On 24.11.2019 13:19, Jörg Schmidt wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Peter Kovacs [mailto:pe...@apache.org] >> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2019 11:28 AM >> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org >> Subject: Re: volunteer activity tracking >> >> >> On 24.11.19 09:30, Jörg Schmidt wrote: >>>> Normally we discuss to get a consensus. Crucial votes are >>>> out-of-favour. >>>> This is the only way to keep the community together. >>> No, that is only a way of unification. >> But if there is no unification, voices have not been taken >> sufficiently >> into account. >> >> If this happens to often, people will go away, and the community is >> diminished. > That's not gonna happen. That's happened. > > Lots and lots of former volunteers left the OpenOffice project and either > went to LO or turned away from free software. > Doesn't it show the weakness of our project that we couldn't even stand up to > a newcomer like LO? (Nothing general against LO, only it is not our project. > Our task is to ensure the success of AOO.) > > The example of the ProOO-Box shows how wrong the procedure is in some cases. > With OOo, the ProOO box was part of the project, with AOO it was suddenly no > longer part of the project, but was declared a "third party" without any > substantial reason. > At the persistent request of the volunteers, it was explained that the ProOO > box could apply as a separate incubator project. > Does nobody understand how absurd this proposal was? Does no one understand > how it offended volunteers?
I don't know anything about this story, but in general terms: as far as I'm aware, a software grant (or other kind of IP contribution) can go directly to an existing PMC without having to pass through the Incubator. If anyone said otherwise, they were simply wrong. -- Brane --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
