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 ***
