Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws
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
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 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. /rant 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 /
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws
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 http://www.varunmittal.info Google https://www.google.com/profiles/varunmittal87 Facebookhttp://www.facebook.com/mittal.varun LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/varunmittal87 Twitterhttp://twitter.com/varunmittal19 Uncertainty is the only Certainty of LIFE On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 1:30 PM, David Nelson comme...@traduction.bizwrote: 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 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. /rant 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
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws
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 ***
[steering-discuss] Re: Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws
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 comme...@traduction.biz 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
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws
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 ***
