Re: [Marketing] OOo - where should it go...

[Louis Suarez-Potts]

Hello,

On 2006-02-05, at 13:42 , Ian Lynch wrote:

On Sun, 2006-02-05 at 11:48 -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote:

Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:

* When people asked the MP lead why she fired a MarCon the issue was

sent to the CC.

to see this and sent the issue back to the MP.

Ian and Adam asked Laurent for the CC to intervene. The CC did not ask

have some procedures to deal with something that appears to be an
injustice. In this case it seems the outcome ended up as - Don't post
about this on the marketing list, its off topic. ok who do we contact?
The Community Council - who then referred it back to the marketing
project.

To me that seems totally bizarre.

IIRC Adam asked what the procedure was for expressing a grievance if it was not allowed on the list and Louis referred him to the CC. Since the CC rep is Laurent, that is what happened. Presumably the project has to

1. From Adam Moore via Laurent G.:

http://tinyurl.com/9urx5

2. From Ian Lynch via Laurent G.:

http://tinyurl.com/ccog7





"The CC decided that it had not enough informations to decide anything.

Look at the archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED] There were two messages that Laurent forwarded to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, which is where a lot of the agenda items for Council discussions come from: As the ultimate agenda for the council discussion stated, there was no clear request for Council action. Your clamour that it was an injustice with, at the time, crucial evidence lacking, was not enough for the Council to do specific things. The Council returned the issue to the MP to get the needed evidence and then to discuss it. As I mentioned in my last email on this subject, I would expect that will happen once Jacqueline returns this week. Should it be the case that the discussion results in specific things that are relevant to the CC, then it could be returned there and the Council would then be able to act on it. It would help greatly if you read the actual content of the posts. For instance, here is what Laurent wrote to the Marketing Project on 2006-01-17: The CC states that this is an internal marketing project issue to be discussed and can be call as the last solution." To translate: The CC needed the letter sent by Jacqueline to Ryan to be made public and further wanted the Marketing Project to resolve this on its own. If the CC needs to be involved, it can be, as mentioned above.

I could be mistaken, but I really think that Ian and Adam were asking
for procedures; not for the CC to ask Jacqueline to tell us why she
fired Ryan.

Certainly that was the gist of what I wrote.

[snip]

Unfortunately, the gist of what you wrote could have been more precise and productive of action. FWIW, the CC is not in the business of specifying how each project should be run. It can set guidelines and it can look at specific instances where there seems to be a problem. It can then act on specific items.

[snip

It seems to me that the asking for money thing is perhaps a complete

make an observation here, I have no means of changing anything.

misunderstanding again underlining the need for caution when acting on a flame war. It also seems that in practice the CC is not at all geared up to deal with this type of situation and really it should be. I can only

Looking more closely over the archives, the money situation was probably a misunderstanding. I referred the request to the CC because I understood there to be a call for funding travel, lodging, etc., to the DLS, which we (OOo) had not really decided on. Last year, we had extensive discussions on the matter, you may recall. As my posts on this subject have indicated, I am *for* having procedures to target certain events and for getting funding for those. As of right now, I understand the CC to manage funding, via Team OpenOffice.org. It did anyway for last year's DLS and for all prior OOoCons. Sun has helped out with some events where it is represented but not where it is not, which makes obvious sense. I am *for* improving things so that there is an obvious procedure for getting funds for events that are deemed to be meritorious.

Most of the people here are volunteers. They do not want to be in a
community or on a list where there are constant fights, constant
battles and  some fear.

You don't think that is an apt description of your email? No need to
lose your temper Louis. If you think I'm wrong simply say so. I think
that the project is a Cathedral and gave reasons. You are welcome to
disagree politely.

If you do not like the OpenOffice.org project Daniel, why do you stay

here?

they don't like the project?

Why do you assume because someone disagrees with you or even in the past might have said things that make your management job more difficult that

[snip]

I do not make such an assumption and do not personalize things as you state. I usually do not find personal disagreements worth pursuing, although you like, for what I do assume is purely rhetorical purposes, to cast some of my interventions as personal; they are not. I am interested rather in ensuring that the general health of OOo and any its projects remains good. Marketing has been having obvious problems, in part b/c it is such a high-profile project, in part b/c there is no developer grounding and thus no objective correlative (who can say what is really working), in part b/c all these things lead to strongly competing viewpoints and opinions. Certain people have been far more interested in critiquing things than in doing. Those who have been doing actual marketing things have generally not been the ones complaining that it is impossible to do marketing things. By marketing things I refer to the PRs we send out, the collateral created, and some events, to name but three. But if we do not want ceaseless strife then what this project needs is the special effort to listen and act considerately. It does not need relentless criticisms that recycle tired rhetoric to make a point. My point was that Daniel's (and to a degree, your) tactics have had a deleterious impact on the project and that not only am I tired of it but so are others. Here is the point: This project is not just for you or for Daniel or anyone and it's not for me. It is for the collective body of OpenOffice.org. To this end, I am not really interested in hearing yet more tirades against how you cannot do any work but am interested in hearing new voices and new ideas. Look at who has been posting in the last ten days and at the tone. As the tone becomes more acrimonious, only you, Daniel, Jean, and a few others more or less in your circle continue to post (and I every now and then respond). What about new people? If you are really interested in broadening the scope of this project, let others speak.

OOo is an important project and I'd like to see it succeed. I
participate in a way that I feel will help the project most. For
example, by pointing out barriers to participation. That's the same
thing that most people in this thread are doing.

Well, good for you. Perhaps one day you will be as popular as OOo. In

the meanwhile: do not bother us with more of your baseless attacks.

This is just so petty its unbelievable. Don't take all the analysis so
personally. There has to be analysis of weaknesses if anything is to
change and if things don't change they die. I think the discussion of

if you personally can't stand the sight of Daniel, as a member of the

than anyone else has been posting so why single him out?

these things has been constructive so let's not make it otherwise. Even project he is entitled to an opinion and it doesn't seem a lot different

Regards,

Louis 

Hm. I am not sure quite how to reply. I suppose the direct answer is the best: I corrected his misstatements and then went on to suggest that he would do better spending his energy on OpenDocument Fellowship than criticizing--or more accurately, recycling incorrect criticisms of-- OpenOffice.org. As Daniel has been a longtime critic of the Marketing, Website, and Documentation Projects, strongly correcting him made sense. My point was thus far from petty.

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature