Hi :) I think OpenOffice before the forking was under some fairly strange leadership. ie a company that worked hard to increase community participation but not being very trusting of the communities they had grown = actively blocking many proposed patches and stuff developed by the community.
Once Oracle took over things took a nose-dive and they demanded that people who held high positions in "their" community stepped down if they were also working in TDF. I've even heard that Oracle took ownership of funds built-up by the community and refused to cover community expenses. So, we are dealing with 2 communities, or 1 fractured community that has been fed mis-information about each other. As someone fairly new to the scene i think Apache are pretty much friends especially compared to profit-hungry organisations such as Oracle. Hopefully time may heal some of the wounds but maybe a bit of dirty laundry needs to be aired in order for us to discover which bits of mis-information people have been fed. Hopefully we can do that a little more sensitively and compassionately in the future. Just my 2 cents and quite probably contains inaccuracies as it's mostly stuff i have picked up from the press rather than at first hand. Regards from Tom :) --- On Sun, 6/11/11, Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Dennis E. Hamilton <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [board-discuss] Membership Committee > To: [email protected] > Date: Sunday, 6 November, 2011, 18:03 > 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 > -- 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
