[steering-discuss] THD governance, project organization and membership - update needed
Hello TDF founders and SC, :-) I'm writing to you as a community member and end user of LibO. TDF announced its founding on September 28, 2010. It is now November 13, and I must admit that I'm rather worried about the lack of visible progress that has been made in organization. I'm unaware of what's happening behind the scenes, but the Foundation still seems to be in limbo. As a result, the organization of work in various areas is suffering or even simply not possible. Fortunately, the code developers are continuing their work, and are making great progress. I'd like to say big thanks to Caolán McNamara and all the devs for that. But, seen from the outside, and from the viewpoint of someone who wants to contribute work to LibO, the Foundation *appears* to be floundering around like a headless chicken. IMVHO, a great deal of the initial momentum and goodwill of which the Foundation could have taken advantage is wasting away. Recently, there has been very little communication from you. I think this post I'm writing is actually the first on the steering committee discussions list. 1) Could you please give us an update about the situation? 2) When will appointments be made to key roles in the organization chart? 3) What have you decided about TDF membership rules? I'm sorry to be saying this, but the lack of visible governance by TDF is having repercussions right down the line... David Nelson -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] THD governance, project organization and membership - update needed
Hi, :-) @Charles: OK, first, apologies about having stated that my post seemed to be the first on this list... I was looking at the Nabble, which must be misconfigured: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/ >These things take time. You are surely awre we posted a call for comments on >our bylaws and membership draft on this list yesterday? I trust you also >received our test PR of this week? No, sadly, I did not see any postings about byelaws and a membership draft, certainly due to the above Nabble problem. But I'm busy reading now... :-) @Sophie: myself, I'm interested in contributing in documentation, above all, and also to marketing. In documentation, there seems to be no lead for the English documentation, and so there's no clear workflow. I'd love to do work on documentation for LibO, but how to work efficiently and effectively? If there are no candidates for the job, I'd be pleased to volunteer (I have quite a few years experience working on technical documentation). Please feel free to mail me if this offer is of interest. In marketing, over the last days, I've been working, as a personal initiative, on trying to establish contact with Linux distributions, to solicit contributions and collaboration on graphics/artwork, notably. The initiative has been not unsuccessful, with helpful responses from Ubuntu Artwork, notably. Today, I also had responses from Debian people, too. And some response from Gentoo people, as well. I'm certain that when I start on Fedora Core, there will be good results, too. But I have no clearly-appointed people to liaise with and report to within TDF, so it is now difficult for me to capitalize on these results, and to deal meaningfully with the people/groups who respond to me. So this is where there are problems in respect of the work I'd love to contribute to the project... David Nelson -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] THD governance, project organization and membership - update needed
Hi, :-) Thank you for your answers, Sophie, Charles and Italo. I just read the Community Byelaws draft. When is this likely to be finally adopted? David Nelson -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] THD governance, project organization and membership - update needed
Hi, :-) On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 02:01, Christoph Noack wrote: > Therefore we recently published the list of open / worked on tasks in the > wiki: > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/TDF/Work_Items#legal_and_business @Christoph: Thanks for that link, it's an informative read. ;-) Some kind of weekly update via the SC discussions list or, during these early days, the TDF general discussions list would be great. @All: I read the draft community byelaws, and they look pretty OK to me. I sure hope it won't take too long to arrive at a final version. In any case, I do commend the efforts that are being made to be open with information. I noticed how accounts about financial contributions were published to the TDF general discussions list, and I certainly liked that. I know it was to comply with a provision of German law, if I'm not mistaken, but do you plan to maintain this kind of openness about the Foundation's accounts once you arrive at the final legal "incorporation"? In any case, thanks for all your work. ;-) David Nelson -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] THD governance, project organization and membership - update needed
Hi Cor, :-) On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 07:38, Cor Nouws wrote: > Great to see your enthusiasm. To me it looks however, as if you more or less > missed the step to find out where your initiatives could land, before > starting with them ;-) Yes, I see what you mean. But I was thinking of it as a kind of "proof of concept". ;-) I know things take time. But I was kind-of surprised that, since you guys had been mulling this move for so long, you didn't appear to have any "community bye-laws" figured out ahead of the launch. In the best of all possible worlds, you would have had a draft to put before the world right on day one. But, of course, we don't live in the best of all possible worlds, do we? Never mind. I'm still happy you did it, notwithstanding. Again, thanks for your work, and more power to you. ;-) David Nelson -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Community bylaws
Hi, :-) Could i have permission to proofread the draft community bye-laws purely from a grammatical and punctuation viewpoint, and make the necessary corrections, so as to eliminate these little things from your debate, so that people can be discussing just the real meat of the matter? David Nelson -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Community bylaws
Hi, :-) On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 01:07, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > Oh please do! :) > > thank you, > > Charles. Great, I'll do it now. :-) David Nelson -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Community bylaws
