Hi Rob, Reply inline. On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 18:29 +1000, Rob Unsworth wrote: > On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Ian Laurenson wrote: > > > A commendable list of links! But, not one of them says that the books > > are about to be printed and the proceeds from the sale of the books is > > to be decided by the authors. > > You missed this one, > http://user-faq.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=authors&msgNo=10276 > Which in part says, > > Money raised from sales of OOoAuthors books will be spent as decided by > the contributors to those books. At some point (when we actually have some > money in the account), we'll need to work out just how to handle these > decisions, but that's a topic for another thread, and probably another > day. > It was this message that I first raised my concerns about lack of prior discussion.
> > My issue is not about printing and selling the books, my issue is to do > > with the lack of discussion about the process and where the money is > > going to go. It would appear that the OOo Community Council has similar > > concerns. > > See above > > > If all the money went to a central OOo fund and the accounts were open > > and audited then I would feel a lot more comfortable. > > Ian, I can assure you that the accounts at Friends of OpenDocument Inc are > protected under the Associations Incorporation Act (1981) in the state of > Queensland, Australia. The Office of Fair Trading administers the Act > which requires an annual auditors report. All money incoming and outgoing > is required to be recorded. > My concern was about 3 things: 1. Money going to a central OOo fund and not the "Open Document Fellowship". 2. That the accounts are open so that it is clear that all proceeds are going to the central fund. 3. Audited. You have reassured me about 3 only. > > The current proposal of having the authors decide, to me, is a recipe > > for disaster. Putting aside the concerns of the OOo Community Council > > for a moment, let me pose a scenario: > > > > Person A has put a lot of effort into writing and maintaining a chapter. > > Person B is new and tentatively suggests a few changes. Person A rejects > > those changes so that Person B doesn't have a say on the proceeds of the > > sale of the chapter. Person B leaves feeling discouraged. > > > > As I think this scenario shows, to me the current proposal is not > > detrimental to the broader OOo community but also to the OOoAuthors > > community. > > That scenario is totaly irrelevant as it applies to any organisation or > group of people, it also applies to OpenOffice.org. > The key words were "... so that Person B doesn't have a say on the proceeds of the sale of the chapter." To me the current proposal about proceeds of sales is very destructive of group dynamics. It is this destructive nature that I am most concerned about. > > > > Is the possible worst case scenario improvement in the mail list worth > > more than the confusion and ill will caused by further separation from > > OOo by OOoAuthors? To me it is not. > > Ian, You should be asking the Community Council why the sale of > OpenOffice.org CDs for personal profit is acceptable while telling the > Authors they must donate any profits derived from the sale of oooAuthors > documentation to Team OpenOffice.org e.V. > > You are forgetting that it was the CC that proposed taking the list away > from oooAuthors, and removing oooAuthors documentation from the > OpenOffice.org Website, and now people are complaining even members of the > CC who supported the proposal. Now go ask them why. > > It appears, to me, the CC has developed a severe case of double standards. > > I do not see the Community Council as having double standards. As far as I am aware people selling OOo CDs are only listed on the "third party" pages. Currently OOoAuthors enjoys a privileged position and while not being on an OOo server is still considered part of OOo and thus is mentioned on pages other than "third party" pages. When I joined OOoAuthors I found the leadership style very off putting, and double checked if there was any other way of collaboratively working on OOo documentation. The response from several sources was to the effect that OOoAuthors was the place to work and was considered part of OOo. My perception of the way that the leaders of OOoAuthors are behaving - setting up the "Open Document Fellowship", printing and selling the books to help fund the fellowship, proposing to have a separate mailing list, being argumentative with the Community Council and telling "half truths" is being very destructive of the OOo community. It is worth noting who has been strongest in their support of moving this list and looking at the membership of the Open Document Fellowship: http://opendocumentfellowship.org/Profiles/HomePage I do not like confrontation or disagreement. Working on OOo documentation should be fun, fulfilling and not contentious. I look forward to continuing to work on OOo documentation without the hassles of individuals' political aspirations. -- Ian Laurenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hillview
