[steering-discuss] Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws

Hi SC members, :slight_smile:

Charles wrote an excellent set of Community Bylaws. I would like to
see them officially adopted and applied. And I would like to see the
various committees and governance systems in the Community Bylaws set
up and become active.

I feel that this is important for the future of LibreOffice. I
strongly support the project, and I want to see it succeed. I think we
need to take action quite quickly.

I have noted how the level of involvement and contribution by "active
community members" has tailed off. I have noticed how few user support
queries there are on the user support list. It is my impression that
the level of contribution to development is also decreasing.

We have a situation in which a key project resource, the
libreoffice.org website, is becoming the center of pushing and pulling
for control over its development. Decisions are needed about the
website's management (editorial team), and about the future direction
of its development (the question of Drupal adoption is becoming
extremely disruptive and divisive in this fledgling project).

I personally have experienced wanting to implement 2 great initiatives
(proactive contact with Linux projects, and organization of interviews
with BBC TV and radio for Charles and/or other SC members) only to
find certain SC members strongly discouraging me to take action,
refusing to give any constructive consideration, or totally ignoring
me and not giving any reaction at all on the subject.

When I have suggested bold initiatives, there have been very
proprietary, "control freak" reactions from some SC members, with talk
of "this is so and so's field of responsibility", and I'm strongly
discouraged from taking the idea further.

These attitudes and some other attitudes I have encountered from
certain SC members are contrary to the
principles of good meritocracy and equality of membership laid down in
the bylaws.

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". :smiley:

The SC was a necessary institution when TDF was first launched. But it
was only supposed to be a temporary body. Some SC members now seem to
becoming rooted in their positions of decision-taking power. The
situation is becoming undemocratic and non-meritocratic. IMHO, it
starts to resemble a form of "Communism going wrong". :wink:

I seriously believe that, if you do not take quick action, the
LibreOffice project is in serious danger of imploding within the next
couple of months or before the end of the year. Contributors will
progressively drop away. Less and less work will be contributed.
Ultimately, tensions will arise within the SC itself, and
disagreements will break out; if the SC itself were to fragment, the
LibreOffice project could end up orphaned.

In the present situation, you cannot attract more corporate
contributors/partners to the project, because there is not the
necessary governance. The SC lacks proper legitimacy. If you do not
take action fairly soon, could you perhaps even end-up losing the
corporate contributors you currently have (Novell and Red Hat)?

Even if TDF does not now have the funds to establish itself legally,
there is nothing to stop you implementing the bylaws at a moral and
organizational level right from the present time. You might then
attract more financial contributions to enable you to set up a legal
structure in either Germany or the UK.

I hereby request you to discuss the issue of formal adoption and
implementation of the Community Bylaws during either the next SC
confcall or - at latest - during the next-but-one SC confcall (if you
need time to prepare), and to take some formal decisions in this
respect within a short time frame.

David Nelson

Hi David, SC members, all

David Nelson schrieb:

Hi SC members, :slight_smile:

Charles wrote an excellent set of Community Bylaws. I would like to
see them officially adopted and applied. And I would like to see the
various committees and governance systems in the Community Bylaws set
up and become active.

The Bylaws have been approved by the SC during their last call (or the one before), so they are already adopted.

What needs to be done, is to establish the Membership Committee.
This board will decide on the requests to become formal TDF members - a precondition for electing a Board of Directors later on.

While the tasks of the BoD are worked on by the SC members by now, the Membership Committee's tasks can't be done by them too.

I feel that this is important for the future of LibreOffice. I
strongly support the project, and I want to see it succeed. I think we
need to take action quite quickly.

It is important - no question.

But I don't see it as critical as you:

The TDF membership doesn't lead to any other workflow or decision making than nowadays.

People interested in working on a specific area do the work there - if they understand, that other areas are more important at the moment, they will probably change their focus.

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 members.

This will probably take a several weeks, 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).

I have noted how the level of involvement and contribution by "active
community members" has tailed off. I have noticed how few user support
queries there are on the user support list. It is my impression that
the level of contribution to development is also decreasing.

This is your impression.

Mine is quite different.

For me the most important point is how the open source basis for the community is filled with life - and brought to the public.

