Hi all, and André,
On 2010-10-15, at 13:01 , André Schnabel wrote: > Hi Louis, > > > Am 15.10.2010 18:05, schrieb Louis Suárez-Potts: >> >> I guess then we disagree. For I see OpenOffice.org as quite distinct >> and different from Oracle, just as it was different from Sun, and >> just as it differs from any one company. OOo is a community of >> differences and likes. > > > I think, we agree, that people within Sun / Oracle have been working hard > within the last 10 years did contribute massively to OpenOffice.org. At the > same time they were working on StarOffice, what now became "Oracle Open > Office". People inside Sun often have manager role in the company and are > project lead at OpenOffice.org - that's quite normal. We lived with this for > several years and never discussed about comflict of interests, although all > those people worked for a commercial entity that had own goals - and a free > software project at the same time. And, of course, we take great pride in ensuring that the work done for Oracle Open Office (and its predecessor, StarOffice) is not confused with that done for OpenOffice.org. All users and contributors should feel confident that when they work on OpenOffice.org they are in fact working on OpenOffice.org. > > So now, that Charles (and many others) felt, that it would be worth to bring > the community into the next decade and work on the idea of an independent > foundation .. we remove them from their roles because they have a conflict of > interest? Nope. I privately suggested to Charles to remove himself with grace because of his representational/representative role in the OpenOffice.org Project and Community and because of his even more prominent role in the Document Foundation. Has a lot less to do with any motives you ascribe or intentions he might have than simply facts of role and effect Charles' role could have (and has in some cases, already had) on contributors and users. My interest should be clear here. I want to preserve the integrity of OpenOffice.org for all users and contributors, and to remove the possibility of confusion. I want for contributors and users to the project and code and of the application and its works to understand and without question that they are working on or using OpenOffice.org. This is pretty important and continues a rather long—since its inception, really—effort on my part. And even yours. André, don't you recall the long and involved discussions and arguments we had about putting ads and sponsor icons on the site? Well, how is this real much different from that? In both cases, the issue was advertising a different product. One was, to be sure, commercial—I mean the ads. But that's a relatively minor point. The real point is that OpenOffice.org is about OpenOffice.org and not a different project or product. And we do not want to confuse, just as you did not want to then, and I do not want to now, contributors and users. If you feel I am warping the past to satisfy my present needs, I'd like to state that's not my goal. I really am interested in and concerned about the points I've raised and made, and have been since I started with this project, 13 October 2000. > > Wouldn't it be logical to argue that Oracle staff also has a conflict of > interest? No. The work done on OpenOffice.org by Oracle engineers or by me or others who are not engineers is focused on OpenOffice.org. Our CC governance and project guidelines determine our project actions and limits, and these ensure that our actions are transparent and accountable. If we were advocating and representing a competing product or project, one that seemingly seeks in effect to undermine the project we were supposed to be simultaneously promoting, then that would be a different story. But we are not. > > To me this sounds rather nonsense - we all can work on one project. I actually used to think so—even prior to two weeks ago. :-/ And it was thus rather a shock to wake up one morning to discover that those I'd been working with and come to respect for their integrity and honesty should overnight, without warning, declare a split. I've lived nearly all my life with cooperatives and similar open systems, in the governing bodies and as a member, first in Berkeley, then here, with OpenOffice.org. There are usually protocols to follow for this sort of thing and these are designed to allow the parties to reach understanding and even, sometimes, agreement. > > But it is hard to work together, when one party of the game starts to remove > people from their roles or excludes them from discussion. Have we done that? I removed Charles b/c of his role, but have not prevented him from using this list for OpenOffice.org discussions, and so have not in any way prevented him or excluded him from so engaging in discussions; indeed, I have specifically asked him for just that. Nor did I do that with Florian. Rather, in both cases, I asked for grace and for the recognition that their prominent position can only cause confusion, and a that confusion in the minds of our contributors and users is the last thing any of us really wants. Or, as I asked JBF, do you really think that divide/conquer is but a slogan and that our competitor's recent (laughable) activities are purely coincidental? > Why do mails by some council members need to be moderated to disc...@council? ? I know there's been a longstanding bug here, but this does catch me by surprise. Which ones do you mean? > I did not see a request for this, the council did not agree to remove some > members and they also did not step back. So how are these actions justified? What actions? The moderation? If so, that's actually a surprise, but as mentioned, I know there has been a bug about that list. > > > regards, > > André > best louis --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@native-lang.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@native-lang.openoffice.org
