Hi, :-) @Sophie: Me, too, I was a little saddened at your answers.
a) I am not bringing up this issue because of any response to my proposal about the website management. I said at least a couple of times that the SC needs to take some kind of decision in order to ensure it gets managed properly in the future. At this point, I don't mind at all whether I am involved in the website in the future or not. ;-) My goal of seeing that site operational and looking halfway decent has been achieved. I already got my satisfaction. So, please may I ask you all to have the courtesy not to make that accusation again. It sincerely hurt my feelings. ;-) b) I am sad that you do not seem to share in *all* those fine ideals in the Community Bylaws. I am sad that you don't share in the egalitarian, purely meritocratic principles, and that you see a multiple-tier membership. I am sad that you do not seem to want that adventure of democratic and meritocratic community life to begin soon, and that you use the excuse of complicated legal arrangements to procrastinate. In reality, the implementation of the bylaws and community governance is not necessarily linked to the legal formation of the foundation, and can be conducted on a moral and organizational level *totally independently*. @Charles: I just read your reply as I was writing back to Sophie. > 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/[email protected]/msg00229.html Yes, I realize the bylaws are largely finalized. I had hoped to see them implemented with *much* more urgency than September, 9 months away. You will remember how I assisted you when you were drafting them. I was excited, enthusiastic very inspired at the prospect of a truly open, meritocratic and egalitarian Open Source community. I don't want to see the hopes fade. > 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. Yes, this is purely what I gage through my own observation. But I'm only saying to *warn* you guys of a possible scenario. Believe me, friends, I have *also* invested serious work in trying to make sure such a scenario will not happen. That is why I pushed so hard to get the libreoffice.org website online. > 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. Then this will be good. Charles, you know very well that I have not simply ranted about problems on mailing lists. Instead, I have put in plenty of work to fix them. But this issue of slowness and inertia in fully implementing the Community Bylaws and governance is something that only *you* guys can fix. And, as a concerned community member, all I can do is to raise the issue for discussion and action. I sincerely believe that it is for the ultimate good of the Community. > 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. I do *hope* I am wrong. I hope all of the above is true. For the moment, I have not seen the proof. ;-) Don't *tell* me I'm wrong, *show* me I'm wrong. ;-) > 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. I think that most of the bylaws can be put into practice absolutely independently of the existence of any legal entity. They are a moral form of governance and organization. Very little is keyed on any legal entity as such. Therefore, may I please enjoin the SC to start with implementation as soon as possible? I truly hope that the dream you envisioned in the Community Bylaws you wrote is not going to slip away. ;-) David Nelson P.S. For those who have not yet read my original post, can I invite you to read it below? ;-) On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 10:49, David Nelson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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). > > 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. > > When I have suggested bold initiatives, there have been very > proprietary, "control freak" reactions from some SC members, with talk > of "this is so and so's field of responsibility", and I'm strongly > discouraged from taking the idea further. > > These attitudes and some other attitudes I have encountered from > certain SC members are contrary to the > principles of good meritocracy and equality of membership laid down in > the bylaws. > > 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 > > The SC was a necessary institution when TDF was first launched. But it > was only supposed to be a temporary body. Some SC members now seem to > becoming rooted in their positions of decision-taking power. The > situation is becoming undemocratic and non-meritocratic. IMHO, it > starts to resemble a form of "Communism going wrong". ;-) > > I seriously believe that, if you do not take quick action, the > LibreOffice project is in serious danger of imploding within the next > couple of months or before the end of the year. Contributors will > progressively drop away. Less and less work will be contributed. > Ultimately, tensions will arise within the SC itself, and > disagreements will break out; if the SC itself were to fragment, the > LibreOffice project could end up orphaned. > > In the present situation, you cannot attract more corporate > contributors/partners to the project, because there is not the > necessary governance. The SC lacks proper legitimacy. If you do not > take action fairly soon, could you perhaps even end-up losing the > corporate contributors you currently have (Novell and Red Hat)? > > Even if TDF does not now have the funds to establish itself legally, > there is nothing to stop you implementing the bylaws at a moral and > organizational level right from the present time. You might then > attract more financial contributions to enable you to set up a legal > structure in either Germany or the UK. > > I hereby request you to discuss the issue of formal adoption and > implementation of the Community Bylaws during either the next SC > confcall or - at latest - during the next-but-one SC confcall (if you > need time to prepare), and to take some formal decisions in this > respect within a short time frame. > > David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
