On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 05:48, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
To many people, there is a major difference between talking about "what went well and what didn't" (or "what worked and what didn't") and calling something a "failure". The latter term typically leads to the sort of unhelpful discussion recently seen on this thread; the former is far more likely to elicit constructive discussion. --Jean
