Re: [steering-discuss] List discussion & purpose
Hello, let me jump in quickly with a few thoughts: - The set-up of this list was discussed in one of last year's steering commitee public conference calls, and if I remember correctly, it was even a demand by the community, not by the steering committee. (Which does not mean we do not consider it a good idea.) - The purpose of this list is for the steering committee to discuss on topics. Others of course can jump in, but let's not forget we have a discuss mailing list that serves what it's name has: discussion. So, the topics on this list indeed should *only* be related to things concerning steering committee decisions. Traffic on this list should be kept rather low, main discussions should take place on the discuss list. I myself will try to follow that idea better in the future, I've also swamped the steering-discuss list with topics that would have belonged to a different list. - Yes, there is a private list, and there are private calls. This has not been kept in secret, we've stated that several times at various places. We try to discuss as many things in public as possible, and our bylaws also have that we make private items public when possible. One recent example for that is the letter of intent we sent regarding OpenOffice.org. During that discussion, it was crucial to not have it public - especially when dealing with corporations, there are of course topics that are to be kept confidential. I hope it is obvious to everyone why we could not discuss some internals of the things happening at OpenOffice.org in public. It was simply not possible, and if we hadn't have a chance to discuss it in private, we would have been forcd to keep out of it totally, which is not ideal. When the discussion phase has ended, we made the letter public, so everyone could read the contents. So, please, everyone, calm down a bit. What Charles tried to say is that we should keep the focus of this list, and move other discussions on their appropriate list, e.g. discuss@tdf. I agree that having a private list is always connected to some bad feelings, but I hope you see there are justified reasons for having that. Again, we discuss anything in public that is possible, and the topics that are discussed in private will be made public afterwards if that is feasible. Nothing on our principle of transparency, openness and meritocracy has changed. I give you my word on that. Florian -- Florian Effenberger Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@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/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] List discussion & purpose
I fully agree with Drew. Maintaining closed lists is a (bad) behavior from the times of OpenOffice.org and should be abandoned if you want to have a good and clear relationship with the community as a whole. Closed lists caused a lot of problems and distrust in brazillian community. Actually we have no hidden lists anymore. Particular or urgent matters are threated through direct e-mails or Gtalk contacts. Cheers! 2011/8/11 drew > On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 20:28 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > > Hi Drew, > > > > While there's a list for confidential matters > > and it would be good to: > > 1- Disclose _all_ private lists used by TDF, along with who in the > community is on those lists. To do otherwise is to have both private and > secret lists. > > 2 - Disclose what is being discussed and what decisions are being made > on private lists, this can be done in a way that retains enough specific > detail to keep confidences, while being open and transparent to the > community at large. > > > > we intend and want to have a > > dexision making process that's transparent. > > Weekly public SC meetings, already in place. > > > This list was designed with the > > notion that it'd be both a formal tool (voting, opinions of the BoD > > members, etc.) > > Nothing there requires a separate list. > > > and a communication tool for important an urgent matters. > > You have each others email addresses and indeed email/contact > information for SC members is public. > You have an official announcement list, blog, facebook and twitter > accounts for urgent messages to the community. > > > My > > opinion is that if we were to switch over to the discuss list decisions > > would be lost in endless threads, > > Meaning you would have to live with it, just like the rest of us. > > > not followed by developers > > If they are not interested then why make them watch. > > > and in a few > > weeks you'd find yourself with less communication and unclear decision > > making. I think we want to have this list precisely because we want avoid > > distraction and create a more solemn / official list. > > Well, that reads to me as - if the SC where forced to use only the tools > the rest of us are stuck using, it would find it bothersome and > distracting to the point that people wold either stop contributing or > start doing things in private to avoid the distractions. > > Respectfully, > > Drew Jensen > > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to > steering-discuss+h...@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/steering-discuss/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be > deleted > -- Paulo de Souza Lima Técnico em Eletrônica e Administrador http://www.pasl.net.br http://almalivre.wordpress.com Curitiba - PR Linux User #432358 Ubuntu User #28729 "Para que as pessoas conquistem a paz em suas relações, a paz espiritual e a paz entre os povos, é preciso que antes se ganhe a batalha interna das virtudes sobre os defeitos" - Talal Husseini - Filósofo Acropolitano "For people to achieve peace in their relationships, spiritual peace and the peace among people, it's necessary, earlier, to win the internal battle between virtues and defects" - Talal Husseini - Acropolitan Philosopher -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@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/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] List discussion & purpose
