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.
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to email@example.com
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Addons (was: Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format) · todd rme
Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: Do not support writing to OOXML format · Bruno Girin
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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