Hi, :-) On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 01:07, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > Le Sun, 14 Nov 2010 21:30:58 +0800, > David Nelson a écrit : > >> Hi, :-) >> >> Could i have permission to proofread the draft community bye-laws >> purely from a grammatical and punctuation viewpoint, and make the >> necessary corrections, so as to eliminate these little things from >> your debate, so that people can be discussing just the real meat of >> the matter? > > Oh please do! :) > > thank you, > > Charles. OK, I finished reviewing. In the end, I rewrote quite extensively, but without changing the original meanings of sentences. There is one sentence that requires checking, but its marked REVIEWER'S NOTE. I think readers will find it clearer, so maybe fewer questions... I'm going to have a last look after a few hours sleep. HTH. ;-) http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.php?title=CommunityBylaws David Nelson -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Community bylaws
Hi Charles, :-) On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 00:33, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > David, > > thank you very much for this! It looks good to me, and your reviewers' > note is also on the point, please leave the sentence as you translated > it. > > best, > Charles. OK, cool, removed the note. :-) It was a pleasure. Feel free to feed me more. :-) David Nelson -- E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Community bylaws
Hi, :-) Having been given permission to proofread and revise the initial draft, I presumed it would be OK to do the same for subsequent amendments. I hope I did not overstep myself there; if I did, please say so and I will, of course, desist. However, I came up with a revised text as below (it simply states exactly the same things, but re-worded). It seems that there are still some big ambiguities that would need to be resolved: "The Chairperson is elected by a special electoral college comprised of the BoD, the AB and and the ESC (however, ESC members who are also members of the BoD can only cast one single vote in this election, regardless of their membership of both bodies). The vote by this special college is not decided by the votes of the individual members taken as a whole; instead, each respective body holds a vote among its members, and returns a nomination of one candidate (a specific list of names, or one name only, will have been submitted by the BoD and the AB). The three bodies therefore arrive at a shortlist of three nominees. If one of the three nominees has a majority within the shortlist (has two votes out of three, or is a unanimous choice), the outcome is deemed to be decisive and the electoral process is concluded. However, if three different people are nominated, then a conciliation process takes place, with the aim of eliminating one nominee and making a choice between two nominees only. The Chairperson's term of office is two (2) years, but he/she can serve as many terms as are seen fitting." 1) "(however, ESC members who are also members of the BoD can only cast one single vote in this election, regardless of their membership of both bodies)": So which body do they cast their vote in? How and when is that decision taken? The choice could change the outcome of the voting. 2) "(a specific list of names, or one name only, will have been submitted by the BoD and the AB)": How would the list be drawn up? Perhaps you need at least a cross-reference to another clause in the bye-laws that resolves that question? If there's only one name, then there would be no point in voting at all... 3) "However, if three different people are nominated, then a conciliation process takes place, with the aim of eliminating one nominee and making a choice between two nominees only.": That could give rise to a difficult situation... IMHO, you would need to establish a clear procedure for this, to avoid some tense deadlocks in the future... HTH. David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Community bylaws
Hi, :-) On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 00:52, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > yup. But after Michael's points, I also think we might clarify and > simplify all this a great deal. In a nutshell > > 1) the ESC does not get to vote, it's not elected, and it's a technical > body. The AB can propose candidate(s), but cannot vote. > 2) BoD appoints the CH, by vote or by consensus. People can nominate > themselves and send their nomination to the BoD no later than 2 months > before the election date. The AB can also nominate one or several > candidates and sends the name(s) to the BoD no later than 2 months > before the election. > > That way, it's easier and faster. Any thoughts? > > Best, > Charles. Yes, I get the idea. If it's alright with you guys, I'll figure out how to draft that in, and will give a heads-up when I've done so (over the next 24 hours, because I'm slave to a client for the coming hours). Is that OK? Also, I have an idea about a couple of legal experts I could contact and, if they're willing, invite them to jump in on this thread and maybe help arrive at some really bullet-proof bye-laws... should I do that? David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] documentation confcall recording available
Hi Florian, :-) On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 17:45, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hello, > > I've just uploaded the recording of the documentation confcall to > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:Talkyoo-537138-2010-11-27-1219587.mp3 > > David et al., can you link it in the wiki from the appropriate page? ;) Thanks for that. I will deal with this. Before putting the recording up for download, I first need to confirm with the participants that they all agree to this. Guys, your wishes? Anyone who does not respond here will be contacted directly by mail. No action will be taken until I have express agreement from all participants in the call... David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hi Charles, SC guys :-) On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 01:23, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > David, as usual, please feel free to review the language... thanks! > > -- > Charles-H. Schulz 1) Would it perhaps be useful to add a definition for the term "community" under section 1.1, Definitions? 2) Would it maybe be better to move the 4 definitions under section 3, Governance, to section 1.1, Definitions? I added a lot of reviewer's notes inline in the text because I felt it would be much easier for you to follow what I was saying. IMHO, the section on voting, section 5 at the end, needs quite a bit of attention. I took the liberty of trying to reorganize it somewhat, to make it clearer and more understandable... In reality, that has kind of "seeded" places where you might want to do more writing? I also worked on the format of the doc a bit, and inserted links where there were cross-references in the text... Perhaps we might be able to talk about all this in Friday's SC confcall? HTH. ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hi, :-) On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 04:42, David Nelson wrote: > Hi Charles, SC guys :-) > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 01:23, Charles-H. Schulz > wrote: >> David, as usual, please feel free to review the language... thanks! >> >> -- >> Charles-H. Schulz I added some numbering to the notes to allow for easier discussion here... http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws [REVIEWER'S NOTE 01: MAYBE MOVE THE 4 DEFINITIONS BELOW TO THE DEFINITIONS SECTION IN 1.1 ABOVE?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 02: MAYBE ADD A CLAUSE WITH SPECIFIC PROVISOS ABOUT THE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 03: SO WHAT IS THE SITUATION REGARDING THIS?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 04: THE TERM "COMMUNITY" COULD USEFULLY BE DEFINED IN THE DEFINITIONS SECTION?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 05: HOW LONG?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 06: COULD THERE MAYBE BE A SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT FOR TAKING IN NEW MEMBERS FROM THE COMMUNITY WHO WERE NOT INVOLVED IN OOo? IN ANY CASE, IS IT A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THIS PURPORTEDLY TEMPORARY PROVISION ABOUT OOo PEOPLE HARD-CODED INTO THE PERMANENT BYE-LAWS?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 07: PERHAPS THERE COULD BE A SPECIAL "complai...@documentfoundation.org" MAIL ADDRESS THAT WOULD BE THE PLACE TO SEND SUCH REQUESTS? THEREFORE, ONE COULD MAYBE MENTION THAT ADDRESS HERE AS THE PROCEDURAL RULE?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 08: PERHAPS THERE COULD BE A SPECIAL "res...@documentfoundation.org" MAIL ADDRESS THAT WOULD PROVIDE AN UNEQUIVOCAL RECORD OF WHETHER OR NOT A MEMBER IS DEEMED TO HAVE RESIGNED? THEREFORE, ONE COULD MAYBE MENTION THAT ADDRESS HERE AS THE PROCEDURAL RULE?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 09: IMHO, A LOT MORE SPECIFIC INFO ABOUT THE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE WOULD BE A GOOD THING... HOW MANY MEMBERS? MEETS HOW OFTEN? HOW WILL MEETINGS BE HELD (CONFCALL? http://code.google.com/p/openmeetings/ ?)? WHAT VOTING RULES? MAYBE THERE SHOULD BE EXPLICIT RULES CONCERNING APPEALS? HOW LONG IS THIS "INTERIM PERIOD"?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 10: PLEASE REFER TO MY NOTE IN THE "CONTINUITY OF MEMBERSHIP" SECTION REGARDING POSSIBILITY OF SPECIAL PROVISION FOR MEMBERSHIP DURING INITIAL PERIOD OF EXISTENCE OF THE PROJECT...] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 11: WHAT INTERVAL OF TIME? BETTER BE SPECIFIC?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 12: IMHO, THIS SECTION NEEDS A LOT OF CLARIFICATION AND AUGMENTATION... WHAT DIFFERENT KINDS OF THINGS WILL WE BE VOTING ABOUT? HOW WILL VOTES BE HELD (ONLINE VOTING SYSTEM, OR WHAT)? THIS IS THE SECTION I FIND MOST VAGUE AND NEEDING MORE ATTENTION... LACK OF CLEAR AND DEFINITIVE GUIDELINES IN THIS SECTION IS WHERE I FEEL MOST OF THE "CONTROVERSIAL" SITUATIONS MIGHT ARISE...] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 13: THIS SENTENCE WOULD BE DEPENDENT ON A DECISION ABOUT "STV"...] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 14: I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THIS SENTENCE. IS THIS A "MEETING OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS" OR A "MEETING OF THE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE"? DOES THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE HAVE TO BE ATTENDED PHYSICALLY, OR CAN WE USE AN ONLINE CONFERENCING SYSTEM LIKE http://www.gotomeeting.com/fec/ (ACCOUNT WOULD HAVE TO BE SPONSORED BY CITRIX ONLINE) OR http://code.google.com/p/openmeetings/ ?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 15: MORE GUIDELINES NEEDED ABOUT ADVANCE NOTIFICATION OF POLLS/ELECTIONS/VOTES TO COVER THE VARIOUS SCENARIOS IN WHICH VOTING WILL BE USED AS A MEANS OF TAKING DECISIONS?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 16: SURELY A DECISION WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN ABOUT THIS BEFORE THE BYE-LAWS COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE DEFINITIVELY FINISHED? MORE COMMENTS BELOW ABOUT "STV"...] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 17: THIS SEEMS TO CONFLICT WITH THE TERMS OF http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/CommunityBylaws#Board_of_Directors AND IS MAYBE REDUNDANT HERE? OR REDUNDANT THERE? WHERE IS BEST TO COVER THIS?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 18: SURELY A DECISION WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN ABOUT THIS BEFORE THE BYE-LAWS COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE DEFINITIVELY FINISHED? "STV" COULD BE AN INTERESTING AND EFFECTIVE PART OF THE GOVERNANCE, BUT THEN IT WOULD NEED APPROPRIATE RULES AND PROCEDURES IN THIS SECTION...] [REVIEWERS NOTE 19: IMHO, THERE ARE UNDESIRABLE OPPORTUNITIES FOR TIED VOTES HERE, AS WELL AS VOTES PUSHED THROUGH BY ONLY A MINORITY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS (4 OUT OF 9). MAYBE MORE RULES NEEDED TO TRY AND ANTICIPATE ALL SITUATIONS?] [REVIEWER'S NOTE 20: IMVHO, THE BYE-LAWS SHOULD ALSO CONTAIN PROCEDURES AND RULES GOVERNING CHANGES/AMENDMENTS TO THE BYE-LAWS THEMSELVES; FAILURE TO COVER THIS ISSUE CLEARLY AND DEFINITIVELY COULD GIVE RISE TO "CONTROVERSIAL SITUATIONS"...] HTH. :-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hi, :-) On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 23:01, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Don't mention technologies or addresses in the bylaws, but rather refer > to them as being online or the like. Otherwise, the same issue as with > 06 kicks in - we cannot change it that easily, even if technology changes. Well, I'm not saying that you have to state in the bye-laws that you're going to use OpenMeetings as a technology but, in practice, outside the bye-laws, you do actually have to make some technological choices as to how to do things. (Of course, in a few years time, maybe something more new and wonderful than OpenMeetings will be the "in" thing.) I'm assuming that e-mail and e-mail addresses *are* going to be around for quite some time to come... ;-) > Florian will read the wiki page next time before asking dumb questions. Let he/she who is without guilt be the one to cast the first stone... I noticed that there is no published agenda for tonight's meeting... If I manage to stay awake, I will be there to listen in... David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hi, :-) On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 23:53, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Sometimes, we are refering to "bye-laws". Shouldn't it be "bylaws"? It's one of the various spellings, but it's in Webster's... David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hi, :-) On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 23:53, Florian Effenberger wrote: > "Nonetheless" must be "Nontheless" (governance paragraph). "Nonetheless" is in Webster's, too. ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hi, :-) On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 04:27, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > So I modified the text directly inline, and erased the comments... but > then realized it was somewhat straight and strong as a way to work. No > offense David, but feel free to look into the text and comment. > > Best, > Charles. Sure, OK, Charles, thank you, will do. :-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hi, :-) I am just nearing the end of reviewing the draft, and will post here when done (maybe in 1 hour). Then it would be up to Charles to review and revise. I have not changed any term and conditions (that is obviously Charles' prerogative not mine), but I did do a little re-ordering, with REVIEWER'S NOTEs to mark-up my changes/suggestions. My humble suggestion would be to hold off on further edits until I "check the draft in" again...? BRB. David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hi Charles, :-) I have finished reviewing... You would have to take a look at 5.1... I proposed 2 variants there, and it looks as if my edits may have overwritten yours? Maybe the wiki doesn't manage concurrent edits too well... Looks like it would be wise for only 1 person at a time to have the green light to work on the page until "checking the page back in" by a notifying mail message? There are still some comments by Michael in there... I put them in uppercase for easy location... HTH. ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hi, :-) On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 02:08, drew wrote: > What there is not, that I can see, is a way for the general membership > to remove the board, or a particular member of the board, beyond the > annual elections. > > Consider the following situation: > > The ESC makes a decision regarding the code that the BOD disagrees with > and exercises their rights under the ByLaws to place the ESC under > administration. Telling the ESC to either conform to the board's wishes > or to disband and allow the BOD to appoint a new ESC. > > The general membership is completely locked out of the process from my > reading of the current ByLaws. What if the general membership however > sides with the ESC on the particular issue. > > There should be a way for the membership, which through their vote is > after all the source of authority exercised by the BOD, to step in and > remove the board. > > Firstly - this would be IMO an extraordinary circumstance of course, and > whatever mechanism one would put in place _must_ present a rather high > hurdle in order to trigger application. > > Without offering any specific details on mechanics for the moment, what > I'm thinking of is a way for the general membership to call for an early > election of the board in such an extraordinary situation. i don't think I'd want a mechanism to go as far as discharging the BoD, but maybe there could be a mechanism by which community members could call for a ballot to be cast on a motion put forward by concerned activists (kind of like organizing a petition)? This mechanism would then provisionally block implementation of the contentious decision until the vote has been held. The outcome of the vote would be binding. Is there a practical way to implement that? David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hi, :-) @mmeeks: Michael, what exactly do you mean by this phrase: "Members agree to work and contribute to an egalitarian community, where roles are not titles and do not grant any special privileges." Does that mean that there will be no team leads? If so, how will one be able to have sufficient authority to organize and direct work? ;-) I think I don't understand... Could you explain, maybe, please? David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hi, :-) On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 02:57, drew wrote: >> but maybe there could be a mechanism by which community members >> could call for a ballot to be cast on a motion put forward by >> concerned activists (kind of like organizing a petition)? This >> mechanism would then provisionally block implementation of the >> contentious decision until the vote has been held. The outcome of the >> vote would be binding. > > Actually I would not be in favor of this approach. Well, basically, what I'm saying is that the Community needs an "emergency stop button" if the BoD starts acting in ways that go contrary to the wishes of a large proportion of the community, without having to wait for the next annual elections. If I'm not mistaken, that's what you're saying, too. I'm waiting to hear more about your concrete suggestions. But I'd be interested to hear the ideas of Charles and the SC members about the basic idea I'm putting forward... ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hi, :-) I must admit that I have great reservations about the BoD being able to change the bylaws without a vote by community members. Even the 6-out-of-9 minimum vote does not give sufficient guarantee for me. And even the stipulation that there will always be one member, one vote is not a total reassurance. I'd prefer bylaws that are carefully thought out now but that are pretty much in stone once adopted. I think I'd prefer a community that is frequently called upon to vote, but that has full control over its future. You expect community members to be committed in working for LibreOffice, so one should also expect them to take their "civic rights and duties" seriously and be ready to think about issues regularly, and to vote as often as is necessary. At least they'll be able to claim that there is true democracy... Does anyone feel like answering me about this? ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hi Charles, :-) I have proofread, edited (no changes of your intentions), reformatted, etc., the Bylaws. I removed all remaining notes. The text could be considered "good to go", barring 4 points below. I like the "Solemn Address and Impeachment of the Board of Directors" clause. On reflection, it certainly addresses the greater part of *my* concerns. However: 1) In the "Revisions of the Community Bylaws" section, I would request to add this sentence: "The Community must be notified of any changes whatsoever to the Bylaws through an explicit public announcement via a commonly-consulted public medium." (In practice, that would be the [tdf-discuss] mailing list, for example.) 2) In the "Engineering Steering Committee" section, I would request to add these two sentences: "The list of members of the ESC must be published via a commonly-consulted public medium, and must be maintained up to date at all times. The Community must be notified of any changes whatsoever to the membership, composition and functioning of the ESC through an explicit public announcement via a commonly-consulted public medium." (In practice, the list would be published on the wiki, and announcements would be made to the [tdf-discuss] mailing list, for example.) 3) In the "Advisory Board" section, I would request to add these two sentences: "The list of members of the AB must be published via a commonly-consulted public medium, and must be maintained up to date at all times. The Community must be notified of any changes whatsoever to the membership, composition and functioning of the AB through an explicit public announcement via a commonly-consulted public medium." 4) In the "Membership Committee" section, I would request to replace the sentence "This decision by the BoD has to be made public before the decision enters into effect." with: "The Community must be notified of any changes whatsoever to the membership, composition and functioning of the MC through an explicit public announcement via a commonly-consulted public medium, before the decision enters into effect." In my very humble opinion, these final small modifications would ensure the openness and transparency that I know you all want to implement. Would all this be OK? David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hi, :-) On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 20:54, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > David, > > I'd like to answer Florian's mail in details -or think about it further- but > I do like your suggestions below (all of them). Mind adding them yourself? > My bandwidth is... low today and I'm with my family. > > Thanks, > > Charles. Oh, sure, great, will do that now. Thanks for your trust in this. :-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hi, :-) On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 01:20, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > I would like -if David is done with the additions- to call for a last > review of the text. Tomorrow morning, we will declare the bylaws > adopted if nothing major is objected. I put them in already. ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hi, :-) On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 06:37, Cor Nouws wrote: > (Nothing major: but I still see one occurrence of Chairman, where the > officers are mentioned.) Fixed. ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Updated draft of the Community Bylaws
Hi Michael, :-) On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 19:40, Michael Meeks wrote: > Well - this is my view :-) it is perhaps not a sensible view, I'm open > to persuasion, and luckily I don't make these decisions the SC / board > does / will, but here is my advice: > > In my view, authority is conferred by two ways: hard work, and > relationship. Those who do the hard work, and build the product, teams > and relationships, will naturally lead those teams. Hopefully they do > this not alone, but with others too. > > AFAICS - giving an artificial "job title" to someone does not always > help them build an effective team that works well with others; and > indeed, it can hinder work or create conflict. > > Worse - while we would hope that a job title would reflect a reality: > that of someone (or the people) doing the most work in a given community > - the OO.o experience has shown us that -sometimes- these titles are > handed out like candy to random individuals, who then cease to do useful > work, or practically disappear :-) It seems to me that detecting these > cases, and arbitrating / transfering / handing out official titles is > some political nightmare that cannot be easily imposed from outside the > sub-community, and can go badly wrong inside it. > > That is contrasted to a fairly natural shift in control as new people > arrive to do more work, and others start to do less: this is the reality > of Free Software projects, managing a continuous flux of change and > turnover of people. > > Of course, if the Board wants to create this sort of arbitration and > selection problem, I defer to their wisdom; but I'm personally against > it. Clearly there are some formal roles it is hard to live without: > board member, spokesperson etc. Others IMHO do not need to be clear cut, > and are best left fluid. > > Does that make (some) sense ? :-) I must admit that I don't really agree with you, Michael. There is always need for organization and coordination in any human enterprise. Personally, I can't think of any viable, successful endeavour involving organized action that would work without them. Open Source has demonstrated that in the past - with positive examples and negative examples. But, IMHO, that principle is practically ubiquitous. > Members are expected to refrain from any kind of expression of > racism, xenophobia, sexism and religious or political > intolerance. > > This sounds like a vow of chastity :-) It appears to apply to the whole > of life, and not just to engagement with TDF etc. As such is is somewhat > offensive, and in itself an oxymoron: "I can't tolerate your > intolerance" ;-). Many communities have people with strong, colorful and > opposing views expressed in strong terms. This to me is a sign of health > and diversity - instead of some bland pea-soup of non-expression :-) Again, I'm afraid don't agree with you. One of the negative things about many FOSS projects is the kind of negative behavior, attitudes and treatment that people sometimes have to put up with - there have been several threads in the TDF lists where it has occurred. I suspect that there would be plenty of people who would support what I've written. In any case, you've had lots of time to read and comment. ;-) Me, I was extremely concerned from day #1 of the launch that TDF had not prepared things properly, and that it did not have a "draft constitution" to put before people right at the outset. But instead of just standing back and criticizing from a distance, I wanted to get involved in remedying the problem. Anyway, as we all well know, for every guy that says "Turn left!" there will be another that says "Turn right!" :-D In any case, I've done my best to be of practical help, and you guys are free to do what you will. ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Website status