We have ten years history as an open source project, pushed and limited at the same time by the leading habit of Sun/Oracle as main contributor.

New contributors need to find their position in the existing community - we don't want to re-event the wheel in areas that have been successful in the past.

We have a situation in which a key project resource, the
libreoffice.org website, is becoming the center of pushing and pulling
for control over its development. Decisions are needed about the
website's management (editorial team), and about the future direction
of its development (the question of Drupal adoption is becoming
extremely disruptive and divisive in this fledgling project).

All these decisions will be taken - either by the website team, or (if this team will not be able to find a common way without damaging the community as a whole) by the Steering Committee.

But could you please release your website proposal before you request new steps and decisions over and over again?

You probably don't have the time to reply to the proposals for a website leading team in your other thread, as you are finishing the website until tomorrow.

So I'd ask you to let the community have some time and find a way of common goals and ways to reach them. This will not be possible without discussion. But these discussions will lead to results - they are not superfluous at all.

I personally have experienced wanting to implement 2 great initiatives
(proactive contact with Linux projects, and organization of interviews
with BBC TV and radio for Charles and/or other SC members) only to
find certain SC members strongly discouraging me to take action,
refusing to give any constructive consideration, or totally ignoring
me and not giving any reaction at all on the subject.

I can't tell you anything about the BBC contacts you mention, but I see the results of your request for participation at the Linux design teams (to create our logo9:

As our infrastructure had not at all been ready to provide a place for the Linux designers to work collaboratively together with the LibO community, they became quiet after a very short period of time (perhaps they turned their back on LibO totally). When we'll reach at them again - after establishing our branding and infrastructure - I don't know who will be interested again...

Of course this is mainly a problem of communication - if we would have been able to tell you what is necessary to lead people towards a project and to *keep them active* (and we know that from our experience in OOo), this step could have been coordinated better.

But we didn't have the time to prepare everything properly - we have to establish our new infrastructure now...

When I have suggested bold initiatives, there have been very
proprietary, "control freak" reactions from some SC members, with talk
of "this is so and so's field of responsibility", and I'm strongly
discouraged from taking the idea further.

I don't know what the initiatives are you refer here.

Calling SC members "control freaks" might be too bold IMHO.

They feel responsible for the entire community - consisting of numerous people not visible on the mailing lists, but nevertheless working in their specific area.

They know how these people are used to work and will not hinder them to work there in the way they think to be the best for their purpose.

The SC consist of members from the different areas of our community - thus allowing them to have an insight in all these fields of work.

And if they know that one or another community member should be involved in any decision on their field of expertise, this doesn't mean they behave as "control freaks".

Allowing you to work offlist for a certain time was a decision that didn't please everybody here. But is has been necessary to get the website in the state it is now.

As the SC seems not to follow your idea of providing you with more privileges than anybody else in this community (not even a SC member will be able to work on his/her own ideas - only to be stopped by a majority decision of the SC), your position seems to have changed by 180°:

These attitudes and some other attitudes I have encountered from
certain SC members are contrary to the
principles of good meritocracy and equality of membership laid down in
the bylaws.

How do you value meritocracy? Are your contributions more valid than mine?

You did a tremendous job in creating our present website - and this gives you merit.

Your voice will be heard in every discussion on website development (and probably on documentation, but this is not an area I'm involved). Your opinion will probably have more value than the opinion of most of the other members of the website team. But this doesn't mean that you are absolutely right in every idea you want to establish.

Equality of membership is mentioned in the Bylaws for TDF membership: Every member has one vote for the BoD elections.

But you don't want that every community member who reached some merit can modify the website according his or her opinion. So you know that equality is not possible - and not helpful to get the needed work done.

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". :smiley:

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

And trust counts even more: If people have contributed for a longer period of time, their merit might be rated higher than a short time contribution. All the SC members have been active contributors to our community over years. They are respected by the community members, as they know about their long time position towards the community.

They didn't leave OpenOffice.org because they wanted to become "dictators" - the didn't see an other way to keep the community in a state where single people's contributions matter.

