Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index

I am now wondering if this should be put forth to the board that way we can
get a clear end all decision and move forward with the forums and getting
them going.

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Jean Weber <> wrote:

I agree with Jonathan and others, and indeed said as much some time
ago when the forums were first being discussed. At the time Björn
appeared to be quite emphatic about the opposite point of view (forums
for contributors being at least as important, if not more so), and I
was under the impression that was the Board's preference too, so I
didn't argue further. Sounds like I may not have not been paying
enough attention.


On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Jonathan Aquilina
<> wrote:
I think until we get things going that we should focus ONLY on user
for now and then we can slowly add contributors sections once we get the
teething problems and issues sorted and a steady work flow going.

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Charles-H. Schulz <> wrote:


I don't think my tone was inappropriate, but if it really was I am sorry
and it was not my intention. I still disagree with the approach of
both contributors and users forums development this way, but you should
infer that I am against contributors me it is a very valid
option for some type of contributions and teams, while not being an
for others. My point is on the approach, not on the content of the


Le 8 oct. 2012 03:27, "Christian Lohmaier" <> a écrit :

Hi Charles, *,

On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Charles-H. Schulz
<> wrote:

But the discussion was started about users forums. Anything besides
would require the interested teams to have been consulted before.

This thread (or these threads, as they have gone to various lists, the
"interesting teams") /is/ the consulting *before*.

As Marc correctly pointed out: This is part of the job he and the
other coordinators did volunteer for. Get the initial forum structure
sorted out, ask the affected people for their input.

Your reply (or should I say the tone of your reply) was not
appropriate in this scenario.

What I
fear at this stage is both confusion from new contributors (for
someone submitting a patch to a forum might never get picked up
devs would not bother reading the forum) and exhaustion from the

Björn and others made it pretty clear from the very start that core
development will continue to use the mailinglists, and I don't
remember anyone questioning that, so the notification was just that. -
A notification.

No list will be forced to move to the forum.

If people complain, then they complain and state: No, thanks.

If you read the mails, you notice that this is one of the options that
were offered.

That now you tell "the Board wants a forum exclusively meant for
user-support" I reply "WTF did nobody else from the board point that
out earlier".
Björn after all is Deputy on the Board, and his input early in the
process was the basis for all this, as it was quite a reasonable thing
to do.

So while I don't question your intentions, I question your style in

Yes, suggesting to move a list to the forum is controversial, Björn
did already anticipate that. But that by itself doesn't make it a
stupid idea that needs to be stopped at all cost.

Just say: "No thanks, I prefer to keep <whatever> to use the
mailinglists" and move on to the next topic.


Jonathan Aquilina

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.