Re: [steering-discuss] Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws
Hi Bernhard, guys, :-) On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:38, Bernhard Dippold bernh...@familie-dippold.at wrote: The Bylaws have been approved by the SC during their last call (or the one before), so they are already adopted. I have seen *no* announcement about this on the TDF Discuss list. Plus I have monitored every public SC confcall, and I have seen no mention of this in the minutes. Has the SC been holding meetings that were unannounced and not public? After the release of LibO 3.3.0 the Membership committee could start their work in approving all the requests by active community members to become TDF members. This will probably take a several weeks, Why so long? but the main part of their work will be finished before we start the election process for the Board of Directors, that has to be established in September latest (as proposed by the Steering Committee limiting it's existence to not more than one year). One year? Why so long? Maybe not all contributors are willing to wait so patiently. Reluctantly, I have to tell you that, IMHO, the SC is starting to fall into some of the same habits and attitudes that they said they were fleeing from within OOo. Personally, I sometimes get the impression that there is currently a three-tier membership in this project: new community members like me: 1 vote. past OOo community members: 1.5 votes. SC members 3 votes (or simple dictation of decision). I have had this impression a number of times while contributing work to the project. I know that there are at least *some* other people who would agree fairly closely with this assertion. I have an impression that, All members are equal, but some are more equal than others. :-D Your assumption is not really wrong: Even if there are no real votes, merit does count more than just discussion. What I am talking about is my experience that, for example, some ex-OOo people have seemed to feel in a position of authority to direct my own work contributions, despite the fact that they don't seem to have made any visible work contribution themselves since the launch of the LibreOffice project. This also seems to apply to certain SC members, too. This is contrary to the meritocratic and egalitarian principles of the Community Bylaws - as is the assumption that former OOo involvement gives you a free credit of authority and merit within the LibreOffice project. The bylaws talk about *equality*. Situations like this always tend to worsen over time, and fester. I believe it's time to fix the problem before it causes irremediable damage to the project. But the SC has legitimacy until September - I didn't hear any possible sponsor asking for a shorter period of time. Please can someone explain, with no bullshit, why we have to wait 9 more months? ;-) Bernhard, thanks for your responses. What I wrote above should be understood to have been said in the friendliest of terms. ;-) Frankly, I tend to lose track of long mailing list discussions - my attention span for them is very short. I will look forward to talking about this during an SC confcall, and i will happily read anyone who posts back here in the meantime. I do support TDF. I thoroughly support the values and principles Charles wrote so admirably into the Community Bylaws. And I am very keen to see a true and proper community life and governance started as soon as possible. ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws
Hi David, Before answering through your lines, I would just like to say that I feel sad because you even don't try to understand who we are before accusing us with very strong words. But ok, I've choose to be in the SC and I assume it, even if that means being judged harshly, my aim is and will remain to get a truly open source project and product. On 09/01/2011 12:27, David Nelson wrote: Hi Bernhard, guys, :-) On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:38, Bernhard Dippold bernh...@familie-dippold.at wrote: The Bylaws have been approved by the SC during their last call (or the one before), so they are already adopted. I have seen *no* announcement about this on the TDF Discuss list. Plus I have monitored every public SC confcall, and I have seen no mention of this in the minutes. Has the SC been holding meetings that were unannounced and not public? Yes, all what we want is being dictators that hold everything in secrecy ;) More seriously, we have meetings, discussions, exchanges that are not always public when they are strategical or when we meet with a person who does not want to be known. This is exactly the same in all open source projects, some decisions need to be discussed privately before being published and discussed publicly. Then, it has not been announced may be because it was Christmas time. Florian is taking care of the meetings, and he is still in vacations until tomorrow. After the release of LibO 3.3.0 the Membership committee could start their work in approving all the requests by active community members to become TDF members. This will probably take a several weeks, Why so long? Don't you have a work, a family, a life out of this project. The same for all of us, our time here is short, even if we try to extend it. but the main part of their work will be finished before we start the election process for the Board of Directors, that has to be established in September latest (as proposed by the Steering Committee limiting it's existence to