The SC was a necessary institution when TDF was first launched. But it
was only supposed to be a temporary body. Some SC members now seem to
becoming rooted in their positions of decision-taking power. The
situation is becoming undemocratic and non-meritocratic. IMHO, it
starts to resemble a form of "Communism going wrong". :wink:

The SC told from the very beginning, that it's work has to be finished within one years time: At this time we'll have an elected Board of Directors.

For the moment, I can't understand what you are heading for.

I seriously believe that, if you do not take quick action, the
LibreOffice project is in serious danger of imploding within the next
couple of months or before the end of the year. Contributors will
progressively drop away. Less and less work will be contributed.
Ultimately, tensions will arise within the SC itself, and
disagreements will break out; if the SC itself were to fragment, the
LibreOffice project could end up orphaned.

This is the SC you want to decide on your proposal to lead the website team as single "boss"? And if they decide, you will call them "dictators"?

Please, could you tell us what you believe would be the right way to lead our community?

People contribute because they want LibreOffice to become better, more known and important.

But we are not a horde of individuals. We need to interact - and I don't see any decision by the SC where this has not been considered.

In the present situation, you cannot attract more corporate
contributors/partners to the project, because there is not the
necessary governance. The SC lacks proper legitimacy. If you do not
take action fairly soon, could you perhaps even end-up losing the
corporate contributors you currently have (Novell and Red Hat)?

If this project is attractive to corporate contributors depends mainly on personal contacts. Of course they want to know how this community evolves.

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

Even if TDF does not now have the funds to establish itself legally,
there is nothing to stop you implementing the bylaws at a moral and
organizational level right from the present time. You might then
attract more financial contributions to enable you to set up a legal
structure in either Germany or the UK.

As the Bylaws have been approved, they are implemented a the moral level. Organizational there is still some work to be done, but this is not a precondition for any sponsor, IMHO.

I hereby request you to discuss the issue of formal adoption and
implementation of the Community Bylaws during either the next SC
confcall or - at latest - during the next-but-one SC confcall (if you
need time to prepare), and to take some formal decisions in this
respect within a short time frame.

It's your right to request the implementation of the Bylaws - I support it with regards to the Membership Committee.

I believe in the Steering Committee's ability to decide on the most urgent topics for our community and to lead and guide our community in a way the vast majority of our community supports whole-heartedly.

As already mentioned above: Please describe the way you want the community to be led, when you have the time to provide such feedback.

We are open to new ideas - especially if they come from a community member that showed his skills and devoted his time to a huge task for our community like you did with the website.

Best regards

Bernhard

Hi Bernhard, guys, :slight_smile:

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
members.

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". :smiley:

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? :wink:

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

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. :wink:

David Nelson

Hi David,

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.

Hi Bernhard, guys, :slight_smile:

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 :wink:
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 until tomorrow.

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
members.

This will probably take a several weeks,

Why so long?

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.

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.

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 explain why?

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.

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.

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". :smiley:

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,

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.

  despite the fact that they don't seem to
have made any visible work contribution themselves since the launch of
the LibreOffice project.

Some work is not visible for you because it's not on your sphere or activity, but work is done however.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? :wink:

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.

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.

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

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. :wink:

So please be patient. And I have a request: could you try to be as confident as we have been for you?

Kind regards
Sophie

Hello David,

> 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? :wink:

We don't have to. The letter of mission of the present SC lasts until
next September but it can disband itself much earlier provided we have
incorporated. Right now we are working towards incorporating as a
Foundation in Germany. We're looking for the seed capital and then I
understand it will take about 4 months or a bit more to fully get
established. See the archives of this very list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg00246.html

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

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. :wink:

David I must admit I am surprised by your reaction, because the reason
our bylaws are not officially implemented at this stage was explained
during one confcall (early September if I recall) and on this mailing
list too. Read this:
http://www.mail-archive.com/steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg00229.html

Last but not least, your perception of our health as a community is
somewhat pessimistic and does not seem to rest on any clear metrics;
but perhaps you're just expressing your opinion. I don't share it
though. However, it is true that since nobody's perfect, the SC and its
members did some mistakes and the ones I can point out were that we
haven't been directing the website works enough. I think that we're
entering a stage where the SC and are project is going to rationalize
its own activities as purpose and specific goals will be set and
discussed and teams will be formed. These things usually go with some
straightening-up around the corners. But to claim that there are dual
and perhaps triple standards depending on the people is perfectly
wrong. While for specific things we do integrate members of the OOo
community faster than others the door is always open and everyone has
to contribute: there are reserved seats as long as the people sitting
on them fulfill their roles. If they don't, the seat goes to someone
else.

