On 5 April 2015 at 12:35, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> 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 list outside the reach of the community. > > As the AOO VP, it is your responsibility to bring concerns from those > private lists, back to this public list/community. The Foundation does > not participate on this mailing list, but it *does* have concerns and > feedback. Thus, the Foundation appoints VP to act as the go-between, > and expects the VP to perform that role as a liaison. > > > Fact is, that I have received multiple "suggestions" on the private board > > list to implement some of your wording or similar wording, these mails > (not > > from you, but a reaction to your mail) ignores the fact, that there was > > consensus in the community to submit the report. > > Incorrect. None of the responses even implied such a problem. Absent > such, and as *usual* for the board mailing list, it was absolutely > recognized this was the AOO report submitted by the PMC and its > community. Some edits/suggestions were made. That is all. Nothing more. > > > For reference, your wording was in a mail to a private list, so only the > > PMC has seen the content. > > Yes. > > > I have on the private board list rejected to change the wording, without > a > > public discussion > > on this list. > > That's your prerogative. For myself, I have great concern about how > you *carried* those concerns back to the community. Your job as VP is > to bring concerns from the Foundation to the community, and to bring > community concerns to the Foundation. > > Doing a full-reset on the report isn't constructive. > I simply do not get it !!!
I replaced the original board report in the agenda, with a dummy report, to prevent the original report from accidentally go to the board meeting. The original report still sits untouched in our cwiki, where it belongs as long as we discuss it. Please do not escalate this into something it is not. Replacing the report in the board agenda is a protective action, where a full-reset would be a highly offensive action, which I have NOT done, nor had intention of doing. rgds jan i. > > > > Please lets not over-react to what was just some helpful notes. > > > > I actually took your mail positively, and based on your mail started a > > discussion with the PMC, if we should change the wording. I would have > > wished you had participated in the > > original public discussion. > > The Foundation does not participate on all dev@ lists. You should > expect feedback from all corners, and from people who do not > participate here. Again: your job is to bring *that* feedback back > here for further contemplation. > > It is not reasonable to expect all Directors and ASF Members and > others to participate here, to formulate your report to the Board. But > you *should* expect those others to respond to a submitted report. > They will see it when the report gets submitted, and will review it at > that time. > > > But the mails that followed suggesting that I should change the report > are > > an, to me, unacceptable attempt to bypass the community. > > Nobody suggested you change it unilaterally. Stop mischaracterizing > the suggestions. Again, as VP your job is to bring those concerns, > suggestions, and edits to the community if you feel that is proper. > > Nobody told you what to do. You made the choices on pulling the > report, and (mis)characterizing the feedback. > > > Thanks for presenting your very relavant views in public, and let us get > > consensus on a text > > acceptable both to this community and the readers of the board list. > > You do not have to do anything for the readers of the board list. That > is your mistake. And it was only a few people. The board list has over > a hundred people on it. > > Your report needs to come from the community, and be reported to the > Board. That is quite simple. The Board accepts 99% of the reports > submitted. There are some that get rejected (like the one you've left > in the agenda right now). But there are also MANY that receive > feedback and get updated before the Board reviews/discusses them. So. > Be like those other folks. Take some feedback. Discuss it. Update. > > -g > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > >
