[tdf-discuss] Re: Addons

Le 2011-01-04 04:30, Charles-H. Schulz a écrit :

> As for Marc's earlier message: the decision was to use Silverstripe. Trying
> to get around it by pointing out that more volunteers want to work on a
> different CMS overlooks two things:
> - the legitimity of the decision : you basically claim that no matter what
> your representatives will choose you'll do what pleases you first (and what
> pleases you in this context does not seem to be LibreOffice but Drupal)
> - the process: there was a call for consultation about a platform with two
> last remaining options. One was chosen; claiming the other one was more
> popular is a moot point as it means all the other options and their
> supporters never matter.

My note to this list was certainly not meant to mean to undermine the 
SC's decision. We were given the Silverstripe to start off and the 
Drupal solution was left to be re-examined within a 6 month time-frame. 
This is quite evident in the SC meeting recording and as well echoed on 
the list by a member of the SC (Florian) at the point of declaration of 
the Silverstripe first with re-examination of Drupal later. If there is 
to be a viable example of a Drupal LibreOffice site, I don't know how 
this would be done without committed people working on it. As you can 
very well see, the Drupal team organised itself appropriately and 
started on the task of delivering a viable Drupal example. I do not see 
how this would in any way undermine the SC's decision when it is abiding 
by the SC's own declaration.

If we are asking for help with the Drupal from the membership, it is 
then to organise a better example of the Drupal site according to the 
SC's decision of having it ready within 6 month delay. I do not see 
anything undermining the SC here either. Some of our members are more 
comfortable with Drupal and these members may have chosen this as their 
contribution to the LibreOffice group. If they have any questions 
regarding the reason for the Drupal's existence, they only need to 
listen to the recording and re-read the thread relating to the decision 
on the choice of CMS.

The LibreOffice.org site had problems with content and there were 
finally some offers from some members. I must say that it was difficult 
to add content for lack of direction on the site ... there was simply no 
list of tasks or separation of jobs/roles. Some of us tried to add 
content but, thankfully, David stepped in and completed this task. There 
is still, to date, no schedule or list of tasks for any of the website 
membership to work with.

I therefore do not see anything in this that would seem to undermine the 
SC's decision. I'm sorry if you see it this way, but I see it otherwise.

> Last but not least, I believe one of the reasons we created LibreOffice was
> precisely to avoid arbitrary decisions in favor of directions and decisions
> everyone understand and to avoid ineffectiveness. We have rules, we cannot
> change them because a few out of many are ready to sacrifice the whole to
> see their own options prime over everything else.

I am not sure if this is directed to me, but I hope it is not. I have as 
yet not seen anyone of the membership behave in this manner, including 
myself. Some of us may be quite zealous over our participation, which is 
quite understandable in large groups. Such is life.

> best,
> Charles.

Cheers

Marc


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***