not more than one year). One year? Why so long? Maybe not all contributors are willing to wait so patiently. Do you know the work it needs to consult the lawyers, to read the documents, to get the good contacts? Do you know that we also are producing a version that needs a lot of work from several of us? The first mail I wrote you was explaining exactly the same thing, that we need time. And still I really don't see why we should rush. Could you explain why? Reluctantly, I have to tell you that, IMHO, the SC is starting to fall into some of the same habits and attitudes that they said they were fleeing from within OOo. Did you work on the OpenOffice.org project ? Did you participate in this OOo project for more than 6 months ? How could you judge us when you have spend only 1 or 2 month of your life in a project, even in a job you get 3 months to demonstrate your capacities... You are expecting actions that the SC won't take because it is bad actions that will for sure damage the project. Also, I don't see the answers to the question Bernhard has asked you, could you please answer his question. Personally, I sometimes get the impression that there is currently a three-tier membership in this project: new community members like me: 1 vote. past OOo community members: 1.5 votes. SC members 3 votes (or simple dictation of decision). I have had this impression a number of times while contributing work to the project. I know that there are at least *some* other people who would agree fairly closely with this assertion. I have an impression that, All members are equal, but some are more equal than others. :-D Your assumption is not really wrong: Even if there are no real votes, merit does count more than just discussion. What I am talking about is my experience that, for example, some ex-OOo people have seemed to feel in a position of authority to direct my own work contributions, I find this really normal. For example, if I have an interview to do, for sure I'll refer to Italo because he has the knowledge and the authority here that I have absolutely not. He knows from where he is speaking while I don't. Same if I have to discuss a new dialog box, I'll go to the design team, because I'm absolutely not skilled here, even if I have a big interest in design and would like to learn more. This is not to refrain your contribution but to avoid errors and waste of time to every body if a more experienced person comes to help you. You may have feel to be directed, but in this case you can also discuss with the person, not every body has an educational way to approach things. Also writing in another language give a harder tone to the message, this is something we should all take care of. despite the fact that they don't seem to have made any visible work contribution themselves since the launch of the LibreOffice project. Some work is not visible for you because it's not on your sphere or activity, but work is done however. This
Re: [steering-discuss] Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws
Hello David, Le Sun, 9 Jan 2011 17:27:54 +0800, David Nelson comme...@traduction.biz a écrit : But the SC has legitimacy until September - I didn't hear any possible sponsor asking for a shorter period of time. Please can someone explain, with no bullshit, why we have to wait 9 more months? ;-) We don't have to. The letter of mission of the present SC lasts until next September but it can disband itself much earlier provided we have incorporated. Right now we are working towards incorporating as a Foundation in Germany. We're looking for the seed capital and then I understand it will take about 4 months or a bit more to fully get established. See the archives of this very list: http://www.mail-archive.com/steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg00246.html Bernhard, thanks for your responses. What I wrote above should be understood to have been said in the friendliest of terms. ;-) Frankly, I tend to lose track of long mailing list discussions - my attention span for them is very short. I will look forward to talking about this during an SC confcall, and i will happily read anyone who posts back here in the meantime. I do support TDF. I thoroughly support the values and principles Charles wrote so admirably into the Community Bylaws. And I am very keen to see a true and proper community life and governance started as soon as possible. ;-) David I must admit I am surprised by your reaction, because the reason our bylaws are not officially implemented at this stage was explained during one confcall (early September if I recall) and on this mailing list too. Read this: http://www.mail-archive.com/steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg00229.html Last but not least, your perception of our health as a community is somewhat pessimistic and does not seem to rest on any clear metrics; but perhaps you're just expressing your opinion. I don't share it though. However, it is true that since nobody's perfect, the SC and its members did some mistakes and the ones I can point out were that we haven't been directing the website works enough. I think that we're entering a stage where the SC and are project is going to rationalize its own activities as purpose and specific goals will be set and discussed and teams will be formed. These things usually go with some straightening-up around the corners. But to claim that there are dual and perhaps triple standards depending on the people is perfectly wrong. While for specific things we do integrate members of the OOo community faster than others the door is always open and everyone has to contribute: there are reserved seats as long as the people sitting on them fulfill their roles. If they don't, the seat goes to someone else. So to come back on the bylaws: we can start to implement them little by little but they will only be fully enforced and implemented once we have a legal entity. Before we can only lay the pillars and set up whatever can be set up without interfering with the legal entity in formation. best, Charles. David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws
Hi David, SC members, all David Nelson schrieb: Hi SC members, :-) Charles wrote an excellent set of Community Bylaws. I would like to see them officially adopted and applied. And I would like to see the various committees and governance systems in the Community Bylaws set up and become active. The Bylaws have been approved by the SC during their last call (or the one before), so they are already adopted. What needs to be done, is to establish the Membership Committee. This board will decide on the requests to become formal TDF members - a precondition for electing a Board of Directors later on. While the tasks of the BoD are worked on by the SC members by now, the Membership Committee's tasks can't be done by them too. I feel that this is important for the future of LibreOffice. I strongly support the project, and I want to see it succeed. I think we need to take action quite quickly. It is important - no question. But I don't see it as critical as you: The TDF membership doesn't lead to any other workflow or decision making than nowadays. People interested in working on a specific area do the work there - if they understand, that other areas are more important at the moment, they will probably change their focus. After the release of LibO 3.3.0 the Membership committee could start their work in approving all the requests by active community members to become TDF members. This will probably take a several weeks, but the main part of their work will be finished before we start the election process for the Board of Directors, that has to be established in September latest (as proposed by the Steering Committee limiting it's existence to not more than one year). I have noted how the level of involvement and contribution by active community members has tailed off. I have noticed how few user support queries there are on the user support list. It is my impression that the level of contribution to development is also decreasing. This is your impression. Mine is quite different. For me the most important point is how the open source basis for the community is filled with life - and brought to the public. We have ten years history as an open source project, pushed and limited at the same time by the leading habit of Sun/Oracle as main contributor. New contributors need to find their position in the existing community - we don't want to re-event the wheel in areas that have been successful in the past. We have a situation in which a key project resource, the libreoffice.org website, is becoming the center of pushing and pulling for control over its development. Decisions are needed about the website's management (editorial team), and about the future direction of its development (the question of Drupal adoption is becoming extremely disruptive and divisive in this fledgling project). All these decisions will be taken - either by the website team, or (if this team will not be able to find a common way without damaging the community as a whole) by the Steering Committee. But could you please release your website proposal before you request new steps and decisions over and over again? You probably don't have the time to reply to the proposals for a website leading team in your other thread, as you are finishing the website until tomorrow. So I'd ask you to let the community have some time and find a way of common goals and ways to reach them. This will not be possible without discussion. But these discussions will lead to results - they are not superfluous at all. I personally have experienced wanting to implement 2 great initiatives (proactive contact with Linux projects, and organization of interviews with BBC TV and radio for Charles and/or other SC members) only to find certain SC members strongly discouraging me to take action, refusing to give any constructive consideration, or totally ignoring me and not giving any reaction at all on the subject. I can't tell you anything about the BBC contacts you mention, but I see the results of your request for participation at the Linux design teams (to create our logo9: As our infrastructure had not at all been ready to provide a place for the Linux designers to work collaboratively together with the LibO community, they became quiet after a very short period of time (perhaps they turned their back on LibO totally). When we'll reach at them again - after establishing our branding and infrastructure - I don't know who will be interested again... Of course this is mainly a problem of communication - if we would have been able to tell you what is necessary to lead people towards a project and to *keep them active* (and we know that from our experience in OOo), this step could have been coordinated better. But we didn't have the time to prepare everything properly - we have to establish our new infrastructure now... When I have suggested bold initiatives, there have been very
