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

On 03/01/11 02:00, Larry Gusaas wrote:
And the condescending comment that led to my response sure wasn't very
positive. I have no patience with people who say you have to "contribute
to the code" in order to have a say in the project. Or that you should
"contribute code yourself" if you want a product improved, modified,
fixed etc. I have seen this attitude far too often in open source projects

I feel compelled to come to the defence of Italo and Berhard. I haven't
read anything from Italo that could be construed as condescension. Italo
was simply highlighting the absurdity of *dictating* from the sidelines.

(Note: there is a difference between *contribution* and *dictation*;
your attitude, so far as I can see, is symptomatic of the latter)

I have little doubt that were you to put forward constructive ideas,
they would be taken on-board. However, in reality, even a
community-driven project such as this will place more weight behind the
opinions of its chief architects (developers, designers and other
contributes) than it will those of unknown elements such as you and I.
All of which means that whilst the final decision lays with the various
steering committees, a well reasoned argument backed up by facts and
figures could well sway the steering committees decisions. Unfortunately
your arguments regarding OOXML aren't motivated by reason, but rather by
politics and so I suspect they're unlikely to sway anyone belonging to
one of the steering committees.

As I recall, someone earlier defined the term *community* in the context
of *The Document Foundation* to include all *contributors* and
explicitly excluded those who 'contribute' to mailing list discussions
from this broad group. This is absolutely correct in my humble opinion.
But that shouldn't preclude contributions (in the form of different
perspectives and ideas) from mailing list discussions. It's just that if
we, as an unknown quantity, have to back up such ideas with reasoned
debate. Such a mixture of meritocracy and consensus democracy is the
only viable means of managing this kind of project. Anything else would
risk allowing unqualified individuals to drive the project (into the
ground) and also risk excluding intelligent ideas from the wider
community (of end-users) simply because they lack proven qualifications.

Kind Regards,

Lee Hyde.

"The division of mankind threatens it with destruction. Only universal
cooperation under conditions of intellectual freedom and the lofty moral
ideals of socialism and labor, accompanied by the elimination of
dogmatism and pressure of the concealed interests of ruling classes,
will preserve civilization."

        -- Andrei Sakharov, The New York Times (July 22nd, 1968)

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


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.