So to come back on the bylaws: we can start to implement them little by
little but they will only be fully enforced and implemented once we
have a legal entity. Before we can only lay the pillars and set up
whatever can be set up without interfering with the legal entity in
formation.

best,
Charles.

Hi, :slight_smile:

@Sophie: Me, too, I was a little saddened at your answers.

a) I am not bringing up this issue because of any response to my
proposal about the website management. I said at least a couple of
times that the SC needs to take some kind of decision in order to
ensure it gets managed properly in the future. At this point, I don't
mind at all whether I am involved in the website in the future or not.
:wink: My goal of seeing that site operational and looking halfway decent
has been achieved. I already got my satisfaction. So, please may I ask
you all to have the courtesy not to make that accusation again. It
sincerely hurt my feelings. :wink:

b) I am sad that you do not seem to share in *all* those fine ideals
in the Community Bylaws. I am sad that you don't share in the
egalitarian, purely meritocratic principles, and that you see a
multiple-tier membership. I am sad that you do not seem to want that
adventure of democratic and meritocratic community life to begin soon,
and that you use the excuse of complicated legal arrangements to
procrastinate. In reality, the implementation of the bylaws and
community governance is not necessarily linked to the legal formation
of the foundation, and can be conducted on a moral and organizational
level *totally independently*.

@Charles: I just read your reply as I was writing back to Sophie.

David I must admit I am surprised by your reaction, because the reason
our bylaws are not officially implemented at this stage was explained
during one confcall (early September if I recall) and on this mailing
list too. Read this:
http://www.mail-archive.com/steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg00229.html

Yes, I realize the bylaws are largely finalized. I had hoped to see
them implemented with *much* more urgency than September, 9 months
away. You will remember how I assisted you when you were drafting
them. I was excited, enthusiastic very inspired at the prospect of a
truly open, meritocratic and egalitarian Open Source community. I
don't want to see the hopes fade.

Last but not least, your perception of our health as a community is
somewhat pessimistic and does not seem to rest on any clear metrics;
but perhaps you're just expressing your opinion.

Yes, this is purely what I gage through my own observation. But I'm
only saying to *warn* you guys of a possible scenario. Believe me,
friends, I have *also* invested serious work in trying to make sure
such a scenario will not happen. That is why I pushed so hard to get
the libreoffice.org website online.

However, it is true that since nobody's perfect, the SC and its
members did some mistakes and the ones I can point out were that we
haven't been directing the website works enough. I think that we're
entering a stage where the SC and are project is going to rationalize
its own activities as purpose and specific goals will be set and
discussed and teams will be formed.

Then this will be good. Charles, you know very well that I have not
simply ranted about problems on mailing lists. Instead, I have put in
plenty of work to fix them. But this issue of slowness and inertia in
fully implementing the Community Bylaws and governance is something
that only *you* guys can fix. And, as a concerned community member,
all I can do is to raise the issue for discussion and action. I
sincerely believe that it is for the ultimate good of the Community.

But to claim that there are dual
and perhaps triple standards depending on the people is perfectly
wrong. While for specific things we do integrate members of the OOo
community faster than others the door is always open and everyone has
to contribute: there are reserved seats as long as the people sitting
on them fulfill their roles. If they don't, the seat goes to someone
else.

I do *hope* I am wrong. I hope all of the above is true.
For the moment, I have not seen the proof. :wink:
Don't *tell* me I'm wrong, *show* me I'm wrong. :wink:

So to come back on the bylaws: we can start to implement them little by
little but they will only be fully enforced and implemented once we
have a legal entity. Before we can only lay the pillars and set up
whatever can be set up without interfering with the legal entity in
formation.

