On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Rory O'Farrell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:31:19 -0500 > Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Ian Lynch >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> > Well one thing that definitely didn't work in the past was >> > alienating community members with ill-thought out arguments >> > no matter how logical those arguments might appear to an >> > individual. The community is made of people with emotions and >> > that is why brute logic is often a very ineffective tool. >> > >> >> And the community is also made up of members who think >> logically. Emotional responses, denying inconvenient truths, >> reinventing history, and other tribal responses are ineffective >> tools that can also alienate community members. >> >> -Rob >> > > Quite honestly I am astounded at the amount of infighting and > petty point-scoring that goes on on the Apache OpenOffice > lists. Are you grown, rational beings, or sub teen children? > Get your act together, or the AOOo project is doomed. > >
So what point are you trying to score with, Rory? What were you trying to accomplish with your name calling? What are you adding to the conversation? I think part of the problem is that some members of this list do not appreciate the fact that the growth of this project is not going to occur exclusively or even predominately from legacy OOo participants. Growth is going to come from: 1) Re-engaging with legacy OOo participants who did not go over to LibreOffice. 2) Engaging those who were never involved in OOo in the first place. 3) Encouraging LibreOffice participants to get engaged. Each of these groups come with a different perspective and a different set of concerns. But I think it is obvious that categories 2) and 3) are not going to be very receptive to assertions that the legacy project was entirely wonderful, free from problems and should be emulated in all respects. In fact, such an attitude will raise red flags with them and discourage them from getting involved. I understand that needless and senseless criticism of the legacy project will also be a turn-off for category 1). So let's not do that. But let's not make the opposite mistake either. Let's have an honest dialog about what went well and what didn't. We all know that the situation was bad enough that large numbers of volunteers went to LibreOffice. If we ignore that fact or just say that this was done for illogical or non-consequential reasons, then we're not being honest with ourselves and will not be making the necessary changes to improve. -Rob
