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

RE: [board-discuss] Membership Committee

Hi :)
I think OpenOffice before the forking was under some fairly strange leadership.  ie a company that 
worked hard to increase community participation but not being very trusting of the communities they 
had grown = actively blocking many proposed patches and stuff developed by the community.  

Once Oracle took over things took a nose-dive and they demanded that people who held high positions 
in "their" community stepped down if they were also working in TDF.  I've even heard that Oracle 
took ownership of funds built-up by the community and refused to cover community expenses.  

So, we are dealing with 2 communities, or 1 fractured community that has been fed mis-information 
about each other.  As someone fairly new to the scene i think Apache are pretty much friends 
especially compared to profit-hungry organisations such as Oracle.  Hopefully time may heal some of 
the wounds but maybe a bit of dirty laundry needs to be aired in order for us to discover which 
bits of mis-information people have been fed. Hopefully we can do that a little more sensitively 
and compassionately in the future. 

Just my 2 cents and quite probably contains inaccuracies as it's mostly stuff i have picked up from 
the press rather than at first hand.  
Regards from
Tom :)

--- On Sun, 6/11/11, Dennis E. Hamilton <> wrote:

From: Dennis E. Hamilton <>
Subject: RE: [board-discuss] Membership Committee
Date: Sunday, 6 November, 2011, 18:03
I am not questioning the prerogatives
of the TDF to govern itself in any 
manner. Norbert is correct that I have no standing in the

I was simply surprised that it came up here and Drew felt
he had to address 
it.  I don't question his doing so and how deliberate
he is being about it.

The AOOo project has committers and PPMC members who are
also contributors to 
LO. I know because I see their work in both places. 
No one has ever 
questioned that at ASF.  Not once.

However, I think Norbert's reply, below, is ample
demonstration of the 
polarization that individuals bring to these
conversations.  It is not just 
AOOo members who say outrageous things.  Of course,
our own outrageous things 
are always the truth, and therefore admirable, aren't

Norbert, you can make my note mean whatever you want. I
stand by it as 

Also, I said that there are conditions on participation in
various ways.  It 
is true here, and it is true at ASF.  ASF has a
license requirement, TDF has a 
license requirement, there are ways one becomes a committer
on Apache 
projects, there are ways committer rights are granted for
LO, etc.  Apache has 
a license grant requirement, the iCLA, that, here, is
handled by an e-mail 
message.  ASF provides assurance of the code it
releases in its way, the TDF 
has it in its way.

I am not arguing the merits of any approach.  Every
open-source project has 
its conditions for operation and participation. 
Developers will contribute 
where it is comfortable and inviting for them.  Not
all developers are the 
same in the choices they make.

How ASF members are elected and how the ASF board operates
is all available 
on-line and I am not going to go into it.

One more thing.  I have found folks on ooo-dev who are
cynical about the 
honesty and character of TDF members, too, but nothing so
blatantly virulent 
as was just inserted here.  I believe it is accurate
to say that none of those 
statements are policy positions of the respective
organizations.  When they 
happen at AOOo I ignore them as trolling or, if there is a
action being proposed, I challenge them as inconsistent and

 - Dennis E. Hamilton
   tools for document
interoperability,  <> 
gsm: +1-206-779-9430  @orcmid

-----Original Message-----
From: Norbert Thiebaud []
Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 02:18
Subject: Re: [board-discuss] Membership Committee

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton

First about the ASF.
This is not about ASF. ASF is just a mean to an IBM goal in
that story.

Now, some individuals
This is not so much about individuals either... AOOo owe
its existence
to Corporate politics and interest. It was by no stretch of
imagination a grass root movement.

in the public interest.
Can you spare us the marketing line. Every similar
operate under the same 'public interest' banner, which is a
very broad
one, and does not means, contrary to what one would expect,
'in the
interest of the public'. (1)

There are no recriminations, there is no litmus test,
You mean except signing an iCLA ?

Drew will always be welcome to contribute in any
manner he chooses.
Sure, but If Drew ask to be named V.P. of Community
Development at
Apache, will he automatically get the job ? oh wait, no; I
suppose he
has to, at least, become ASF member first...
wait, how one does become member at Apache ? humm... seems
vague.... one cannot 'apply', one need to have buddies in
the place
already to be 'proposed' for membership.... more like a

In the mean time Drew _is_ a member of TDF and as such is
entitled to
run for BoD or MC, and of course to 'contribute in any
manner he
chooses'... actually that later one does not even require
or even signing up open ended liability agreement.

The question at hand is -- to avoid running BoD and MC
concurrently, which would be a bad idea due to the
necessary oversight
of each body on the election of the other -- how best
organize the
transition to an elected MC. One proposition, that seems to
favored, is to postpone the MC election to the middle of
next year and
to re-conduct the current MC in the interim.
The problem is that the current MC does not have enough
member to
conform to the foundation statute, as amended to fit the
Host State
requirement. So we need to fill 1 MC member position and 3
MC deputy

Out current Bylaw provide that it is the prerogative of the
BoD to
make such appointments. The only restriction established in
the ByLaw
is that such appointees must be TDF members.
So every TDF member is eligible to such position, but none
have any
'right' to it.

Just the same, I thought it strange that there was a
question of any conflict 
seen in Drew Jensen's participation on Apache

Since it is BoD's members prerogative to make such
appointment, it
does not seems strange at all that they'd ask questions,
publicly or
privately, to prospective candidate and other interested
party to make
that decision.
And surely, when seeking a position of representation of
membership  -- which is the case of the MC, which
represent the
membership in the process of evaluating the somewhat
criteria of 'substantive contribution' -- it is expected
that a higher
scrutiny be applied to questions of allegiance and

Of course all that will become moot in few months, when the
at large will be called-upon to make that decision. Still I
would not
be surprised if that sort of questions -- if still of
relevance --
were to pop-up during the election cycle.


(1) One could create an 'Charitable Association' whose
purpose is to
help anyone prepare and fill software patents. That would
most likely
fit the tax requirement to get a 'Charitable' tax-exempt
status, which
is a 'public-interest' Association... It is nevertheless
very arguable
whether that Association would be 'in the interest of the

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived
and cannot be deleted

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived
and cannot be deleted

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.