Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws

[Stefan Weigel]

Hi,

Am 11.01.2011 06:30, schrieb David Nelson:

> I feel it's time to say that OOo was the past, LibreOffice and TDF is our
> future, and everything started from zero with the TDF launch.

Excuse me David, but IMO you are completely wrong.

LibreOffice and TDF did not start from zero at all. Please read the
mission statement. Please read the manifesto.

Please remember that basically the TDF is about the evolution of the
OpenOffice.org Community. Please remember that LibreOffice would
still be named OpenOffice.org, if there wasn´t a very special legal
issue about this name.

So yes, we *are* an already existing community with some more and
some less experienced or established people. And there are lots of
new members, which is very good, of course. Newcomers will have to
respect and learn from the long-time members, as well as they can
bring in new ideas and fresh viewpoints.

As a matter of fact, right now we do have informal structures in our
community. Maybe that´s what you observe as "three-tier community".

Stefan

-- 
LibreOffice - Die Freiheit nehm' ich mir!

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws

[Varun Mittal]

Dear All,

As far as I understand we are all on same page regarding out objectives and
long term goals. In every team there are few aggressive, few defensive and
few balanced out players. A team needs each of them equally because each of
them is best at their task.

I understand David's feelings and those of others who have put some long
term dates.

Dear David, you have some great ideas but brother the fact is that when an
army has to attack it can't send 5 soldiers in front. The whole team has to
go. George Bush who commanded the world's strongest armed forces waited for
10 months before launching attack on Al Qaida ( just an example, nothing
against any country , race, religion). Passion is very important but
sometimes we need to wait so that everyone comes along and we can launch the
ATTACK together. This might prove irritating to the soldier standing in
front line but he needs to wait for those bulky infantry guns to come who
will give cover fire during the battle.

I believe instead of entering this wastage of energy accusation war, we
should see which areas can be put on fast track. And I am sure if there are
some such areas where people like David who can devote extra time, then they
can be entrusted with some responsibilities in this regard.

I hope we all focus on tasks ahead. I will wait for Florian or someone from
the group to list out some things which can be fast tracked and what all can
be done by David and group to help with that

I hope we can put an end to this fight now :)

No soldier alone ever won the battle alone, but yes one soldier alone did
cause the Spartans to lose the battle .

We need everyone and everyone is important !!!

  Thank You


Best Regards
Varun Mittal 

Google 
Facebook
   LinkedIn 
Twitter

"Uncertainty is the only Certainty of LIFE"



On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 1:30 PM, David Nelson wrote:

> Hi Andreas, guys, :-)
>
> Thanks for your responses. I'd like to put some viewpoints that some of you
> guys don't seem to have thought of.
>
>
> Rant
> 
>
> 
>
> I would like to see an end to this mindset of some people regarding a
> three-tier community: the "new" members, the ex-OOo community members, and
> the SC members. (This mindset is not just my imagination: Bernhard
> acknowledged and justified it in his post, and Sophie seemed to back him up
> about it...)
>
> Sometimes, when I read some ex-OOo members, the words "complacency" and
> "condescension" pop-up in my mind.
>
> I can tell you that it's irritating having to live with this "constant
> deference to OOo history".
>
> IMHO, some ex-OOo people need to start thinking forwards, rather than being
> rooted in a past that I feel has less relevance than you seem to think.
>
> I feel it's time to say that OOo was the past, LibreOffice and TDF is our
> future, and everything started from zero with the TDF launch.
>
> 
>
>
> Elections
> 
>
> When TDF first launched, there was a *lot* of interest and excitement
> around
> the project. I had the impression that, among others, there were quite a
> few
> intelligent and well-qualified people with fresh ideas and lots of energy
> to
> contribute work.
>
> It would be good if SC members were to remember that there are other people
> who want a chance to lead the project and to have an influence in its
> future
> development.
>
> I'd be very keen to see elections, and to see some SC members given a
> democratic mandate to continue their valuable work within a 9-member BoD,
> but also to see some fresh blood in there, too, with a new outlook.
>
> It would be good because those BoD members will remember that they are
> elected for 1 year, and this will be something they will probably bear in
> mind in their contact with other community members, and in the work they do
> for the project.
>
>
> Implement the Community Bylaws, and the institutions therein
> ===
>
> In addition to organizing elections for the BoD, it would also be very
> important to:
>
> - quickly start setting-up and operating the institutions mentioned in the
> Community Bylaws: the BoD, the ESC, the MC, ...;
>
> - conform to the spirit and letter of the Community Bylaws, and start
> officially communicating with the community regularly through
> announcements;
>
> I really fail to see any justification for waiting 9 months to set up the
> BoD (which should be elected by community vote).
>
> For those that speak of their lack of time and their need to attend to
> family commitments, I would have to respectfully reply that maybe you
> should
> step aside, because there may well be other people with more time and
> energy
> to devote to the project's work. The project's work should not have to
> proceed at the speed of the slowest contributor.
>
> I would like the imp

[steering-discuss] Re: Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws

[David Nelson]

Hi Andreas, guys, :-)

Thanks for your responses. I'd like to put some viewpoints that some of you
guys don't seem to have thought of.


Rant




I would like to see an end to this mindset of some people regarding a
three-tier community: the "new" members, the ex-OOo community members, and
the SC members. (This mindset is not just my imagination: Bernhard
acknowledged and justified it in his post, and Sophie seemed to back him up
about it...)

Sometimes, when I read some ex-OOo members, the words "complacency" and
"condescension" pop-up in my mind.

I can tell you that it's irritating having to live with this "constant
deference to OOo history".

IMHO, some ex-OOo people need to start thinking forwards, rather than being
rooted in a past that I feel has less relevance than you seem to think.

I feel it's time to say that OOo was the past, LibreOffice and TDF is our
future, and everything started from zero with the TDF launch.




Elections


When TDF first launched, there was a *lot* of interest and excitement around
the project. I had the impression that, among others, there were quite a few
intelligent and well-qualified people with fresh ideas and lots of energy to
contribute work.

It would be good if SC members were to remember that there are other people
who want a chance to lead the project and to have an influence in its future
development.

I'd be very keen to see elections, and to see some SC members given a
democratic mandate to continue their valuable work within a 9-member BoD,
but also to see some fresh blood in there, too, with a new outlook.

It would be good because those BoD members will remember that they are
elected for 1 year, and this will be something they will probably bear in
mind in their contact with other community members, and in the work they do
for the project.


Implement the Community Bylaws, and the institutions therein
===

In addition to organizing elections for the BoD, it would also be very
important to:

- quickly start setting-up and operating the institutions mentioned in the
Community Bylaws: the BoD, the ESC, the MC, ...;

- conform to the spirit and letter of the Community Bylaws, and start
officially communicating with the community regularly through announcements;

I really fail to see any justification for waiting 9 months to set up the
BoD (which should be elected by community vote).

For those that speak of their lack of time and their need to attend to
family commitments, I would have to respectfully reply that maybe you should
step aside, because there may well be other people with more time and energy
to devote to the project's work. The project's work should not have to
proceed at the speed of the slowest contributor.

I would like the implementation of the Community Bylaws to be started ASAP,
and I would like BoD elections to be held within 2-3 months *at most*.


Consequences


IMHO, the price of not doing the above would be a constant decline in work
contributions and involvement, and a loss of credibility in the eyes of
people around the project and outside the project.

Should we see a subtle warning in Ubuntu's apparent possible change of
stance regarding the adoption of LibreOffice as its default productivity
suite in 11.04? (See [1].)

As I said in previous posts, I don't have any practical and quick means of
procuring contribution statistics but, looking at the number of messages
that arrive in my mailbox and the traffic I see on the #libreoffice IRC
channel, I *seem to observe* a distinct reduction in the number of developer
contributions since the project launch.

I also seem to note a decrease in the number of people that I would qualify
as regular contributors to the team lists. And I seem to note a decline in
the number of people seeking support via the user support list.

I humbly contend that, if you do not show a clear commitment to fully
implementing the Community Bylaws, contribution and involvement will further
decrease.

I am wondering whether some SC members feel that the real key to attracting
developers is simply in the licensing requirements you do (or don't) impose
on their code contributions.

But I also wonder whether code developers, too, are sensitive to the way
community governance is carried out, in their area of the project and in
other areas, as well. If that is the case, then the SC's apparent
complacency in its justification in occupying the project's seat of
government for the next 9 months is perhaps unwise.

In contrast, I contend that there could be big benefits if you were to show
serious intent and take quick action in officially adopting and applying the
Community Bylaws:

- there could be a strong revival of interest and activity in the project,
which could easily be directed into tangible work contributions and an
augmentation in the number of real project workers;

- it would undoubtedly be perceived positively by outside corporate /
ente

Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws

[Cor Nouws]

Hi David,

David Nelson wrote (10-01-11 00:25)


Forming the legal entity, the Foundation will take time. But that has
no connection with the implementation of the Community Bylaws. The
existence of the Foundation is *not* necessary before implementing
almost every clause of the Community Bylaws.


That is true (I guess for the most).
Possibly (some) things can be done (a bit) faster than at the moment. 
But I am careful with suggesting that, because I know from my own 
situation how hard it is to find the time, beside all other 
responsibilities.


Kind regards,
Cor

--
 - giving openoffice.org its foundation :: The Document Foundation -


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[steering-discuss] Re: Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws

[David Nelson]

Hi Andreas, :-)

> There is currently no legal entity or a legal organisation TDF. Every thing 
> is in the
> course of formation. Because I know a bit about German law I can assure you 
> that it
> takes a longer time (not days or a month) to establish a foundation.

Forming the legal entity, the Foundation will take time. But that has
no connection with the implementation of the Community Bylaws. The
existence of the Foundation is *not* necessary before implementing
almost every clause of the Community Bylaws. You can set up the ESC.
You can set up the membership committee. You can hold elections for
the BoD, as a *morally-implemented* team. You can set up the
proportional-representation voting system. You can hold elections and
votes. You can appoint teams. You can appoint team leads. The *moral*
life of the Community can exist and function entirely independently of
whether or not there is yet an officially-formed Foundation under
German or UK law.

And most notably, you can already implement all the principles of
community consultation and information, membership equality and
meritocracy, exactly as Charles wrote them and as I re-phrased them
into good, clear English.

When you *truly* implement the Community Bylaws, and all the instances
and principles of governance of the Bylaws, and all the principles
laid down in the Bylaws (without waiting for the legal, "physical"
formation of the Foundation), then you will have truly built a
community, and you will be able to claim legitimacy.

I would like to see an interim MC formed within the next 2-3 weeks,
and for members to be considered and approved/rejected within 2-3
weeks after that.

Then I would like to see elections held for the 9 seats of the BoD (a
"virtual", "moral" BoD) within 3 weeks after the existence of an
official body of Community members.

When that happens, I feel sure that LibreOffice will truly take-off as
a community, we will see genuine meritocracy, and there will be a
healthy situation within the LibreOffice project.

