On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Jean Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
Failure is an outcome, or at least a way of labeling an outcome. Maybe not the only way of describing it. There may be other, euphemistic ways to describe the outcome that consists of a large portion of the community leaving for LibreOffice and the corporate sponsor pulling out and laying off the core engineering staff for that project. We could call it a "transition",a "temporary setback", a "challenge", an "opportunity" a "reboot", or whatever you wish. But whatever you call it, the outcome was not good and we should be sure we understand and avoid reinstitutionalizing the same causes. If someone has a recommended euphemism, please let me know and I will adopt it in future. -Rob > --Jean
