On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:10 AM, drew <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, 2011-09-06 at 23:29 -0400, Rob Weir wrote: ... >>> Right now, it looks like we're waiting for the forum volunteers >>> discuss among themselves and come back with a proposal. >> >> Oh for crying out loud - no that is not where we are - Christian put up >> a proposal - you put up an amended version on the ML - you, I and others >> then worked over a few of those points all freaking day long - I thought >> moving in the right direction pretty darn well, and thought it was down >> to one point, that's it and even there given posts from ASF >> mentors/leaders that this was all but a done deal also. >> > > Drew, as an employee of a large corporation, I need to take those > kinds of claims seriously. They are not laughing matters and I cannot > ignore the claim once it has been made.
Rob, can you then bring a concrete suggestion? It feels like we are moving in the circle. So many people said it can be done. The forum volunteers seem to be fine with pretty everything we have spoken on. Please make concrete suggestions to modify the proposal on the wiki. My guess is you wanted to say that the volunteer group donates the forum and its content to the ASF with an code grant at the same time they are joining the ASF. Or something like that. You discuss as it were the forum folks who want to urgently join this project. In fact we want them too. We need to cooperate now and help them to come into ooo-dev. Of course we force nobody to join - they have shown already they *want* to join because they have participated actively this discussion. I ask you now to open a new paragraph on the proposal maybe called "To be done" or so and shortly ask the questions what you want to see answered. Otherwise we'll all get killed by tons of e-mails and to be honest, I am not getting paid for this and it is pretty hard to read the same arguments in different words all over and over. Cheers > However, if, on further > reflection, you think the claim was made in error, or that it needs > clarification, then you should post a retraction, in the same thread > as the original notice. Then we're moving again. Of course, if you > believe the claim is accurate then we'll need to work this out the > long way. I don't mind doing it the long way, and in fact we should > do it the long way, e.g., an SGA, if you think the rights belong to > the forum volunteers. That would be the right thing in that case. > > Thanks, > > -Rob > >> <snip> >> >> //drew >> >> > -- http://www.grobmeier.de