David Nelson

On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 10:49, David Nelson  wrote:
> Hi SC members, :-)
>
> Charles wrote an excellent set of Community Bylaws. I would like to
> see them officially adopted and applied. And I would like to see the
> various committees and governance systems in the Community Bylaws set
> up and become active.
>
> I feel that this is important for the future of LibreOffice. I
> strongly support the project, and I want to see it succeed. I think we
> need to take action quite quickly.
>
> I have noted how the level of involvement and contribution by "active
> community members" has tailed off. I have noticed how few user support
> queries there are on the user support list. It is my impression that
> the level of contribution to development is also decreasing.
>
> We have a situation in which a key project resource, the
> libreoffice.org website, is becoming the center of pushing and pulling
> for control over its development. Decisions are needed about the
> website's management (editorial team), and about the future direction
> of its development (the question of Drupal adoption is becoming
> extremely disruptive and divisive in this fledgling project).
>
> I personally have experienced wanting to implement 2 great initiatives
> (proactive contact with Linux projects, and organization of interviews
> with BBC TV and radio for Charles and/or other SC members) only to
> find certain SC members strongly discouraging me to take action,
> refusing to give any constructive consideration, or totally ignoring
> me and not giving any reaction at all on the subject.
>
> When I have suggested bold initiatives, there have been very
> proprietary, "control freak" reactions from some SC members, with talk
> of "this is so and so's field of responsibility", and I'm strongly
> discouraged from taking the idea further.
>
> These attitudes and some other attitudes I have encountered from
> certain SC members are contrary to the
> principles of good meritocracy and equality of membership laid down in
> the bylaws.
>
> Personally, I sometimes get the impression that there is currently a
> three-tier membership in this project: new community members like me:
> 1 vote. past OOo community members: 1.5 votes. SC members 3 votes (or
> simple dictation of decision). I have had this impression a number of
> times while contributing work to the project. I know that there are at
> least *some* other people who would agree fairly closely with this
> assertion. I have an impression that, "All members are equal, but some
> are more equal than others". :-D
>
> The SC was a necessary institution when TDF was first launched. But it
> was only supposed to be a temporary body. Some SC members now seem to
> becoming rooted in their positions of decision-taking power. The
> situation is becoming undemocratic and non-meritocratic. IMHO, it
> starts to resemble a form of "Communism going wrong". ;-)
>
> I seriously believe that, if you do not ta

Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws

[Andreas Mantke]

Hi David, *,

Am Sonntag, 9. Januar 2011, 16:12:21 schrieb David Nelson:
(...)
> 
> I do *hope* I am wrong. I hope all of the above is true.
> For the moment, I have not seen the proof. ;-)
> Don't *tell* me I'm wrong, *show* me I'm wrong. ;-)
> 

I'm a a long time contributor to OOo and now of LibreOffice (and the TDF). I 
know 
most of the people in the SC face to face and know the work they have done for 
OOo 
and the community over a long period. Please keep cool and give things the 
necessary 
time. I know that's not always easy ;-)

> > So to come back on the bylaws: we can start to implement them little by
> > little but they will only be fully enforced and implemented once we
> > have a legal entity. Before we can only lay the pillars and set up
> > whatever can be set up without interfering with the legal entity in
> > formation.
> 
> I think that most of the bylaws can be put into practice absolutely
> independently of the existence of any legal entity. They are a moral
> form of governance and organization. Very little is keyed on any legal
> entity as such. Therefore, may I please enjoin the SC to start with
> implementation as soon as possible?
> 

There is currently no legal entity or a legal organisation TDF. Every thing is 
in the 
course of formation. Because I know a bit about German law I can assure you 
that it 
takes a longer time (not days or a month) to establish a foundation. The SC had 
to 
think carefully about the purpose of the foundation, because we (the community) 
want 
to guarentee, that our goals will be served by the foundation in 10 years (or 
later). 
So please give the SC and the involved people the time that is necessary to 
establish 
a strong and appropriate foundation.

I don't think it would be a good idea to coopt some people to the foundation. 
This 
would currently lead to an endless discussion, who should get this priviledge.

