RE: [board-discuss] Membership Committee
It is none of my business how TDF establishes its governance and qualifies its officials. Just the same, I thought it strange that there was a question of any conflict seen in Drew Jensen's participation on Apache projects. I want to say two things, because I have Drew in high regard and I want to be clear about where he stands in my perspective and also my sense of the ASF philosophy and policies. First about the ASF. The Apache Software Foundation celebrates diversity and multiplicity in the world of open-source development. It is a matter of policy that forks, peers, siblings, descendents and ancestors are all just fine, open-, close-, and licensed in any manner. Apache has its own licensing regime and development approach, but it has no issue with the preferences of other projects. Now, some individuals have their personal histories, hurts, mistakes, and grievances, whatever they happen to be. But that is irrelevant to where ASF fulfills its charter to operation in the public interest. The ASF has no issue with whatever associations its contributors have beyond their contribution to Apache projects. Individuals have differences and choose to go their own way, to return, to diverge, to scratch their own itches in whatever manner works for them. I say ASF honors all of that. Secondly, I want to acknowledge Drew for his steady presence, especially in some timely moments in the run-up to the migration of the OpenOffice.org Forums under Apache hosting. Whatever Drew chooses to do, and whether he finds continued participation on AOOo inconsistent with that or not, I want it known that Drew is always welcome at AOOo, as is anyone else here, and he can come and go as he pleases with all of our blessings and thanks. There are no recriminations, there is no litmus test, and Drew will always be welcome to contribute in any manner he chooses. 'Nuff said? -Original Message- From: drew [mailto:d...@baseanswers.com] Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 13:31 To: board-discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [board-discuss] Membership Committee Howdy Micheal, et al, On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 16:59 +, Michael Meeks wrote: [ ... ] Having said that - we've sounded out previous appointees more informally beforehand, which is perhaps harder here. Clearly this is a responsible role, and part of our formal governance. As such, some may have queries about your involvement with the Apache project, it'd be helpful to know what your plans are there. Huh, it never crossed my mind that this would come up...ok, reality. Well, my plans - truthfully I'm not sure how my activity will progressive within the Apache OpenOffice poddling. Presently I'm not really doing anything there, my intent is to help out some with support and QA tasks - if I can incorporate that into my schedule in such a way that my efforts are useful I'll continue and if not quietly remove myself from the project management committee. Surely I could expand on my ideas of the two projects but am not at all certain that would add much to the decision process here - I will add just this, I don't feel that I would have any problem compartmentalizing my activities between the two projects and should it arise that there is some conflict would quickly take steps to resolve it, as needed. If there are any other concerns on this point please, anyone, feel free to ask and I will take the time to address them as best I can. [ ... ] -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [board-discuss] Membership Committee
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: [...] First about the ASF. This is not about ASF. ASF is just a mean to an IBM goal in that story. Now, some individuals This is not so much about individuals either... AOOo owe its existence to Corporate politics and interest. It was by no stretch of the imagination a grass root movement. [..] in the public interest. Can you spare us the marketing line. Every similar 'Foundation' operate under the same 'public interest' banner, which is a very broad one, and does not means, contrary to what one would expect, 'in the interest of the public'. (1) [..] There are no recriminations, there is no litmus test, You mean except signing an iCLA ? Drew will always be welcome to contribute in any manner he chooses. Sure, but If Drew ask to be named V.P. of Community Development at Apache, will he automatically get the job ? oh wait, no; I suppose he has to, at least, become ASF member first... wait, how one does become member at Apache ? humm... seems pretty vague one cannot 'apply', one need to have buddies in the place already to be 'proposed' for membership more like a Guild... In the mean time Drew _is_ a member of TDF and as such is entitled to run for BoD or MC, and of course to 'contribute in any manner he chooses'... actually that later one does not even require membership, or even signing up open ended liability agreement. The question at hand is -- to avoid running BoD and MC election concurrently, which would be a bad idea due to the necessary oversight of each body on the election of the other -- how best organize the transition to an elected MC. One proposition, that seems to be favored, is to postpone the MC election to the middle of next year and to re-conduct the current MC in the interim. The problem is that the current MC does not have enough member to conform to the foundation statute, as amended to fit the Host State requirement. So we need to fill 1 MC member position and 3 MC deputy positions. Out current Bylaw provide that it is the prerogative of the BoD to make such appointments. The only restriction established in the ByLaw is that such appointees must be TDF members. So every TDF member is eligible to such position, but none have any 'right' to it. Just the same, I thought it strange that there was a question of any conflict seen in Drew Jensen's participation on Apache projects. Since it is BoD's members prerogative to make such appointment, it does not seems strange at all that they'd ask questions, publicly or