I am not questioning the prerogatives of the TDF to govern itself in any manner. Norbert is correct that I have no standing in the matter.
I was simply surprised that it came up here and Drew felt he had to address it. I don't question his doing so and how deliberate he is being about it. The AOOo project has committers and PPMC members who are also contributors to LO. I know because I see their work in both places. No one has ever questioned that at ASF. Not once. However, I think Norbert's reply, below, is ample demonstration of the polarization that individuals bring to these conversations. It is not just AOOo members who say outrageous things. Of course, our own outrageous things are always the truth, and therefore admirable, aren't they? Norbert, you can make my note mean whatever you want. I stand by it as written. Also, I said that there are conditions on participation in various ways. It is true here, and it is true at ASF. ASF has a license requirement, TDF has a license requirement, there are ways one becomes a committer on Apache projects, there are ways committer rights are granted for LO, etc. Apache has a license grant requirement, the iCLA, that, here, is handled by an e-mail message. ASF provides assurance of the code it releases in its way, the TDF has it in its way. I am not arguing the merits of any approach. Every open-source project has its conditions for operation and participation. Developers will contribute where it is comfortable and inviting for them. Not all developers are the same in the choices they make. How ASF members are elected and how the ASF board operates is all available on-line and I am not going to go into it. One more thing. I have found folks on ooo-dev who are cynical about the honesty and character of TDF members, too, but nothing so blatantly virulent as was just inserted here. I believe it is accurate to say that none of those statements are policy positions of the respective organizations. When they happen at AOOo I ignore them as trolling or, if there is a policy-unacceptable action being proposed, I challenge them as inconsistent and unacceptable. - Dennis E. Hamilton tools for document interoperability, <http://nfoWorks.org/> [email protected] gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Thiebaud [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 02:18 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [board-discuss] Membership Committee On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: [...] > > First about the ASF. This is not about ASF. ASF is just a mean to an IBM goal in that story. > > Now, some individuals This is not so much about individuals either... AOOo owe its existence to Corporate politics and interest. It was by no stretch of the imagination a grass root movement. [..] > in the public interest. Can you spare us the marketing line. Every similar 'Foundation' operate under the same 'public interest' banner, which is a very broad one, and does not means, contrary to what one would expect, 'in the interest of the public'. (1) [..] > There are no recriminations, there is no litmus test, You mean except signing an iCLA ? > Drew will always be welcome to contribute in any manner he chooses. Sure, but If Drew ask to be named V.P. of Community Development at Apache, will he automatically get the job ? oh wait, no; I suppose he has to, at least, become ASF member first... wait, how one does become member at Apache ? humm... seems pretty vague.... one cannot 'apply', one need to have buddies in the place already to be 'proposed' for membership.... more like a Guild... In the mean time Drew _is_ a member of TDF and as such is entitled to run for BoD or MC, and of course to 'contribute in any manner he chooses'... actually that later one does not even require membership, or even signing up open ended liability agreement. The question at hand is -- to avoid running BoD and MC election concurrently, which would be a bad idea due to the necessary oversight of each body on the election of the other -- how best organize the transition to an elected MC. One proposition, that seems to be favored, is to postpone the MC election to the middle of next year and to re-conduct the current MC in the interim. The problem is that the current MC does not have enough member to conform to the foundation statute, as amended to fit the Host State requirement. So we need to fill 1 MC member position and 3 MC deputy positions. Out current Bylaw provide that it is the prerogative of the BoD to make such appointments. The only restriction established in the ByLaw is that such appointees must be TDF members. So every TDF member is eligible to such position, but none have any 'right' to it. >Just the same, I thought it strange that there was a question of any conflict >seen in Drew Jensen's participation on Apache projects. Since it is BoD's members prerogative to make such appointment, it does not seems strange at all that they'd ask questions, publicly or privately, to prospective candidate and other interested party to make that decision. And surely, when seeking a position of representation of the membership -- which is the case of the MC, which represent the membership in the process of evaluating the somewhat subjective criteria of 'substantive contribution' -- it is expected that a higher scrutiny be applied to questions of allegiance and purpose. Of course all that will become moot in few months, when the membership at large will be called-upon to make that decision. Still I would not be surprised if that sort of questions -- if still of relevance -- were to pop-up during the election cycle. Norbert (1) One could create an 'Charitable Association' whose purpose is to help anyone prepare and fill software patents. That would most likely fit the tax requirement to get a 'Charitable' tax-exempt status, which is a 'public-interest' Association... It is nevertheless very arguable whether that Association would be 'in the interest of the public'. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