Regards,
Andreas
-- 
## Developer LibreOffice
## Freie Office-Suite für Linux, Mac, Windows
## http://LibreOffice.org
## Support the Document Foundation (http://documentfoundation.org)
## Meine Seite: http://www.amantke.de 

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

[steering-discuss] Re: Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws

[David Nelson]

Hi, :-)

@Sophie: Me, too, I was a little saddened at your answers.

a) I am not bringing up this issue because of any response to my
proposal about the website management. I said at least a couple of
times that the SC needs to take some kind of decision in order to
ensure it gets managed properly in the future. At this point, I don't
mind at all whether I am involved in the website in the future or not.
;-) My goal of seeing that site operational and looking halfway decent
has been achieved. I already got my satisfaction. So, please may I ask
you all to have the courtesy not to make that accusation again. It
sincerely hurt my feelings. ;-)

b) I am sad that you do not seem to share in *all* those fine ideals
in the Community Bylaws. I am sad that you don't share in the
egalitarian, purely meritocratic principles, and that you see a
multiple-tier membership. I am sad that you do not seem to want that
adventure of democratic and meritocratic community life to begin soon,
and that you use the excuse of complicated legal arrangements to
procrastinate. In reality, the implementation of the bylaws and
community governance is not necessarily linked to the legal formation
of the foundation, and can be conducted on a moral and organizational
level *totally independently*.

@Charles: I just read your reply as I was writing back to Sophie.

> David I must admit I am surprised by your reaction, because the reason
> our bylaws are not officially implemented at this stage was explained
> during one confcall (early September if I recall) and on this mailing
> list too. Read this:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg00229.html

Yes, I realize the bylaws are largely finalized. I had hoped to see
them implemented with *much* more urgency than September, 9 months
away. You will remember how I assisted you when you were drafting
them. I was excited, enthusiastic very inspired at the prospect of a
truly open, meritocratic and egalitarian Open Source community. I
don't want to see the hopes fade.

> Last but not least, your perception of our health as a community is
> somewhat pessimistic and does not seem to rest on any clear metrics;
> but perhaps you're just expressing your opinion.

Yes, this is purely what I gage through my own observation. But I'm
only saying to *warn* you guys of a possible scenario. Believe me,
friends, I have *also* invested serious work in trying to make sure
such a scenario will not happen. That is why I pushed so hard to get
the libreoffice.org website online.

> However, it is true that since nobody's perfect, the SC and its
> members did some mistakes and the ones I can point out were that we
> haven't been directing the website works enough. I think that we're
> entering a stage where the SC and are project is going to rationalize
> its own activities as purpose and specific goals will be set and
> discussed and teams will be formed.

Then this will be good. Charles, you know very well that I have not
simply ranted about problems on mailing lists. Instead, I have put in
plenty of work to fix them. But this issue of slowness and inertia in
fully implementing the Community Bylaws and governance is something
that only *you* guys can fix. And, as a concerned community member,
all I can do is to raise the issue for discussion and action. I
sincerely believe that it is for the ultimate good of the Community.

> But to claim that there are dual
> and perhaps triple standards depending on the people is perfectly
> wrong. While for specific things we do integrate members of the OOo
> community faster than others the door is always open and everyone has
> to contribute: there are reserved seats as long as the people sitting
> on them fulfill their roles. If they don't, the seat goes to someone
> else.

I do *hope* I am wrong. I hope all of the above is true.
For the moment, I have not seen the proof. ;-)
Don't *tell* me I'm wrong, *show* me I'm wrong. ;-)

> So to come back on the bylaws: we can start to implement them little by
> little but they will only be fully enforced and implemented once we
> have a legal entity. Before we can only lay the pillars and set up
> whatever can be set up without interfering with the legal entity in
> formation.

I think that most of the bylaws can be put into practice absolutely
independently of the existence of any legal entity. They are a moral
form of governance and organization. Very little is keyed on any legal
entity as such. Therefore, may I please enjoin the SC to start with
implementation as soon as possible?

I truly hope that the dream you envisioned in the Community Bylaws you
wrote is not going to slip away. ;-)

David Nelson

P.S. For those who have not yet read my original post, can I invite
you to read it below? ;-)

On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 10:49, David Nelson  wrote:
> Hi SC members, :-)
>
> Charles wrote an excellent set of Community Bylaws. I would like to
> see them officially adopted and applied. And I would like