Sorry for top posting. I have been asked by a PMC member to reopen the discussion about the board report.
Background is that after the report was submitted, a ASF Member (not board member and not part of our community) felt that I as new AOO chair, had formulated the report too negative and against the wishes of the community (ASF Members can read board@ to get the precise wording). I have sent the report exactly, as it is in our Wiki, only appended with a "for board eyes only" statement, that has been thoroughly discussed on private@. I hope nobody in the community feels they have not been given a fair chance to ask for changes. I politely ask the people who now wants the report changed, to show how the report should look, and let the community discuss. If the community wants the report formulated differently, I will be happy to replace the current report. We do have a timing challenge, and need to act fast before the reporting window closes, alternatively I can replace the report with a short note stating the I (as chair) have removed it, because the community need more time to discuss the content. rgds jan I. On 4 April 2015 at 11:48, Andrea Pescetti <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/04/2015 jan i wrote: > >> On 1 April 2015 at 09:33, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >> >>> Big thanks are not for the report. But still very appropriate for the >>> list... so big thanks to who worked for events! ... >>> >> Actually before I became member I was mentioned in 5-6 board reports like >> that >> > > For project reports I find it more appropriate to simply give credit, like > "X Y organized an OpenOffice event" as opposed to "Big thanks to X Y for > organizing an OpenOffice event". But the version now online is OK. > > I use AOO on purpose in reports, because is the >> project, I use Apache openOffice when referring to something that includes >> our ecosystem, and openOffice when referring to the office suite and >> ecosystem in general. >> > > I'm not sure about this. It is just wording after all, nothing to change > in the report; but Apache OpenOffice is OpenOffice and OpenOffice is Apache > OpenOffice (and nothing else); if someone wants to speak about "OpenOffice > and others" then "OpenOffice ecosystem" is more explicit and clear (even if > I don't love this terminology). > > I agree that we are committed to bringing out the release (changed text to >> reflect that) and that we could and should resume some work here, but that >> is future and the report is about the last 3 months, so I prefer to keep >> the "no work is active". >> > > Well, I agree it's time to stop talking about what to write in the report > and to resume some of the work I had already sent here weeks ago... > > Have a look at the changes, and let me know if they are ok to you. >> > > They are OK. My remaining concerns are: > - Title and link: this is the "2015-Apr" report, not the March one. > - Forum is not mentioned anywhere; at least a sentence like "The official, > volunteer-run, OpenOffice support Forums remain very popular with users" > would be appropriate. > > And thanks a lot for giving the community time to discuss the report at > length. > > > Regards, > Andrea. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
