Dear All, As far as I understand we are all on same page regarding out objectives and long term goals. In every team there are few aggressive, few defensive and few balanced out players. A team needs each of them equally because each of them is best at their task.
I understand David's feelings and those of others who have put some long term dates. Dear David, you have some great ideas but brother the fact is that when an army has to attack it can't send 5 soldiers in front. The whole team has to go. George Bush who commanded the world's strongest armed forces waited for 10 months before launching attack on Al Qaida ( just an example, nothing against any country , race, religion). Passion is very important but sometimes we need to wait so that everyone comes along and we can launch the ATTACK together. This might prove irritating to the soldier standing in front line but he needs to wait for those bulky infantry guns to come who will give cover fire during the battle. I believe instead of entering this wastage of energy accusation war, we should see which areas can be put on fast track. And I am sure if there are some such areas where people like David who can devote extra time, then they can be entrusted with some responsibilities in this regard. I hope we all focus on tasks ahead. I will wait for Florian or someone from the group to list out some things which can be fast tracked and what all can be done by David and group to help with that I hope we can put an end to this fight now :) No soldier alone ever won the battle alone, but yes one soldier alone did cause the Spartans to lose the battle ..... We need everyone and everyone is important !!! Thank You Best Regards Varun Mittal <http://www.varunmittal.info> Google <https://www.google.com/profiles/varunmittal87> Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/mittal.varun> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/varunmittal87> Twitter<http://twitter.com/varunmittal19> "Uncertainty is the only Certainty of LIFE" On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 1:30 PM, David Nelson <comme...@traduction.biz>wrote: > Hi Andreas, guys, :-) > > Thanks for your responses. I'd like to put some viewpoints that some of you > guys don't seem to have thought of. > > > Rant > ==== > > <rant> > > I would like to see an end to this mindset of some people regarding a > three-tier community: the "new" members, the ex-OOo community members, and > the SC members. (This mindset is not just my imagination: Bernhard > acknowledged and justified it in his post, and Sophie seemed to back him up > about it...) > > Sometimes, when I read some ex-OOo members, the words "complacency" and > "condescension" pop-up in my mind. > > I can tell you that it's irritating having to live with this "constant > deference to OOo history". > > IMHO, some ex-OOo people need to start thinking forwards, rather than being > rooted in a past that I feel has less relevance than you seem to think. > > I feel it's time to say that OOo was the past, LibreOffice and TDF is our > future, and everything started from zero with the TDF launch. > > </rant> > > > Elections > ======== > > When TDF first launched, there was a *lot* of interest and excitement > around > the project. I had the impression that, among others, there were quite a > few > intelligent and well-qualified people with fresh ideas and lots of energy > to > contribute work. > > It would be good if SC members were to remember that there are other people > who want a chance to lead the project and to have an influence in its > future > development. > > I'd be very keen to see elections, and to see some SC members given a > democratic mandate to continue their valuable work within a 9-member BoD, > but also to see some fresh blood in there, too, with a new outlook. > > It would be good because those BoD members will remember that they are > elected for 1 year, and this will be something they will probably bear in > mind in their contact with other community members, and in the work they do > for the project. > > > Implement the Community Bylaws, and the institutions therein > =================================================== > > In addition to organizing elections for the BoD, it would also be very > important to: > > - quickly start setting-up and operating the institutions mentioned in the > Community Bylaws: the BoD, the ESC, the MC, ...; > > - conform to the spirit and letter of the Community Bylaws, and start > officially communicating with the community regularly through > announcements; > > I really fail to see any justification for waiting 9 months to set up the > BoD (which should be elected by community vote). > > For those that speak of their lack of time and their need to attend to > family commitments, I would have to respectfully reply that maybe you > should > step aside, because there may well be other people with more time and > energy > to devote to the project's work. The project's work should not have to > proceed at the speed of the slowest contributor. > > I would like the implementation of the Community Bylaws to be started ASAP, > and I would like BoD elections to be held within 2-3 months *at most*. > > > Consequences > ============ > > IMHO, the price of not doing the above would be a constant decline in work > contributions and involvement, and a loss of credibility in the eyes of > people around the project and outside the project. > > Should we see a subtle warning in Ubuntu's apparent possible change of > stance regarding the adoption of LibreOffice as its default productivity > suite in 11.04? (See [1].) > > As I said in previous posts, I don't have any practical and quick means of > procuring contribution statistics but, looking at the number of messages > that arrive in my mailbox and the traffic I see on the #libreoffice IRC > channel, I *seem to observe* a distinct reduction in the number of > developer > contributions since the project launch. > > I also seem to note a decrease in the number of people that I would qualify > as regular contributors to the team lists. And I seem to note a decline in > the number of people seeking support via the user support list. > > I humbly contend that, if you do not show a clear commitment to fully > implementing the Community Bylaws, contribution and involvement will > further > decrease. > > I am wondering whether some SC members feel that the real key to attracting > developers is simply in the licensing requirements you do (or don't) impose > on their code contributions. > > But I also wonder whether code developers, too, are sensitive to the way > community governance is carried out, in their area of the project and in > other areas, as well. If that is the case, then the SC's apparent > complacency in its justification in occupying the project's seat of > government for the next 9 months is perhaps unwise. > > In contrast, I contend that there could be big benefits if you were to show > serious intent and take quick action in officially adopting and applying > the > Community Bylaws: > > - there could be a strong revival of interest and activity in the project, > which could easily be directed into tangible work contributions and an > augmentation in the number of real project workers; > > - it would undoubtedly be perceived positively by outside corporate / > enterprise observers (Ubuntu and many others); > > - each announcement of a significant step forward in bylaw / governance > implementation can be turned into very positive publicity and marketing, > and > reverberated around the Net (via TDF blog articles, coverage on our social > media, and proactive contact with prominent bloggers and journalists). > > > Conclusion > ========= > > I hope you will not perceive everything I have said in this thread as just > negative ranting. Having posted this message, I will spend a large part of > this day doing actual work for the project. > > It is all uniquely intended to try and raise your awareness about possible > dangers that I see, and about viewpoints that may not have occurred to you. > I hope only to see the LibreOffice project and TDF survive and succeed. > > But I do think the SC needs to take action *urgently*. > > [1] > > http://www.itworld.com/open-source/132546/ubuntu-libreoffice-replacing-openofficeorg-reports-premature > > David Nelson > > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 10:49, David Nelson <comme...@traduction.biz> > 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 > steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org<steering-discuss%2bh...@documentfoundation.org> > List archive: > http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** > > -- 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 ***