Hi Florian, :-) You will have noticed that I've been putting in time on the website content every day. It's taken longer than I envisioned because it takes time to develop the content of each page (there's always some "auxiliary" work to do for each one). But the site is largely ready now. I'll still be finishing over the next couple of days. I realize how much time and work you put in for the community, that isn't visible to the rest of the world. Thank you for that, because your dedication is a big driving force behind the project. Would you really not have time to roll it out *now*, and leave me to do the last work with the site being live? January 10 is nearly 3 weeks away... In any case, I do understand your POV, and I certainly wish you a happy and restful holiday. Come back to us fresh and revitalized. In the New Year, maybe you can try and delegate more work? With all best wishes, ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Website status
Hi Florian, :-) All pages now have content on them. I've still got work massaging the content: inserting more screenshots (I've got them ready already), adding more pages under "Get Involved", add some sub-pages on the home page, polish and rewrite the content under "Features", improve and add screenshots to the Macintosh installation instructions. But there is sufficient reasonable content on each page to roll the site out. I will keep working on all this for a day or two more, and will then be looking for more comments from people. There will be plenty of things to discuss. Anyway, I know you'll do what you can, and thank you again for that. In any case, I hope your holiday will be a good one. The site will be in great shape when you get back. ;-) David Nelson On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 15:49, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Hi David, > > David Nelson wrote on 2010-12-20 01.56: > >> You will have noticed that I've been putting in time on the website >> content every day. It's taken longer than I envisioned because it >> takes time to develop the content of each page (there's always some >> "auxiliary" work to do for each one). But the site is largely ready >> now. I'll still be finishing over the next couple of days. > > thanks a lot for your work, David, that's really much appreciated! > >> I realize how much time and work you put in for the community, that >> isn't visible to the rest of the world. Thank you for that, because >> your dedication is a big driving force behind the project. > > Thanks a lot, David! It makes a lot of fun, but sometimes, too many things > come at one point of time. Last week kept me busy with a server migration. > Basically, it should have worked out in one day, but the old machine was so > much cluttered, that it took me three full days to get things going, which > screwed up my plannings a bit. :-( > >> Would you really not have time to roll it out *now*, and leave me to >> do the last work with the site being live? January 10 is nearly 3 >> weeks away... > > I will see if I can manage it before Christmas, but today is nearly not > possible, I fear. Am out of the house most of the day. > >> In any case, I do understand your POV, and I certainly wish you a >> happy and restful holiday. Come back to us fresh and revitalized. > > Thank you very much! I direly need it, had no vacation this year, so a few > days off are very much welcome. ;) > >> In the New Year, maybe you can try and delegate more work? > > Yeah, sometimes it just doesn't work out. I will see if maybe some of my > admin colleagues can have a look at this one... > > Florian > > -- > Florian Effenberger > Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation > Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 > Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to > steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** > > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-website] Re: [steering-discuss] Website status
Hi Klaus, :-) I definitely think we should take the site live ASAP. You will see that it will really dynamize work on the site and its content, and our end users urgently need this resource. IMHO, the project has suffered badly from the failure to put a credible website online *long ago* and we should not wait any more. The German community can work peacefully on its NL site, but the main site really should go live as soon as feasible. We will benefit from a lot of user feedback and participation, and will really bring more life to the project. Only small tweaks are *urgently* needed, and I will follow up on these with Christian. Everyone will react with more immediacy and enthusiasm when it's a "real" live site and not just some "dead" unvisited staging thing. IMHO, we need to switch over as soon as Florian is able to find the time. Many things are depending on it. David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-website] Website status
Hi Klaus, Bernhard, Florian, all, :-) On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 05:38, Bernhard Dippold wrote: > So Florian can't bring up the website *now* - that's a great pity > (especially with regards to the immense work David put into the site during > the last week), but we can't do anything against it. > > Florian's day is not longer than 24h - and his life doesn't consist of > LibreOffice alone. Yes, I understand this. I hope very much he *will* manage it but, if really he can't, I will dissipate my great disappointment and think laterally. > PS: I understand Klaus-Jürgen's comment as possibility to use the time until > the launch - not as an attempt to delay it. Yes, well if ever Florian can't launch the site then we should think positively and use the intervening time usefully. Xmas list. > PPS: I still believe, that the visible part of the main page should not > contain more than a few lines of text, a download button (can lead to the > download page) and links to the most interesting areas. Twitter and blog in > the "scrolling area" are ok, but I think a "news" area is more important > than those tow. I will put at least a download button above the home page text, but did not get around to it yet. You will notice that I *have* been listening to people's comments, and complying with most of them. The problem is that the current theme is very narrow, and limits what you can place on the page quite a lot. That applies to the top menu bar, the side menu and the actual content area. IMHO, I would scrap the current theme and make a new one. I've never done a SilverStripe theme before, but once you've hacked themes for a couple of CMS's, you can hack them for another. I bet it would only take me a few days. If one of you SilverSite CSS/theming gurus helped out, I bet we could do it even quicker... I would propose a theme based on the theme at libreofficeaustralia.org. Take a look at screenshots [1] and [2]. The design perfectly fits the current marketing color scheme and graphic charter. It's simple but very Web 2.0. It's based on the Fusion theme for Drupal. It gives a lot more space and scope for nicely laying out the content, with lots of nice big screenshots, etc. Florian, Christian, if you gave me access to SSH/FTP into http://pumbaa.ooodev.org:7780/ then I could set a new theme up there and work on it. Then Christian could install it on the test.libreoffice.org/libreoffice.org site when it was ready. What do you think, guys? a) We'd get a lot more flexibility with the content. b) If ever there is a changeover to a Drupal site, there will be no visual break... the roll-over could be almost invisible. > PPPS: The graphic on the main page links to http:///download/ (not a > relative link...) I know. I had to hack the HTML/CSS to make the shuffler look OK. I'm waiting for Christian to deal with the fix I already requested. So it's a temporary thing. [1] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/6/65/Liboaustralia-screenshot1.png [2] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/1/14/Liboaustralia-screenshot2.png David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-website] Website status
Hi Bernhard, :-) On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 05:38, Bernhard Dippold wrote: > PPS: I still believe, that the visible part of the main page should not > contain more than a few lines of text, a download button (can lead to the > download page) and links to the most interesting areas. Please give me a suggestion for the "few lines of text" then. >Twitter and blog in > the "scrolling area" are ok, but I think a "news" area is more important > than those tow. Christian, is there a dedicated news/blogging module for SilverStripe? David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-website] Website status
Hi Christian, :-) Thanks for your reply. OK, I've noted about working with the git repo. Let's see if there's any kind of go-ahead from Florian and Christoph. If we wait for answers from everyone, we'll never get anywhere and the subject will just drown in circular, endless discussions. My aim would be to do something concrete real soon. Let's see what's said... > I personally don't like the libreofficeaustralia theme as it is now. > Header much too high, language selection doesn't work (something > opens, but that something is covered almost entirely by grey > background, no selection possioble, etc. > Visit it with german locale and you're locked out basically, as it > then also doesn't even offer navigation, etc. So from first looks: > Nah, needs work. I'm only talking about achieving the same presentation as on that site, so we're not really worried about what doesn't work on that site. But it's a clean presentation that will allow us to make the SilverStripe site and content look good quickly, and it basically fits the graphic charter... [1] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/6/65/Liboaustralia-screenshot1.png [2] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/1/14/Liboaustralia-screenshot2.png P.S. My advice would be not to get into arguments with stupid people deliberately spamming the thread with irrelevant off-topic comments. They do it deliberately to break up the intelligent discussion... David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-website] Website status
Hi, :-) On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 07:39, Bernhard Dippold wrote: > Hi David, all, > > once again, please don't think I would not appreciate your great work, even > if I try to improve the "look and feel" of the welcome page. > Please have a look at Christoph's proposal: > http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/bbnG0Hny0SpccJIZsGp72A?feat=directlink I must admit that, personally, I don't find this layout attractive at all, although it gives some general indicators about content positioning. > I'm sorry, that I can't design a mockup at the moment. Time is short even > for adding the short phases... I *have* read your ideas, and will carefully read them and think about them again as I finish off this first version of the site content. I am doing my best to take account of your comments and the comments of other people in what I'm doing. But, sometimes, the proposals and reactions are so sharply contrasting that it is difficult or impossible to please everybody. The problem is that it is *extremely* difficult to work in the current situation: it's a kind of contributive anarchy, with no-one having a clearly-appointed lead role in particular areas of the project. Thus, the only conclusion you can arrive at is this: the people that actually *do* work are the ones that get to call the shots. If they are good community members, they will do their best to take account of other people's opinions. But, in many cases, one has to take a decision, and the decision will inevitably dissatisfy someone. Such is the case in what I'm presently doing. I observed how, after long discussions on the mailing lists and various conference calls, the website team had failed to put any IA together, and had failed to put even as much as 10 words on any single page. So I jumped in and started working on my own. Even when I asked for quick and concrete contributions, I only got help with content from a couple of people (apart from lots of patient technical support from Christian). I do want to get feedback from people, and to take account of their ideas, but I don't have time or patience to be spending all my time writing to mailing lists. I actually want to *do* work *now*. I'm aware that the content I've put on the site is not perfect, and that it's open to revision in the future. But it does have the merit of *actually existing* and being sufficient to roll out the site. I'm determined to finish off what I started, but I do ask you to remember that I, too, only have 24 hours in my day, and also have a life to deal with outside the project. So please forgive me for any shortcomings you perceive in what I produce. ;-) We can look at things again in the New Year. I will be doing my best to take account of all I've read. :-) I'm currently negotiating with Florian, Christian and Christoph to see whether to proceed with changes to the SilverStripe theme, or whether to set this issue aside for someone else to decide about at sometime in the future. I hope you understand my position, guys. ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-website] Website status
