On 01/19/2011 05:58 PM, Narayan Aras wrote:
I think that here lies one misunderstanding. New proposals are welcome,
but they should consider the history of the project and start from here
(therefore, if the new proposal diverges from the history, then it is
important to get consensus before going forward).
That's the most inefficient way to work in a loosely formed organization.
But this is the way that a community works.
It would be better create a project for each approved proposal, and run it
strictly within its scope/budget/time.
Like how any software project runs.
Yes, if this was a corporate software project, which is not.
Well, as the volunteers see it, SC had abandoned post. That's it.
As a marketing professional, you would appreciate that it is the public
perception that matters, not the reality.
It was a specific group perception, and not a general one.
Of course, but sometimes experience helps. In sever years, I never
talked about my background, and in this case it was just an example.
Someone has to judge the merit of an idea, and experience allows to have
at least a more informed judgement.
Sorry- If we hope to create a truly meritocratic society, we should actively
mask the sources.
There are millions of examples where a seemingly brilliant idea turned
in a failure because of lack of experience in the specific field.
For instance, the Italian association (I am the president) has a web
site which is never going to be officially connected to TDF and/or
LibreOffice.
Even assuming that there are some independent sites on LibO, how does that fact
impact our strategy?
The users of that site are simply not OUR stakeholders.
Wrong, they are extremely important as a stakeholder, because they are
advocating at local level. They are spreading the message, they are
promoting and supporting the software.
And fortunately, there is no "history" attached with LibO community, right?
So we have this wonderful opportunity to use the latest and most powerful tools.
Wrong, there are ten years of history coming with us, and people already
used to some tools. TDF announcement has stated clearly that this is the
evolution of the OOo project and not a revolution. If you refuse to
accept this fact there will never be an agreement.
Still, I wouldn't say the project has gone out of control.
Which specific road map or milestones are being violated/missed here?
From your message, it is quite clear that the website team started from
the assumption that this is a new community, and this is definitely a
wrong assumption for this specific community.
Continuity has always been a key statement: this is the old OOo
community evolving towards a different and better future, not into a new
and different community.
I would not call this a violation but a misunderstanding. If you prefer
the term violation, let's say that the assumption that this is a new
community is a violation of the roadmap.
--
Italo Vignoli - The Document Foundation
E-mail: [email protected]
Mobile +39.348.5653829 - VoIP: +39.02.320621813
Skype: italovignoli - GTalk: [email protected]
--
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 ***