Hi, I find this list to be a very useful point of contact with the SC. If people avoid using it for other purposes than discussions in which there is a genuine utility in involving the SC then SC members will be encouraged to read it regularly and properly, and the list will indeed serve its true purpose. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@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/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] List discussion & purpose
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 20:28 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > Hi Drew, > > While there's a list for confidential matters and it would be good to: 1- Disclose _all_ private lists used by TDF, along with who in the community is on those lists. To do otherwise is to have both private and secret lists. 2 - Disclose what is being discussed and what decisions are being made on private lists, this can be done in a way that retains enough specific detail to keep confidences, while being open and transparent to the community at large. > we intend and want to have a > dexision making process that's transparent. Weekly public SC meetings, already in place. > This list was designed with the > notion that it'd be both a formal tool (voting, opinions of the BoD > members, etc.) Nothing there requires a separate list. > and a communication tool for important an urgent matters. You have each others email addresses and indeed email/contact information for SC members is public. You have an official announcement list, blog, facebook and twitter accounts for urgent messages to the community. > My > opinion is that if we were to switch over to the discuss list decisions > would be lost in endless threads, Meaning you would have to live with it, just like the rest of us. > not followed by developers If they are not interested then why make them watch. > and in a few > weeks you'd find yourself with less communication and unclear decision > making. I think we want to have this list precisely because we want avoid > distraction and create a more solemn / official list. Well, that reads to me as - if the SC where forced to use only the tools the rest of us are stuck using, it would find it bothersome and distracting to the point that people wold either stop contributing or start doing things in private to avoid the distractions. Respectfully, Drew Jensen -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@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/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] List discussion & purpose
Hi Drew, While there's a list for confidential matters we intend and want to have a dexision making process that's transparent. This list was designed with the notion that it'd be both a formal tool (voting, opinions of the BoD members, etc.) and a communication tool for important an urgent matters. My opinion is that if we were to switch over to the discuss list decisions would be lost in endless threads, not followed by developers and in a few weeks you'd find yourself with less communication and unclear decision making. I think we want to have this list precisely because we want avoid distraction and create a more solemn / official list. Best, Charles. Le 11 août 2011 19:26, "drew" a écrit : > On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 14:10 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: >> Hi, >> >> This is a short reminder about the purpose of this list. It has been setup >> to serve as the SC / BoD primary communication channel. Therefore it >> accomodates SC members & requests from project members. While we do >> appreciate everyone's input we'd like to keep non-essential content on other >> lists. > > Hi Charles. > > With all due respect and specifically with regards to the last sentence > above - perhaps having this list at all was a mistake. > > There is a private mailing list for the SC members use when _absolutely_ > required, is there not? > > For all other items it seems appropriate to just use the same lists as > the rest of us. > > Sincerely, > > Drew Jensen > > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@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/steering-discuss/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@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/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] List discussion & purpose
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 14:10 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > Hi, > > This is a short reminder about the purpose of this list. It has been setup > to serve as the SC / BoD primary communication channel. Therefore it > accomodates SC members & requests from project members. While we do > appreciate everyone's input we'd like to keep non-essential content on other > lists. Hi Charles. With all due respect and specifically with regards to the last sentence above - perhaps having this list at all was a mistake. There is a private mailing list for the SC members use when _absolutely_ required, is there not? For all other items it seems appropriate to just use the same lists as the rest of us. Sincerely, Drew Jensen -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@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/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] List discussion & purpose
Hi, This is a short reminder about the purpose of this list. It has been setup to serve as the SC / BoD primary communication channel. Therefore it accomodates SC members & requests from project members. While we do appreciate everyone's input we'd like to keep non-essential content on other lists. Thank you everyone! Charles. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@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/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
