *there* are
the right people for discussion).

regards,

André

Hi,

Why not find a way to integrate connectivity to all the major databases such
as mysql and MsSQL servers?

Yes, that would be great indeed.

I can hear Michael Meeks thinking, "Well start developing the code then."

Anyway, I think it would be a great pity to give up on Base, because
it has the potential to be an enormous power feature of the
LibreOffice suite.

As a general thing in the LibreOffice project, I think we need to
think seriously about a determined recruitment drive, for Base and for
various other areas of the project. Just waiting for people to
volunteer does not seem to be enough to cater to our needs for
contributors.

Marketing guys, can you give this consideration?

yes but not _here_ ....

Norbert

Norbert Thiebaud wrote (13-09-11 22:49)

yes but not _here_ ....

Indeed - see the marketing list :wink: