Re: [tdf-discuss] LibOCon proposals

Hi Christian, *,

Am Samstag, 4. Februar 2012, 15:28:07 schrieb Christian Lohmaier:
> Hi Andreas, *,
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Andreas Mantke <maand@gmx.de> wrote:

(...)

> > We had a public discussion and decision of the BoD already. If there are
> > no unknown facts or new arguments, we should not discuss and decide
> > again (and again).
>
> I admit that I didn't follow the meeting, did not read the minutes,
> but what Jesús did propose would make a nice compromise, wouldn't it
> (not suggesting that it should be used for this year's voting, but to
> consider for the next round)

We can discuss that for the next round; maybe there are better solutions / proposals.

My question is only, why we open up the discussion now (and not after the voting). 
The BoD had discussed the topic and decided about it in public. Everyone had the 
oportunity to bring up his arguments before the decision.

(...)
> > Point 2 would be a nice job ;-(
> > Maybe we will also hear some complaints, if someone missed to send a mail
> > in time.
>
> ??
> I absolutely don't get your point. You are saying that writing a mail
> is too much work, and that not writing a mail to be invited is a
> problem?

Reaily, you didn't got it.
I meant the job for the receiver of the mails (Florian?). I won't volunteer for the 
job to read all of this mails, decide to give the voting rights and put the mail-
writer into a list or the environment for voting. That's a really nice job and the 
proposal should also contain the proposal for volunteering for the job ;-)

> Those non-TDF-members are not allowed to vote now, so how is opening a
> door for them too much of a problem?
>
> But maybe I completely misunderstood and you're talking about the
> opposite side, the group of people that are needed to process those
> manual requests (i.e. create a voting token and send out the
> corresponding link)
>
> > I think we should invite every contributor to apply for a membership
> > status and then he / she could vote for the venue of the conferences
> > 2013 and later. It would be good to increase our member base.
>
> But a rather bad reason. If you register just to be able to vote, then
> your commitment to the project is questionable, and thus the entire
> membership status is questioned. (remember that becoming a member
> requires past contributions (in whatever form) and the moral
> commitment to continue contributing in a similar fashion). "I want to
> vote for the location of the next conference" is not enough in my
> opinion.

Right. But if you want to vote only for the location of the next LibreOffice 
conference, where you will not attend, because your commitment is not longer than the 
day you write your mail or maybe the end of the voting, why should you get any voting 
rights?

> (But don't get me wrong, sending messages to known contributors who
> did not yet apply for membership is of course fine, but not if the
> reason behind is "otherwise you won't be able to vote for the
> LO-conference)

It should be a conference, organized from the LibreOffice community for the community 
and we set rules that support this goal. But we should discuss the topic after this 
voting and in front of the next voting. We had to start the current voting very soon, 
thus the organizers for 2012 have enough time to prepare the conference.

Regards,
Andreas
-- 
## Developer LibreOffice
## Freie Office-Suite für Linux, Mac, Windows
## http://LibreOffice.org
## Support the Document Foundation (http://documentfoundation.org)
## Meine Seite: http://www.amantke.de 

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted