Adam, et al.,
On 2005-12-14, at 11:17 , Adam Moore wrote:
On 12/14/05, Louis Suarez-Potts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually funding is handled by the Community Council, by default.
Marketing has no funds, independent of that.
So who makes the request. Marketing project or you? In other words
It seems that if there was a conference that the marketing project
want's to attend and you didn't feel it was worth it, it wouldn't get
proposed. Now I am sure that is not the case here as you have said
that the community council will consider it, but I think the general
consensus on the marketing list will be that we shouldn't spend money
on it. So there should be nothing for the community council to
consider. You have made the decision to bring it up to the community
council without discussing it with the marketing project. Do you
understand how that doesn't feel like we are able to make any
decisions? I'll admit I'm not the best with words, but I hope you
understand the point I'm trying to get across.
The point is in this case double.
1. Is it in OOo's overall interests to attend this conference?
2. If it is, do we have funds that can be allocated to that purpose?
Given the leap that Ryan made and the tight deadline I am directly
requesting the CC to act on this. We also, fwiw, went through this
last year: the CC is the one who authorised OOo's (funded) presence
there.
2. I did not say that unfunded people can't attend. I said that I
think it's a mistake for OOo to fund people to attend.
<Quote Louis>
I think it would be a mistake for OOo to attend
this year's.
</Quote>
I see you have difficulty with words too, but I'll give you the
benefit of the doubt that you didn't type what you meant.
I do not have difficulty with words, nor with sarcasm. My point in
the section you quoted had to do with funding people to attend, as
well as with the issue of how we want to represent ourselves and
where. To extend the point: We cannot stop anyone from attending a
conference on his or her own behalf but do want to ensure that any
attendance in which a member represents OOo is done professionally
and responsibly and in accordance with OOo's mission. The invitation
from DLS was to OOo, and thus must be taken under consideration by
OOo. The Community Council represents OOo. Marketing is represented
there. And, I have no doubt, there will be discussion of the subject
here, again, as there has been in the past.
As to the OpenDocument fellowship/OOo: they are quite different and
do have differing interests, though obviously there is some overlap.
But: OOo is about open source; OpenDocument Fellowship is not.
Really I thought OOo is about a community of people that wanted to
develop a good office suite. OD Fellowship is about open source, a
freely implementable and changeable format;
:
http://opendocumentfellowship.org/Fellowship/AboutUs
Or ask. But please don't make assumptions.
This takes us into a different thread, but:
the mission statement reads:
Our Mission
"To support the work of community volunteers in promoting, improving
and providing user assistance for the OASIS Open Document Format for
Office Applications (OpenDocument) and software designed to operate
on data in this format."
To an extent that it supports OOo, yes, OpenDocument Fellowship is
about open source. But it also supports, then, IBM's WorkPlace and
probably, in the near future, Corel's WordPerfect, and other
proprietary applications that will be employing OpenDocument. It is a
fair statement (not an assumption) to say, then, as I said before,
that "OOo is about open source; OpenDocument Fellowship is not."
Mind, I am not dissing OpenDocument Fellowship. I am pointing to our
differences. They are separate efforts.
Best,
Louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