I think that most of the bylaws can be put into practice absolutely
independently of the existence of any legal entity. They are a moral
form of governance and organization. Very little is keyed on any legal
entity as such. Therefore, may I please enjoin the SC to start with
implementation as soon as possible?

I truly hope that the dream you envisioned in the Community Bylaws you
wrote is not going to slip away. :wink:

David Nelson

P.S. For those who have not yet read my original post, can I invite
you to read it below? :wink:

Hi David, *,

(...)

I do *hope* I am wrong. I hope all of the above is true.
For the moment, I have not seen the proof. :wink:
Don't *tell* me I'm wrong, *show* me I'm wrong. :wink:

I'm a a long time contributor to OOo and now of LibreOffice (and the TDF). I know
most of the people in the SC face to face and know the work they have done for OOo
and the community over a long period. Please keep cool and give things the necessary
time. I know that's not always easy :wink:

> So to come back on the bylaws: we can start to implement them little by
> little but they will only be fully enforced and implemented once we
> have a legal entity. Before we can only lay the pillars and set up
> whatever can be set up without interfering with the legal entity in
> formation.

I think that most of the bylaws can be put into practice absolutely
independently of the existence of any legal entity. They are a moral
form of governance and organization. Very little is keyed on any legal
entity as such. Therefore, may I please enjoin the SC to start with
implementation as soon as possible?

There is currently no legal entity or a legal organisation TDF. Every thing is in the
course of formation. Because I know a bit about German law I can assure you that it
takes a longer time (not days or a month) to establish a foundation. The SC had to
think carefully about the purpose of the foundation, because we (the community) want
to guarentee, that our goals will be served by the foundation in 10 years (or later).
So please give the SC and the involved people the time that is necessary to establish
a strong and appropriate foundation.

I don't think it would be a good idea to coopt some people to the foundation. This
would currently lead to an endless discussion, who should get this priviledge.

Regards,
Andreas

Hi Andreas, :slight_smile:

There is currently no legal entity or a legal organisation TDF. Every thing is in the
course of formation. Because I know a bit about German law I can assure you that it
takes a longer time (not days or a month) to establish a foundation.

Forming the legal entity, the Foundation will take time. But that has
no connection with the implementation of the Community Bylaws. The
existence of the Foundation is *not* necessary before implementing
almost every clause of the Community Bylaws. You can set up the ESC.
You can set up the membership committee. You can hold elections for
the BoD, as a *morally-implemented* team. You can set up the
proportional-representation voting system. You can hold elections and
votes. You can appoint teams. You can appoint team leads. The *moral*
life of the Community can exist and function entirely independently of
whether or not there is yet an officially-formed Foundation under
German or UK law.

And most notably, you can already implement all the principles of
community consultation and information, membership equality and
meritocracy, exactly as Charles wrote them and as I re-phrased them
into good, clear English.

When you *truly* implement the Community Bylaws, and all the instances
and principles of governance of the Bylaws, and all the principles
laid down in the Bylaws (without waiting for the legal, "physical"
formation of the Foundation), then you will have truly built a
community, and you will be able to claim legitimacy.

I would like to see an interim MC formed within the next 2-3 weeks,
and for members to be considered and approved/rejected within 2-3
weeks after that.

Then I would like to see elections held for the 9 seats of the BoD (a
"virtual", "moral" BoD) within 3 weeks after the existence of an
official body of Community members.

When that happens, I feel sure that LibreOffice will truly take-off as
a community, we will see genuine meritocracy, and there will be a
healthy situation within the LibreOffice project.

David Nelson

Hi David,

David Nelson wrote (10-01-11 00:25)

Forming the legal entity, the Foundation will take time. But that has
no connection with the implementation of the Community Bylaws. The
existence of the Foundation is *not* necessary before implementing
almost every clause of the Community Bylaws.

That is true (I guess for the most).
Possibly (some) things can be done (a bit) faster than at the moment. But I am careful with suggesting that, because I know from my own situation how hard it is to find the time, beside all other responsibilities.

Kind regards,
Cor

Hi David, *,

Hi Andreas, :slight_smile:

> There is currently no legal entity or a legal organisation TDF. Every
> thing is in the course of formation. Because I know a bit about German
> law I can assure you that it takes a longer time (not days or a month)
> to establish a foundation.

