Hi Ian, Ian Laurenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> 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, > > [...] > > > 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". Where is stated, that the money goes to the Open Document Fellowship? I haven't seen a note about this. Don't forget, that "Friends of OpenDocument" and the "Open Document Fellowship" are two totally different entities. > 2. That the accounts are open so that it is clear that all proceeds > are going to the central fund. If what you want is open accounts, why can't Friends of OpenDocument provide them? You're only asking for open accounts, and this can provide Friends of OpenDocument as good as Team OpenOffice e. V. > 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. I expect something like this scenario: Once, we have some money in the account of "Friends of OpenDocument", Jean will send a mail to this list and ask what we should do with the money. So, I expect, that everyone, who is a subscriber to this list, can discuss and help to find a decision, what should be done with the money. If we all decide, that we want to give the money to Team OOo, then we do this. If we decide, that we want to spend the money to provide a ISBN-number for our books, then we will do that. And if we decide, that we want to donate the money for some victims of earthquakes (or something similar) we do this. (These are only a few examples, there are many more things, what we could do...) > > > > 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. Still, where is a "formal leader"? I don't know of any elections or something like that. I thought, that we're all members with the same rights. We don't have any leader. > > 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. Ian, I think you've gone too far now. This is a lie. And who are the leaders of OOoAuthors? Please name them to me, I should have missed something. Setting up the Open Document Fellowship has nothing to do with moving this list. And, as I said above, the entity, selling the books, is "Friends of OpenDocument" and not the "Open Document Fellowship". The profit of selling the books will not be used for funding the Fellowship. > > 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 And, what does this list show? Only that the number of members of the ODF isn't restricted to OOo-people. And it shows, that the members there are also well-known in the OOo-community. > > I do not like confrontation or disagreement. Neither do I. > 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. Yes, so please leave the assumptions, that aren't true. I also want to continue working on the documentation - and not discussing some "needless" things. I don't have any political aspirations, and I know, from different other people, that they don't have such aspirations either. Please leave your antipathy to some of the people (it's my impression, that this is the reason for you, feeling betrayed) out of the discussion and discuss only the relevant topics. I guess, it will be good, if Jean tries to explain the points to you (and also to all subscribers of this list), you are concerned about. But this will need some more time, because she's on her way home to Australia and will not be able to connect to the internet before Saturday. Sigrid
