On 2011-01-18 12:01 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote: > On 1/18/11 5:20 PM, Charles Marcus wrote: >> And no, they - meaning the SC - absolutely cannot claim ignorance, >> Michael was discussing their progress on the lists for a long >> time. Someone from the SC should have taken him aside as soon as >> they saw what was happening.
> I am a SC member, and I have not seen any mention of the progress of > the web site on a mailing list pertaining to the SC > > I have subscribed to the website mailing list when I have realized > that the website group was totally disconnected from the SC. Sorry, > but you cannot assume that everyone is reading every mailing list > message, as we are volunteers and we have a professional and a > personal life. I understand that, and I didn't say it was on 'a list pertaining to the SC'. Look, I hate to sound unappreciative, and I know this is a huge job you guys have undertaken - and I for one am glad you did. But in taking this on, you on the SC had and have the responsibility, like it or not, for what has happened. 'In the beginning there was only one' discussion list, then a few more were created, etc, but the fact is, some one (or more) of you should have been monitoring *all* of these new means of communication *from the beginning*... that's what I meant by 'mistake'. I'm not 'blaming', per se - things happen, especially when a split like this happens. I'd just like to see you guys own up to it formally. If you can issue a statement essentially nullifying all of Michael's (and the others) hard work doing something he clearly thought had the blessing of the SC - and it's not like he tried to hide it - then you can issue a formal apology (and mean it) simply for dropping the ball on staying abreast of what was going on. I'm not saying you or anyone else did this on purpose, of course you didn't, but it happened nevertheless. > I am deeply sorry for the time spent by volunteers on a project which > is not reaching his objectives, but it is overly simplistic to put > the blame only on the SC. We are humans, and because of this simple > fact it is a mistake to assume that we can be informed of everything > inside a project. Someone has made this mistake. I didn't say that *only* the SC was to blame, and I don't pretend to know what other discussions may or may not have happened behind the scenes - but the bottom line is, you/they were/are *in charge*, and you/they *absolutely* dropped the ball here. Whats the old saying? 'The buck stops here.'. Like I said, it would go a long way for the SC to just swallow some pride and/or eat some crow, and issue a formal apology to Michael and the others, and move on. Anyway, I'm just a regular user who just wants LibO to succeed, but saw a lot to be discouraged about with a very rocky beginning to what will hopefully end up being a very successful endeavor. -- Best regards, Charles -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected] List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
