Rob, the volunteers on the forums want to keep providing a service for
all OOo end-users that they can take pride and dignity in. That's all.
The debating style here can be robust and sometimes falls far below the
standard that we expect participants to follow.
http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewforum.php?f=76
(The English version)
Many people are unwilling to be (what they view as ) attacked this way
on a DL that can go to 100s of recipients. This "Apache way" might work
for a group of largely US and nearly all English
first-tongue/fluent-speaking software developers, but the approach
doesn't work for other communities and cultures. It really needs to be
more flexible if Apache wants to move beyond this base.
I agree that a fully open model can work. I am an active Wikipedian and
it works there, but the collaborative vehicle -- an overloaded wiki
model -- if just so much more flexible than using 1980s-style plain-text
email. Also the Policies and Guidelines are strictly policed: you can
hide your email address, and users who break the rules are admonished or
blocked. Here once you speak out you are putting out an Email address
and on which you be harassed thereafter.
I will quote one of my responses on these thread -- that those with CV
rights can check:
* Re: Status: OpenOffice.org Preservation/Migration with Apache
<http://user.services.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=43715#p201536>
To be honest, I think that the best think for all would be for Apache
to accept that a user-facing service is very different from
interacting with developers and show us a little toleration. I think
most of us would prefer the Apache route or maybe a LibO route if we
could keep the forums running smoothly.
In my view the crazy thing is that this type of service could be
incredibly useful for other Apache projects. Our model is designed to
scale and we could just as easily add and run a forum to support
another Apache project as we could another National Language for OOo.
I continue to wish for the best, but I am not hopeful. If this would
all settle down then I would consider re-engaging. But whether we go
or stay is really a consensus decision for this community to make. I
just don't want to be portrayed as the "leader of the rebellion".
However, I need my month in Greece to regain my sense of peace and
harmony, before I take on anything else relating to OOo or any other
major project.
I am not going to try to speak for them. I would suggest that if you,
who are seen as the main spokesperson for the "hard Apache line", aren't
willing to show a step in the direction of reconciliation -- say by
joining the forums as a volunteer and listening to them in their own
environment -- then Apache will have zero chance of getting them to
participate. They have tried v.v. and given up.
Regards
Terry
On 04/09/11 15:42, Rob Weir wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Reizinger Zoltán<[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
Why you think the volunteers and admins will join to this list, if you not
makes any steps into the other directions?
I'm assuming the volunteers and admins want positive results. The
decision-making in the project occurs on this list -- ooo-dev -- by
participants making and discussing proposals. So I think that
volunteers and admins should join and participate in this list so they
can engage in an open, two-way conversation on how the project,
including the support forums, are run.
Remember, I am just one person, with my own ppinion. I have only one
vote. I don't make the decisions myself. But if an admin or other
forum volunteer is not participating on the ooo-dev list at all, then
their opinions will likely be unheard and their vote uncounted. That
is why you should encourage them to participate on the ooo-dev list.
-Rob