off-list Re: [steering-discuss] addition to trademark policy
Hi :) Thanks for jumping in there :) I hoped there were other people from Branding around or at least other people that might have some vague idea about the issues. It's ok for the rest of us to guess but it's better to have the right answers from the right people because there is a strong chance of the rest of us getting it wrong and falling into 'obvious' traps. Italo was the only name i knew for certain. Thanks and regards from Tom :) From: Christoph Noack To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org Sent: Thu, 11 August, 2011 7:08:01 Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] addition to trademark policy Hi Tom, all! A quick note ... mis-using the steering-discuss being an SC deputy. Am Mittwoch, den 10.08.2011, 10:35 +0100 schrieb Tom Davies: > Sounds good to me but i'm curious about the Branding Team's thoughts on this. > > Italo? I'm not Italo, but I'm one of those who (with Bernhard, Nik, Ivan, ...) developed the today's branding. Personally, I would be happy if we could ship the non-tagline logo - and add the tagline on demand. This will make things more simple and even more visually attractive. When we worked on the motif design, Nik already made a draft how this could look like: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/b/b3/ScatterInContext_bunch.jpg So +1 to the proposal. One thing that - then - needs to be addressed is the todays tagline logo. Later this year, I'd like to propose a small revision to make non-tagline and tagline logo more consistent. Cheers, Christoph > From: Florian Effenberger > To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org > Sent: Wed, 10 August, 2011 9:25:05 > Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] addition to trademark policy > > Hi, > > Andre Schnabel wrote on 2011-08-08 13:17: > > ... our default logos in the source tree use the TDF tagline (at least this > > was when I last did a build from source), but the tagged logo should > > be used for "instance on .. software builds compiled by the Document > > Foundation". > > > > Imho quite easy to resolve: use the community logos per default for builds > > from source. Enable the Logo with TDF tagline on build time and tell people > > to use this only when doing builds that are supposed to be distributed > > via TDF resources. > > that indeed sounds like a senseful idea. What do others think? -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@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/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@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/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] addition to trademark policy
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 14:31 +0200, Thorsten Behrens wrote: > Caolan McNamara wrote: > > > > Imho quite easy to resolve: use the community logos per default for > > > > builds > > > > from source. Enable the Logo with TDF tagline on build time and tell > > > > people > > > > to use this only when doing builds that are supposed to be distributed > > > > via TDF resources. > > > > > > that indeed sounds like a senseful idea. What do others think? > > > > Its the logical conclusion. Do we think this is a desirable thing > > however ? rather than a corner the rules paint us into that force > > maintainable of duplicate logos, etc. > > > It makes the whole thing much more consistent, therefore it makes a > lot of sense to me. > > The tm rule then boils down to: stuff from the official tdf/libo > website - TDF mark permitted. Stuff from elsewhere: TDF mark not > permitted, unless permission explicitely granted. Alright, swap the logos, default to non TDF one. a) The current with TDF logos are the ones in default_images/brand for the about box, the splashscreen and the backing window b) We have a --with-intro-bitmap and --with-about-bitmap for custom splash and about pngs c) So move the current ones to e.g. a TDF brand dir, grab the non-TDF pngs from somewhere and stick those into the generic dir d) Then for all the distro-config/*conf where the vendor is "The Document Foundation" add --with-intro-bitmap/--with-about-bitmap to point them to the TDF branded ones So... a) Where are the appropriate non-TDF about, intro *and* backing window images ? Do they exist somewhere already ? b) Looks like we don't have an option for selecting an alternative set of backing window pngs (default_images/brand/shell) ? Is there another way to do that already, or should we re-work and simplify --with-intro-bitmap and --with-about-bitmap to be a single --with-brand-images which points to a dir that contains a full set of intro, about and backing window images C. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@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/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] addition to trademark policy
Hi, > Von: Charles-H. Schulz > > I'd +1 Thorsten's short summary, but does it work with Debian rules? yes - it daoes, bacuse ... > Le 10 août 2011 14:34, "Thorsten Behrens" a > écrit : > > > > The tm rule then boils down to: stuff from the official tdf/libo > > website - TDF mark permitted. Stuff from elsewhere: TDF mark not > > permitted, unless permission explicitely granted. Debian can just use the LibreOffice logo (without TDF tagline), as they build from source without major modifications. Again - the only problem i see is that the "TDF-tagged" Logo is the default. And - we already have two logos, so there is no additional effort in "creating and maintaining a second logo". regards, André -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@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/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
