Hello Louis,

Le Mon, 18 Oct 2010 09:50:57 -0400,
Louis Suárez-Potts <louis.suarez-po...@oracle.com> a écrit :

> Hi Charles, et al.,
> On 2010-10-18, at 05:37 , Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
> > Louis,
> > 
> > 
> > Le Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:32:28 -0400,
> > Louis Suárez-Potts <louis.suarez-po...@oracle.com> a écrit :
> > 
> >> 
> >> All,
> >> I have asked that Charles Schulz recuse himself from his role as
> >> lead of the NLC category because of the confusion his new role
> >> outside of OpenOffice.org would produce in the minds of
> >> contributors and users. I have not received an answer, so I must
> >> presume one, that he would act with good grace and recognize the
> >> impossibility of his dual roles.
> > 
> > 
> > I am afraid you are presuming the wrong way. 
> I'm sorry to read that. 
> > I am sorry not to have given you an answer earlier publicly, but I
> > am not going away.
> ? I didn't ask you to. I asked you to recuse yourself from lead—that
> is to suspend, temporarily, the duties and title associated with your
> office—because of the evident conflict of interest your concurrent
> role as NLC lead and TDF founder presents. I did not, and have not,
> removed your privileges as lead. Check if you are uncertain. But I do
> feel, even more, that your current dual roles seriously compromises
> the legitimacy by which you can effect your OOo role.

While I do not necessarily agree on the conflict of interest, I do also
believe that my role will need to be clarified: understand by this, I
will eventually leave my role as lead of the NLC.

> > Your takeover of my position is simply not right, does
> Hm.
> > not match any of our guidelines and implies a lot of nebulous
> > things: confusion with my new role? Please define why my new role
> > would confuse the OpenOffice.org community. I think my new role is
> > quite clear; the fact that I will eventually leave, on my own
> > accord and terms should also be clear. 
> I think I've clarified the source of confusion, the effects, too,
> enough. Your post to the d...@nlc list asking (urging?) members to
> make further contributions to TDF and LO clearly violated the
> implicit tenets of our project, and demonstrated a clear conflict of
> interest. 

In this case, there are quite several other cases of conflicts of
interests not releated to LibreOffice. 

> It's as if a big competitor visited our project, got on our
> lists, and told everyone to go to MuddleSoft instead of OOo. Wouldn't
> think it right, would you? 

It wouldn't, because it would be a competitor. Right now I would not
call each other that. 
> > 
> > Louis, I am not employed by Oracle: you cannot "fire" me nor anyone
> > like you're trying to do. This is extravagant and outlines a deep
> > misunderstanding of community "management".  
> I have not fired you, nor anyone, nor do I have that right,
> thankfully. The CC can, of course, remove people. But what I did, and
> did only, was to assume your duties presuming a positive answer to my
> question. As you've answered in the negative, and you are still lead,
> this does complicate things a little, and it is something of course,
> that would and will be, I have no doubt, brought up in the CC meeting
> next.

I have no doubts on this. 

> Charles, no one here in OOo is acting arbitrarily or without
> accountability. We are interested in demonstrating to the community
> that what we do is in their behalf, and that as a community, we act
> in a way that is neither precipitous or irrational, but which has the
> OOo project community's interests at heart—and that community
> includes those interested in using OOo in all environments.
> Put another way: Trust is crucial here. And trust, we have been
> taught by Foss, is the keystone upon which community is built. Trust
> is built up by predictable behaviour, by verifiable doings: by
> intentions manifest in actions whose is evident and not the arbitrary
> writing of a child who might declare himself one day to be superman
> just because he wants to.

If trust is crucial, and indeed it is, then The Document Foundation is
the visible sign the community has lost confidence in the will and
ability of Oracle to help us propulse this project in the next decade. 
There are exceptions, of course. 

> >> 
> >> As lead I will continue to do what I normally do as the co-lead of
> >> the NLC—the admin, policy, outreach—plus the engagement of new
> >> members interested in setting up projects in their native language.
> >> Only, I'll do this now as Lead of the category. (There is no real
> >> apparatus for formal vote here….)
> > 
> > There might not be any, but I'd be interested to know what other
> > think about both the legitimity of your move, let alone of its
> > legality. 
> Of what move? To assume your duties during a time when you've clearly
> demonstrated that you are perfectly intent on misusing the privileges
> and authority of your office? 

That is not something I have demonstrated, I'm sorry. I'm not using
neither my privileges nor the "authority of my office" to do something
wrong. I can say: "I'm moving to the Document Foundation" or "let's
go there", but to imply that my word is gospel and that the community
shall leave because I would send a simple email is an overestimation of
my influence on everyone here. 

> To ask you to recuse yourself
> (temporary suspension)? To ensure the integrity and health of
> OpenOffice.org, the project, its community? 
> Let's put it this way. What do you gain by trying so hard to weaken
> the trust people have in OpenOffice.org? What did you gain by working
> with the media as you have? (I don't mean, of course, what you,
> Charles, the person gained; I mean the plural you. I do not imagine
> you to be so venal or egotistical as to seek personal gain here
> alone.)

The media does not need us to find that OpenOffice.org is in poor shape
and was much before the birth of the Document Foundation... 

> For I feel and believe that the supposed gains made by TDF and LO by
> doing what they have and are doing comes at a terrible price. 
> Here, on our tenth anniversary, a moment of triumph the community can
> and should relish, when tens of millions use the application because
> of the community's efforts, we see a group led by current and former
> leads of OpenOffice.org assert identity over the entire
> OpenOffice.org community and declare their own brand and project—and
> then urge all those remnants, I suppose you'd call them, to leave
> OpenOffice.org and join them in their endeavour. (Nevermind that no
> one seriously thinks that TDF or LO has the necessary resources to
> satisfy enterprise-level customers in the future. If saying so can
> make a community then saying so can make code appear, no?)

And code does appear, has appeared, will appear, I'm surprised you can
cast doubt about that, it's Free and Open Source Software after all,
and it's happening in a project near you. Given our development stats on
commits, patches submission, bugfixing, I don't think I should be the
one getting worried. 
> > 
> >> 
> >> And there is a fair amount that does need to be done, as OOo is
> >> gaining enormous momentum around the world and as you, the NLC
> >> projects, are elemental to that! 
> > 
> > Sorry Louis, no pun intended, but... who are you talking about?
> > This is becoming pathetic.
> Hm, 
> What is, Charles? What I find oddly disturbing, aside from your
> hostility—I think we have all done a rather decent job of refraining
> from hostile attacks, and that's good—is that TDF is simply not
> recognizing that it serves different interests from OpenOffice.org.

What would they be then? The interests of everyone but Oracle? Sorry
but that's the elephant in the room here...

> Of course there is overlap. And of course TDF and LO contributors can
> work on both projects. But doing so in a way that instils trust and
> expectation is the point, and the first step, don't you think, is to
> admit, to accept that you represent, now, TDF and LO over
> OpenOffice.org, and that they are different entities, albeit with
> overlap.  (We are all members of overlapping communities; that's a
> nothing new.)

There's another starting point, which acknowledges the reality of
dozens and dozens of OOo contributors going away from OOo to create a
foundation. I heard no comments, no interrogation on why we did what we
did, not a single moment of doubt: "they forked, they must go". 
We will leave, indeed, and you will fail. 


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@native-lang.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@native-lang.openoffice.org

Reply via email to