> On 06 Apr 2015, at 02:09, jonathon wrote:
>
> Whilst the positive present tense is the least likely to be
> misunderstood, it also is the format that minimizes the probability of
> negative consequences, if things are not rectified.
Agreed.
I’m also sympathetic to Simon’s point, viz., that is
On 05/04/15 08:57, Gavin McDonald wrote:
> Sure, if a project is in trouble, then that needs to be reported, but there
> are ways of doing so.
From several perspectives, the AOO project has been in trouble since
_before_ it entered incubation.
At this point, the most diplomatic thing is to say
Hi Gavin,
2015-04-05 10:57 GMT+02:00 Gavin McDonald :
>
> > On 5 Apr 2015, at 8:07 am, Guy Waterval wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jan,
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> > 2015-04-05 8:20 GMT+02:00 jan i :
> >
> >> On Sunday, April 5, 2015, jonathon wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 05/04/15 00:37, jan i wrote:
> >>>
> felt th
On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Gavin McDonald
wrote:
>
> I suggested (that is the word suggested; and yes it was me!) that some
> sentences be
> reworded slightly - to say the same thing, but in a more positive light,
> in such a way
> as that it might actually encourage more folks to step forw
On 5 April 2015 at 12:35, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 05, 2015 at 11:49:44AM +0200, jan i wrote:
> >...
> > I have never thought or said this was about my person, it has nothing to
> do
> > with my person.
> > It has to do with the free will of a community versus discussions on
> > private li
On Sun, Apr 05, 2015 at 11:49:44AM +0200, jan i wrote:
>...
> I have never thought or said this was about my person, it has nothing to do
> with my person.
> It has to do with the free will of a community versus discussions on
> private list outside the reach of the community.
As the AOO VP, it is
On Sunday, April 5, 2015, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 05, 2015 at 02:37:46AM +0200, jan i wrote:
> >...
> > Background is that after the report was submitted, a ASF Member (not
> board
> > member and not part of our community)
> > felt that I as new AOO chair, had formulated the report too ne
On Sun, Apr 05, 2015 at 02:17:01AM +0100, Simon Phipps wrote:
>...
> The report should stand as-is rather than be voided by a private request
> that seems to fly in the face of the public evidence.
Agreed, Simon. Jan "voided" the report after feedback from (3) individuals,
speaking as such. The on
On Sun, Apr 05, 2015 at 02:37:46AM +0200, jan i wrote:
>...
> Background is that after the report was submitted, a ASF Member (not board
> member and not part of our community)
> felt that I as new AOO chair, had formulated the report too negative and
> against the wishes of the community
"against
On Sunday, April 5, 2015, Gavin McDonald wrote:
>
> > On 5 Apr 2015, at 7:20 am, jan i > wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, April 5, 2015, jonathon > wrote:
> >
> >> On 05/04/15 00:37, jan i wrote:
> >>
> >>> felt that I as new AOO chair, had formulated the report too negative
> and
> >> against the wish
> On 5 Apr 2015, at 7:20 am, jan i wrote:
>
> On Sunday, April 5, 2015, jonathon wrote:
>
>> On 05/04/15 00:37, jan i wrote:
>>
>>> felt that I as new AOO chair, had formulated the report too negative and
>> against the wishes of the community
>>
>> I'm going to suggest that said PMC Member
> On 5 Apr 2015, at 2:17 am, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 5 Apr 2015 02:05, "jan i" wrote:
>> I can
>> replace the report with a short note stating the I (as chair) have removed
>> it, because the community need more
>> time to discuss the content.
>>
>
> That seems crazy, given the long review
> On 5 Apr 2015, at 8:07 am, Guy Waterval wrote:
>
> Hi Jan,
> Hi all,
>
>
> 2015-04-05 8:20 GMT+02:00 jan i :
>
>> On Sunday, April 5, 2015, jonathon wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/04/15 00:37, jan i wrote:
>>>
felt that I as new AOO chair, had formulated the report too negative
>> and
>>> agai
I have now filed a new board report. I have done so, to give us time to
rethink
the report. I apologize for not having sought consensus on the new report,
but speed was essential, to stop a discussion on board@, I hope the
community
will support my action.
Just to avoid any misunderstanding, the P
Hi Jan,
Hi all,
2015-04-05 8:20 GMT+02:00 jan i :
> On Sunday, April 5, 2015, jonathon wrote:
>
> > On 05/04/15 00:37, jan i wrote:
> >
> > > felt that I as new AOO chair, had formulated the report too negative
> and
> > against the wishes of the community
> >
> > I'm going to suggest that said
On Sunday, April 5, 2015, jonathon wrote:
> On 05/04/15 00:37, jan i wrote:
>
> > felt that I as new AOO chair, had formulated the report too negative and
> against the wishes of the community
>
> I'm going to suggest that said PMC Member was simply shocked at the
> radical difference in reportin
On 05/04/15 00:37, jan i wrote:
> felt that I as new AOO chair, had formulated the report too negative and
> against the wishes of the community
I'm going to suggest that said PMC Member was simply shocked at the
radical difference in reporting styles.