privately, to prospective candidate and other interested party to make that decision. And surely, when seeking a position of representation of the membership -- which is the case of the MC, which represent the membership in the process of evaluating the somewhat subjective criteria of 'substantive contribution' -- it is expected that a higher scrutiny be applied to questions of allegiance and purpose. Of course all that will become moot in few months, when the membership at large will be called-upon to make that decision. Still I would not be surprised if that sort of questions -- if still of relevance -- were to pop-up during the election cycle. Norbert (1) One could create an 'Charitable Association' whose purpose is to help anyone prepare and fill software patents. That would most likely fit the tax requirement to get a 'Charitable' tax-exempt status, which is a 'public-interest' Association... It is nevertheless very arguable whether that Association would be 'in the interest of the public'. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[board-discuss] poll on regular BoD times
Hello, it seems we didn't yet come up with a solution. Everyone voted (thanks for that!), and e.g. Wednesday 1600 UTC looks rather good, with 7 people joining and 2 possibly, giving a total of 9. On the weekend, however, it looks rather bad. Neither Saturday nor Sunday has many people who could join a call. Please everyone check your availability again. With the current results, we could e.g. do Wednesday 1600 UTC and Friday 1500 UTC, but no real weekend call. I am fine if we don't do one on the weekends, but wanted to give everyone a chance again in case two times in the evening is not desired. The poll is at http://doodle.com/rqay5h7syg45by9x Thanks, and have a nice Sunday, Florian -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Board of Directors at The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [board-discuss] poll on regular BoD times
Florian, Le 06/11/2011 13:14, Florian Effenberger a écrit : Hello, it seems we didn't yet come up with a solution. Everyone voted (thanks for that!), and e.g. Wednesday 1600 UTC looks rather good, with 7 people joining and 2 possibly, giving a total of 9. On the weekend, however, it looks rather bad. Neither Saturday nor Sunday has many people who could join a call. Please everyone check your availability again. With the current results, we could e.g. do Wednesday 1600 UTC and Friday 1500 UTC, but no real weekend call. I am fine if we don't do one on the weekends, but wanted to give everyone a chance again in case two times in the evening is not desired. The poll is at http://doodle.com/rqay5h7syg45by9x Thanks, and have a nice Sunday, Florian May I propose an alternative solution? I was actually wondering if we would always need one call every week. We had a year of setup phase and obviously we still have much work to do, however, if we see things 6 months down the road maybe the BoD won't have to gather that often and sometimes it's best to have one call every two weeks with everyone available that short calls each week. I have no strong opinion here, only a comment that the problem at hand might not be a real problem. Best, Charles. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [board-discuss] Membership Committee
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: I am not questioning the prerogatives of the TDF to govern itself in any manner. Norbert is correct that I have no standing in the matter. I don't think that was the meaning of my reply, if that is what you take out of it, allow me to apologize for my failure to communicate. I did not meant to imply that _you_ are 'questionning the prerogative of TDF', and even less challenge question of your standing. Norbert, you can make my note mean whatever you want. I stand by it as written. I'm not following... you must have read in my message something more personal than it was intended. One more thing. I have found folks on ooo-dev who are cynical about the honesty and character of TDF members, too, but nothing so blatantly virulent as was just inserted here. I'm sorry, since you are top-posting, it is hard to known which part exactly you are objecting to. Are there any facts in dispute ? Norbert -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [board-discuss] Membership Committee
Hi Drew, Thanks for suggesting to help in the MC and your answer on Michaels questions. drew wrote (05-11-11 21:31) Howdy Micheal, et al, I believe that I bring a number of personal attributes that fit quite well to such a task. As far as I have had contact with you over the past years, I can only confirm that. Once again if there are any questions from anyone else please do not hesitate to ask. Not from me. Kind regards, -- - Cor - http://nl.libreoffice.org -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [board-discuss] poll on regular BoD times
Hi :) +1 Regards from Tom :) --- On Sun, 6/11/11, Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org wrote: From: Charles-H. Schulz charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [board-discuss] poll on regular BoD times To: board-discuss@documentfoundation.org Date: Sunday, 6 November, 2011, 13:57 Florian, Le 06/11/2011 13:14, Florian Effenberger a écrit : Hello, it seems we didn't yet come up with a solution. Everyone voted (thanks for that!), and e.g. Wednesday 1600 UTC looks rather good, with 7 people joining and 2 possibly, giving a total of 9. On the weekend, however, it looks rather bad. Neither Saturday nor Sunday has many people who could join a call. Please everyone check your availability again. With the current results, we could e.g. do Wednesday 1600 UTC and Friday 1500 UTC, but no real weekend call. I am fine if we don't do one on the weekends, but wanted to give everyone a chance again in case two times in the evening is not desired. The poll is at http://doodle.com/rqay5h7syg45by9x Thanks, and have a nice Sunday, Florian May I propose an alternative solution? I was actually wondering if we would always need one call every week. We had a year of setup phase and obviously we still have much work to do, however, if we see things 6 months down the road maybe the BoD won't have to gather that often and sometimes it's best to have one call every two weeks with everyone available that short calls each week. I have no strong opinion here, only a comment that the problem at hand might not be a real problem. Best, Charles. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
