On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Raphael Bircher <r.birc...@gmx.ch> wrote: > Am 26.01.12 16:53, schrieb Rob Weir: > >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Graham Lauder<g.a.lau...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 02:50:20 Rob Weir wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Graham Lauder<g.a.lau...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Second, new features and function, worthy of consideration by this >>>>>> community as a 'Apache OpenOffice 4.0' release will be the primary >>>>>> focus >>>>>> for the IBM volunteers working in the project at Apache, after the >>>>>> project successfully completes the Apache 3.4 release. See the AOO >>>>>> 4.0 >>>>>> Feature Planning wiki page here: *http://s.apache.org/hW* >>>>> >>>>> IBM "volunteers?" _I_ volunteer. I don't get paid to be here, I come >>>>> here only on my own time. That's what volunteers do, if someone is >>>>> picking up a salary to work on AOO code that's hardly volunteering, >>>>> except maybe in "doublespeak". Tsk! However, whatever they're called, >>>>> it will be good to see them pushing along 4.0, we are at a point now, >>>>> having been out of the market for such a lengthy time, that with the >>>>> new >>>>> release there needs to be a substantially different product. >>>> >>>> Let me challenge your views on this. Anyone who participates in this >>>> project does so because they get more out of it than they put into it. >>>> Further, they would be insane to participate in the project under any >>>> other conditions. What they put in is obvious: their time, their >>>> skills, their experience, their care, their overly long emails, etc. >>>> What they get out is less tangible, but it still exists. In some >>>> cases it is a salary, in other cases it is enjoyment, or experience, >>>> reputation, etc. Cash payments are they only form of reward. Even >>>> those who think they are participating for purely altruistic reasons >>>> are doing so to enhance their self-image, imagining themselves to do >>>> altruistic deeds. This is just basic balance of energy. An animal >>>> will not survive long if it chases down and kills prey where the >>>> returned calories are less then those expended in the hunt. Since no >>>> one has a gun to our heads, forcing them to work on this project, >>>> everyone here is a volunteer. Everyone is free to go or remain, or >>>> participate to whatever level they feel gives them a sufficient reward >>>> (of any form) for their investment in the project. Even those who >>>> are employed had and have a choice of jobs they could take. Maybe >>>> they took their current job because it gave them the opportunity to >>>> continue participation in the project? Any illusion about this basic >>>> fact, such as the the project has self-less martyrs and course >>>> mercenaries, is just sentimentality and does not really promote clear >>>> thinking. The form of your personal reward for working in the project >>>> has zero impact on your rights, abilities, prerogatives, status or (to >>>> me at least) the weight of your arguments in this project. >>> >>> Challenge away, I never said: people that volunteer, do it for altruistic >>> reasons, not sure where you read that. I will clarify: >>> >>> I simply stated that IBM's motives were certainly not altruistic I just >>> have >>> no idea what they are, and given that a corporation is a sociopathic >>> beast I >>> would really like to know what they are, but in the absence of an OOo >>> related >>> mission statement, I have to try deduction. >>> >> I remind you that the Apache Software Foundation is also a >> corporation. So wild generalities of corporations being "sociopathic >> beasts" are not going to get you very far. >> >>> I also stated that someone paid by a corporate member to participate in >>> this >>> community cannot be called a volunteer. Take your argument to the >>> extreme and >>> you could say that every one _lives_ voluntarily because they decided not >>> to >>> top themselves this morning. A ridiculous argument. Volunteer = >>> someone who >>> has to sacrifice personal time outside of their daily mortgage paying >>> work, to >>> contribute. >>> >> I never said that someone with corporate sponsorship is a volunteer. >> What I did is challenge you on your belief that this distinction -- >> the form of reward a participant receives -- makes any difference >> whatsoever in terms of how we work on the project. Some members might >> be Irishmen, Lutherans or fans of Real Madrid. These affiliations, as >> well as employment status, are just some of the many attributes of >> our personhood. We should be dealing with each other as persons, >> looking at individual actions, rather than drawing wild stereotypes >> based on speculated group characteristics. > > That's not realy true Rob. I think IBM employee will also speak up for IBM > Interests here. But thats normal, and this is not bad. Also a load of
That's why "hats" are so important. See the section "Individuals compose the ASF" here" http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html On rare occasions, when I feel I need to say something on behalf of IBM, I've been explicit about that. I say, "wearing my IBM hat....", as in: http://markmail.org/message/blwwws6ir545b2j6 or (an example from Don): http://markmail.org/message/ybhbyw3aembdph5d If I'm not doing that, then by default I am speaking as an individual contributor on the project, expressing my own opinions, etc. I hope no one automatically agrees with what I say just because I happen to work for IBM, or because I'm an American, or that I am a Red Sox fan, but I also hope no one just automatically disagrees with me based on these extraneous facts. > "Volunteers" speek not only for them self. Remember, many has also > commercial interrests. I have nothing against IBM. but don't tell me that > they speak up all only as individual. For this reason it's good to know what > people do in the rest of there life. So you understand same positions > better. > >> I would have thought the >> 20th century would have thought us something about the dangers of such >> demagoguery? >> >>> Everyone participates in an Open Source project for various reasons, some >>> may >>> be their own and some may be employers and all do it for some form of >>> reward >>> whether it be cash or something more esoteric. There are a lot of people >>> who >>> do this as part of their 9 to 5 who are not what I would call volunteers. >>> How >>> do I know this? Easy, this list dies over the weekend. >>> >> Maybe that is because we volunteer for other things on the weekend? >> Or spend time with family, based on their schedule? In the end, it is >> really not your concern. Instead of questioning others motivations, >> I'd recommend simply asking yourself what you want to accomplish in >> the project. >> >> Of course, there is the distinct possibility that part of the joy you >> experience by your participation in this project is engaging in length >> off-topic debates with me. I'll let your next response confirm or >> deny that theory ;-) >> >> Regards, >> >> -Rob >> >>> Cheers >>> GL > > > > -- > My private Homepage: http://www.raphaelbircher.ch/