Forming the legal entity, the Foundation will take time. But that has
no connection with the implementation of the Community Bylaws. The
existence of the Foundation is *not* necessary before implementing
almost every clause of the Community Bylaws. You can set up the ESC.
You can set up the membership committee. You can hold elections for
the BoD, as a *morally-implemented* team. You can set up the
proportional-representation voting system. You can hold elections and
votes. You can appoint teams. You can appoint team leads. The *moral*
life of the Community can exist and function entirely independently of
whether or not there is yet an officially-formed Foundation under
German or UK law.

I think this will not improve our current situation. We need a group of people with
deep knowledge (from their work with the community of OOo) about the different parts
of the whole project and have the power to establish the foundation that serves the
needs of the whole community / project. We don't have the time to change the horses
during this process. This will lead to a waste of time, because the people of the new
(moral) ESC / BoD had to start the discussion about the foundation (and the best way
to establish it) from the beginning.

And a bit for your health :wink:
We - the contributors - are all *morally* currently members of LibreOffice. We don't
need a membership commitee yet.

Regards,
Andreas
*and please don't resent every time your statement; we are on a mailinglist with an
archive here*

Hi Andreas, guys, :slight_smile:

Thanks for your responses. I'd like to put some viewpoints that some of you
guys don't seem to have thought of.

Rant

<rant>

I would like to see an end to this mindset of some people regarding a
three-tier community: the "new" members, the ex-OOo community members, and
the SC members. (This mindset is not just my imagination: Bernhard
acknowledged and justified it in his post, and Sophie seemed to back him up
about it...)

Sometimes, when I read some ex-OOo members, the words "complacency" and
"condescension" pop-up in my mind.

I can tell you that it's irritating having to live with this "constant
deference to OOo history".

IMHO, some ex-OOo people need to start thinking forwards, rather than being
rooted in a past that I feel has less relevance than you seem to think.

I feel it's time to say that OOo was the past, LibreOffice and TDF is our
future, and everything started from zero with the TDF launch.

</rant>

Elections

When TDF first launched, there was a *lot* of interest and excitement around
the project. I had the impression that, among others, there were quite a few
intelligent and well-qualified people with fresh ideas and lots of energy to
contribute work.

It would be good if SC members were to remember that there are other people
who want a chance to lead the project and to have an influence in its future
development.

I'd be very keen to see elections, and to see some SC members given a
democratic mandate to continue their valuable work within a 9-member BoD,
but also to see some fresh blood in there, too, with a new outlook.

It would be good because those BoD members will remember that they are
elected for 1 year, and this will be something they will probably bear in
mind in their contact with other community members, and in the work they do
for the project.

Implement the Community Bylaws, and the institutions therein

In addition to organizing elections for the BoD, it would also be very
important to:

- quickly start setting-up and operating the institutions mentioned in the
Community Bylaws: the BoD, the ESC, the MC, ...;

- conform to the spirit and letter of the Community Bylaws, and start
officially communicating with the community regularly through announcements;

I really fail to see any justification for waiting 9 months to set up the
BoD (which should be elected by community vote).

For those that speak of their lack of time and their need to attend to
family commitments, I would have to respectfully reply that maybe you should
step aside, because there may well be other people with more time and energy
to devote to the project's work. The project's work should not have to
proceed at the speed of the slowest contributor.

I would like the implementation of the Community Bylaws to be started ASAP,
and I would like BoD elections to be held within 2-3 months *at most*.

Consequences

IMHO, the price of not doing the above would be a constant decline in work
contributions and involvement, and a loss of credibility in the eyes of
people around the project and outside the project.

Should we see a subtle warning in Ubuntu's apparent possible change of
stance regarding the adoption of LibreOffice as its default productivity
suite in 11.04? (See [1].)

As I said in previous posts, I don't have any practical and quick means of
procuring contribution statistics but, looking at the number of messages
that arrive in my mailbox and the traffic I see on the #libreoffice IRC
channel, I *seem to observe* a distinct reduction in the number of developer
contributions since the project launch.

