Le Thu, 26 May 2011 15:52:35 +0100, Ian Lynch <ianrly...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> On 26 May 2011 17:39, Charles-H. Schulz < > charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org> wrote: > > > Hello Ian, > > > > Le Thu, 26 May 2011 15:32:22 +0100, > > Ian Lynch <ianrly...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > > On 26 May 2011 15:18, Roman H. Gelbort <ro...@piensalibre.com.ar> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > El 26/05/11 13:09, Charles-H. Schulz escribió: > > > > > But it's perhaps not very important at that stage. > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > I'm sorry by mistake the focus. Is better build the new idea > > > > for OOo comunity. :-) > > > > > > > > > > How about gaining agreement on governance. That is really the most > > > significant issue since if it can be agreed most other things will > > > fall into place. > > > > > > > That does make sense, but what do you specifically mean by an > > agreement on governance? > > > > If OOo and LO are to come together under one set of governance, the > constitution/rules will have to be agreed. Here are some examples NOT > specific suggestions, simply to illustrate the point. > > 1. TDF governance is adopted by all - in that case OOo community > Council etc is absorbed into TDF > 2. OOo CC is adopted by all - in that case TDF is absorbed into OOo CC > 3. A new organisation is created with a new constitution and > governance for both communities > 4. Either governance is modified in some way to take account of the > other 5. Each remains separate but agrees to cooperate in a sort of > coalition. > > Once community and project governance is resolved the duly elected > officers in consultation with the community can make decisions about > eg development priorities use of names etc. I think until there is > agreement on governance with delegated power to the governing body, > there will always be the potential for acrimonious disagreement > about every individual issue. I must say you got me confused here. :-) So let me try to address your 5 points, I understand you may be thinking about some more, but anyway that would be food for thought. Also, this is my opinion only, not the one of TDF. 5: this is in fact very feasible. The minimum being: "we use ODF, stupid!" but tighter cooperation is always good to work on. However the 5 can only work or even be possible if some development force still exists. Which means that the Hamburg engineers would continue to get paid for their work. 4. that would depend what you mean by "modified in some way". We would much rather aggregate more contributors from OOo rather than modifying our governance to have one specific "OOo representative" who is not elected and only nominated by some strange authority. But we do have an Advisory Board, maybe we could work something out there. 3. frankly that would be a waste of time. Sorry to put it bluntly, but the way I always saw us (all of us, here) as one community and two projects. Basically, most of the community went away to create another new project because the first one was plagued by too many issues and uncertainty of the future. Now the former project is in peril, his resources are not being ensured by its sponsor... We created new structure, new processes (sometimes we kept the old ones), precisely to fix the project, while working as one community. 2. :-) 1. I actually have some questions about this one. You're alluding to a simple integration of OOo into TDF. That is very much what already happened, but there are still engineers here (who don't code anymore, I think) and a few people who sticked to OOo (no criticism from my side here). In this case we could think about ways to alleviate concerns from the OOo community but also to communicate about what we could then call "unification". So to answer to your argument that we need to sort out governance first and then issues will be handled in due time I think I'm not so much in agreement with you, because I think the OOo project has come to a point where there are various diverging interests on the inside; I would even call them existential interests: there is a very skilled developers' workforce on one hand who might soon be looking for a job, on the other, there are several teams here and there, but mostly users. If you take a look at the size of the LibreOffice project (that's not meant for me to brag) I would actually say that it's got its own momentum now, while this project here is disagregating in its structure (but perhaps not in its ideas). Mixing the two governance would also be not supported by the LibreOffice folks. On the other hand, having some sort of representativity inside, say, TDF's Advisory Board might be a very good thing. So a mixture of 1 +4 +5 could be a good way forward, while not emphasizing too much on governance. best, Charles. > > -- > > Charles-H. Schulz > > Membre du Comité exécutif > > The Document Foundation. > > -- > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe send email to > > dev-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.org For additional commands > > send email to sy...@marketing.openoffice.org with Subject: help > > > > > -- Charles-H. Schulz Membre du Comité exécutif The Document Foundation. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe send email to dev-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.org For additional commands send email to sy...@marketing.openoffice.org with Subject: help