RE: [board-discuss] Membership Committee
Hi :) I think OpenOffice before the forking was under some fairly strange leadership. ie a company that worked hard to increase community participation but not being very trusting of the communities they had grown = actively blocking many proposed patches and stuff developed by the community. Once Oracle took over things took a nose-dive and they demanded that people who held high positions in their community stepped down if they were also working in TDF. I've even heard that Oracle took ownership of funds built-up by the community and refused to cover community expenses. So, we are dealing with 2 communities, or 1 fractured community that has been fed mis-information about each other. As someone fairly new to the scene i think Apache are pretty much friends especially compared to profit-hungry organisations such as Oracle. Hopefully time may heal some of the wounds but maybe a bit of dirty laundry needs to be aired in order for us to discover which bits of mis-information people have been fed. Hopefully we can do that a little more sensitively and compassionately in the future. Just my 2 cents and quite probably contains inaccuracies as it's mostly stuff i have picked up from the press rather than at first hand. Regards from Tom :) --- On Sun, 6/11/11, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: From: Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org Subject: RE: [board-discuss] Membership Committee To: board-discuss@documentfoundation.org Date: Sunday, 6 November, 2011, 18:03 I am not questioning the prerogatives of the TDF to govern itself in any manner. Norbert is correct that I have no standing in the matter. I was simply surprised that it came up here and Drew felt he had to address it. I don't question his doing so and how deliberate he is being about it. The AOOo project has committers and PPMC members who are also contributors to LO. I know because I see their work in both places. No one has ever questioned that at ASF. Not once. However, I think Norbert's reply, below, is ample demonstration of the polarization that individuals bring to these conversations. It is not just AOOo members who say outrageous things. Of course, our own outrageous things are always the truth, and therefore admirable, aren't they? Norbert, you can make my note mean whatever you want. I stand by it as written. Also, I said that there are conditions on participation in various ways. It is true here, and it is true at ASF. ASF has a license requirement, TDF has a license requirement, there are ways one becomes a committer on Apache projects, there are ways committer rights are granted for LO, etc. Apache has a license grant requirement, the iCLA, that, here, is handled by an e-mail message. ASF provides assurance of the code it releases in its way, the TDF has it in its way. I am not arguing the merits of any approach. Every open-source project has its conditions for operation and participation. Developers will contribute where it is comfortable and inviting for them. Not all developers are the same in the choices they make. How ASF members are elected and how the ASF board operates is all available on-line and I am not going to go into it. One more thing. I have found folks on ooo-dev who are cynical about the honesty and character of TDF members, too, but nothing so blatantly virulent as was just inserted here. I believe it is accurate to say that none of those statements are policy positions of the respective organizations. When they happen at AOOo I ignore them as trolling or, if there is a policy-unacceptable action being proposed, I challenge them as inconsistent and unacceptable. - Dennis E. Hamilton tools for document interoperability, http://nfoWorks.org/ dennis.hamil...@acm.org gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid -Original Message- From: Norbert Thiebaud [mailto:nthieb...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2011 02:18 To: board-discuss@documentfoundation.org Subject: Re: [board-discuss] Membership Committee On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: [...] First about the ASF. This is not about ASF. ASF is just a mean to an IBM goal in that story. Now, some individuals This is not so much about individuals either... AOOo owe its existence to Corporate politics and interest. It was by no stretch of the imagination a grass root movement. [..] in the public interest. Can you spare us the marketing line. Every similar 'Foundation' operate under the same 'public interest' banner, which is a very broad one, and does not means, contrary to what one would expect, 'in the interest of the public'. (1) [..] There are no recriminations, there is no litmus test, You mean except signing an iCLA ? Drew will always be welcome to contribute in any manner he chooses.
Re: [board-discuss] poll on regular BoD times
On 11/06/2011 02:57 PM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: I was actually wondering if we would always need one call every week. We had a year of setup phase and obviously we still have much work to do, however, if we see things 6 months down the road maybe the BoD won't have to gather that often and sometimes it's best to have one call every two weeks with everyone available that short calls each week. I have no strong opinion here, only a comment that the problem at hand might not be a real problem. I agree on the call being every other week, especially if we are going to have the strategic marketing call also every other week. -- Italo Vignoli italo.vign...@gmail.com mobile +39.348.5653829 VoIP +39.02.320621813 skype italovignoli -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to board-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