You (Jan) do not like negative surprises.
On 5 Apr 2015 02:05, "jan i" wrote:
> I can
> replace the report with a short note stating the I (as chair) have removed
> it, because the community need more
> time to discuss the content.
>
That seems crazy, given the long review window and the absence of criticism
on this list. The report was
Sorry for top posting.
I have been asked by a PMC member to reopen the discussion about the board
report.
Background is that after the report was submitted, a ASF Member (not board
member and not part of our community)
felt that I as new AOO chair, had formulated the report too negative and
again
On 01/04/2015 jan i wrote:
On 1 April 2015 at 09:33, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
Big thanks are not for the report. But still very appropriate for the
list... so big thanks to who worked for events! ...
Actually before I became member I was mentioned in 5-6 board reports like
that
For project repo
On 04/01/2015 11:15 AM, Marcus wrote:
> Am 04/01/2015 10:42 AM, schrieb jan i:
>> On 1 April 2015 at 09:33, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>>
>>> I think we could resume some work here. At least, bring to the trunk the
>>> small list of fixes we have already available (and which I listed
>>> here on
>>
Am 04/01/2015 10:42 AM, schrieb jan i:
On 1 April 2015 at 09:33, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
I think we could resume some work here. At least, bring to the trunk the
small list of fixes we have already available (and which I listed here on
this list some weeks ago). 4.1.2 has to happen and I would
On 1 April 2015 at 09:33, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 30/03/2015 jan i wrote:
>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+Mar
>> You might notice that I prefer to use a much more direct tone, than Andrea
>> did.
>>
>
> Looks very good, tone is OK too, what was appropriate three
On 30/03/2015 jan i wrote:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+Mar
You might notice that I prefer to use a much more direct tone, than Andrea
did.
Looks very good, tone is OK too, what was appropriate three months ago
is not necessarily appropriate now.
The report is i
On 31 March 2015 at 00:15, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>
> On 03/30/2015 02:52 PM, Marcus wrote:
> > Am 03/30/2015 11:41 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> >>
> >> On 03/30/2015 09:36 AM, jan i wrote:
> >>> Hi all
> >>>
> >>> Time for my first AOO Board report.
> >>>
> >>> I have prepared the board report see
> >
On 03/30/2015 02:52 PM, Marcus wrote:
> Am 03/30/2015 11:41 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
>>
>> On 03/30/2015 09:36 AM, jan i wrote:
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> Time for my first AOO Board report.
>>>
>>> I have prepared the board report see
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+Mar
>>>
Am 03/30/2015 11:41 PM, schrieb Kay Schenk:
On 03/30/2015 09:36 AM, jan i wrote:
Hi all
Time for my first AOO Board report.
I have prepared the board report see
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+Mar
You might notice that I prefer to use a much more direct tone, than A
On 03/30/2015 09:36 AM, jan i wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Time for my first AOO Board report.
>
> I have prepared the board report see
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+Mar
>
> You might notice that I prefer to use a much more direct tone, than Andrea
> did. That is NOT to say
Am 03/30/2015 07:29 PM, schrieb jan i:
On 30 March 2015 at 19:16, Marcus wrote:
Am 03/30/2015 06:36 PM, schrieb jan i:
[...]
but let us discuss changes in the tone/meaning.
thanks for the report draft. Here are some remarks:
1.
- CMS discussion, ... The Board should remember to look at
On 30 March 2015 at 19:16, Marcus wrote:
> Am 03/30/2015 06:36 PM, schrieb jan i:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> but let us discuss changes in the tone/meaning.
>>
>
> thanks for the report draft. Here are some remarks:
>
> 1.
> - CMS discussion, ... The Board should remember to look at the
> total cost of thi
Am 03/30/2015 06:36 PM, schrieb jan i:
[...]
but let us discuss changes in the tone/meaning.
thanks for the report draft. Here are some remarks:
1.
- CMS discussion, ... The Board should remember to look at the
total cost of this change, not only the Infra costs.
--> IMHO a good point. Thank
Hi all
Time for my first AOO Board report.
I have prepared the board report see
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+Mar
You might notice that I prefer to use a much more direct tone, than Andrea
did. That is NOT to say that Andrea did something wrong. You might also
notice
32 matches
Mail list logo