I also seem to note a decrease in the number of people that I would qualify
as regular contributors to the team lists. And I seem to note a decline in
the number of people seeking support via the user support list.

I humbly contend that, if you do not show a clear commitment to fully
implementing the Community Bylaws, contribution and involvement will further
decrease.

I am wondering whether some SC members feel that the real key to attracting
developers is simply in the licensing requirements you do (or don't) impose
on their code contributions.

But I also wonder whether code developers, too, are sensitive to the way
community governance is carried out, in their area of the project and in
other areas, as well. If that is the case, then the SC's apparent
complacency in its justification in occupying the project's seat of
government for the next 9 months is perhaps unwise.

In contrast, I contend that there could be big benefits if you were to show
serious intent and take quick action in officially adopting and applying the
Community Bylaws:

- there could be a strong revival of interest and activity in the project,
which could easily be directed into tangible work contributions and an
augmentation in the number of real project workers;

- it would undoubtedly be perceived positively by outside corporate /
enterprise observers (Ubuntu and many others);

- each announcement of a significant step forward in bylaw / governance
implementation can be turned into very positive publicity and marketing, and
reverberated around the Net (via TDF blog articles, coverage on our social
media, and proactive contact with prominent bloggers and journalists).

Conclusion

I hope you will not perceive everything I have said in this thread as just
negative ranting. Having posted this message, I will spend a large part of
this day doing actual work for the project.

It is all uniquely intended to try and raise your awareness about possible
dangers that I see, and about viewpoints that may not have occurred to you.
I hope only to see the LibreOffice project and TDF survive and succeed.

But I do think the SC needs to take action *urgently*.

[1]
http://www.itworld.com/open-source/132546/ubuntu-libreoffice-replacing-openofficeorg-reports-premature

David Nelson

Dear All,

As far as I understand we are all on same page regarding out objectives and
long term goals. In every team there are few aggressive, few defensive and
few balanced out players. A team needs each of them equally because each of
them is best at their task.

I understand David's feelings and those of others who have put some long
term dates.

Dear David, you have some great ideas but brother the fact is that when an
army has to attack it can't send 5 soldiers in front. The whole team has to
go. George Bush who commanded the world's strongest armed forces waited for
10 months before launching attack on Al Qaida ( just an example, nothing
against any country , race, religion). Passion is very important but
sometimes we need to wait so that everyone comes along and we can launch the
ATTACK together. This might prove irritating to the soldier standing in
front line but he needs to wait for those bulky infantry guns to come who
will give cover fire during the battle.

I believe instead of entering this wastage of energy accusation war, we
should see which areas can be put on fast track. And I am sure if there are
some such areas where people like David who can devote extra time, then they
can be entrusted with some responsibilities in this regard.

I hope we all focus on tasks ahead. I will wait for Florian or someone from
the group to list out some things which can be fast tracked and what all can
be done by David and group to help with that

I hope we can put an end to this fight now :slight_smile:

No soldier alone ever won the battle alone, but yes one soldier alone did
cause the Spartans to lose the battle .....

We need everyone and everyone is important !!!

  Thank You

Best Regards
Varun Mittal <http://www.varunmittal.info>

Google <https://www.google.com/profiles/varunmittal87>
Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/mittal.varun>
   LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/varunmittal87>
Twitter<http://twitter.com/varunmittal19>

"Uncertainty is the only Certainty of LIFE"

Hi,

I feel it's time to say that OOo was the past, LibreOffice and TDF is our
future, and everything started from zero with the TDF launch.

Excuse me David, but IMO you are completely wrong.

LibreOffice and TDF did not start from zero at all. Please read the
mission statement. Please read the manifesto.

Please remember that basically the TDF is about the evolution of the
OpenOffice.org Community. Please remember that LibreOffice would
still be named OpenOffice.org, if there wasn´t a very special legal
issue about this name.

So yes, we *are* an already existing community with some more and
some less experienced or established people. And there are lots of
new members, which is very good, of course. Newcomers will have to
respect and learn from the long-time members, as well as they can
bring in new ideas and fresh viewpoints.

As a matter of fact, right now we do have informal structures in our
community. Maybe that´s what you observe as "three-tier community".

Stefan