Hi Tom, :-) Interesting thoughts. ;-) But, actually, the site under discussion is http://test.libreoffice.org What are your thoughts on that one? David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-website] Website status
Hi Tom, :-) It was an interesting and thoughtful perspective, and thank you for taking the time to recount it. On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 18:33, Tom Davies wrote: > I prefer > http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/bbnG0Hny0SpccJIZsGp72A?feat=directlink > because it has less information and looks prettier. > > Sadly, that seems to be what people want. Information confuses people and > seems > to need to be on subsequent pages. Also the picture on Well, that is the way we'll probably go. This content was an "emergency job" intended to allow the site to be launched, and everything will be up for review. > http://test.libreoffice.org > took ages to appear and people don't seem to have patience beyond a couple of > milliseconds and when it appeared the first image was 'horribly' complicated. > Isn't it a gif? Could it be less size byte-wise? It's a .png. I did all the other screenshots as high-quality .jpg files because they are half to a third of the size, but the site's lead admin prefers .png because of resizing considerations. > By contrast competitors websites show almost nothing and give almost no > information. We see pictures of smart people in suits looking at a flashy > computer. We see pictures of grannies leaning over toddlers both engaged with > whatever is going on on a more sensible looking computer. We see a young > attractive 'housewife' sitting on over-large creamy coloured sofa either > posing > sexily or demurely (or both) and looking at a flashy laptop. If we ever see > the > screen then there is some simple pie-chart of bar-graph or sometimes they risk > showing a line-graph (for business users). Maybe you're right. We'll have a think about it over Christmas, because it looks like the site won't roll out until January. > Personally i do like the narrower format because i have not yet followed > 'everyone else' to widescreen. Also for me personally (probably fairly > typically for a linux user) i do prefer having useful information right there > fast without having to dig around for it and the picture is what i personally > like as a linux-user because it show me useful stuff. The info was well > written, compelling and succinct, telling me exactly the sorts of things that > people ask whenever they find me using OpenOffice (one that still has the Sun > logo). However, while it may be great for existing linux-users we are not > typical of the general population out-there that we need to reach. Well, where I live, very few people have wide screens. So what you say in that respect is an important consideration. I'm glad you liked the content. Maybe I'll just move it off the front page to another location, as you suggest. > I do think both are great and both do the job of easy access to the download. > The text needs to be somewhere on the site and preferably just 1 click away or > reached when the page is scrolled down, something easy. See above... > I would say keep the one we have already or switch to the one that is closest > to > completion whichever one that is. There are actually going to be two sites. One for LibreOffice, the software, and one for The Document Foundation, the "umbrella organization" fostering the project. > PS this is only my opinion and i might be a little bitter and twisted nowadays Your thoughts were interesting and very enlightening. Please do stay around the project. If you'd like a suggestion of an area to get involved in, you might like to consider the documentation team. Do sign up for the list at documentation+subscr...@libreoffice.org if you have time to give. We're a small team, but we are acquiring some fine members - we don't discuss quite so much as on the other lists, but the team members are cooperative, friendly people who quietly *produce* high quality work. ;-) Thanks for your feedback, and read you next time. :-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-website] Website status
Hi, :-) On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 18:33, Tom Davies wrote: > PS this is only my opinion and i might be a little bitter and twisted nowadays My favorite cartoon is Dilbert [1] ... At least one knows one isn't alone in one's views. ;-D [1] http://dilbert.com/register/ David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] We have a stand at FOSDEM!
Merry Christmas, Tom. ;-) On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 21:02, Tom Davies wrote: > Good luck & merry Christmas everyone that is observant and everyone else i > hope > you have a good time too :) > Regards from > Tom :) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-website] Website status
Hi, :-) On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 08:58, Christoph Noack wrote: > Hi all, > > just for the record - there has been another proposal for a menu and the > front page of the new website. > > Some of you might know Nikash, who already worked within the OOo days on > designs - and usually they are simply great :-) However, he wrote a very > kind mail, proposed some changes, and published a website mockup: > http://www.mail-archive.com/design@libreoffice.org/msg00217.html I think it looks really good [1]. As a secondary project, the basic design could also easily be adapted for the wiki and documentfoundation.org (nabble, too?), using the same design with other colors from the marketing color scheme. I've got SSH access to work on a sandbox at pumbaa.ooodev.org (http://188.40.32.145:7780/), so we could implement the design as a SilverStripe theme there, and Christian could move it across to the upcoming libreoffice.org site when ready. I'll be happy to collaborate with him out with the theme implementation aspect, and to do the necessary content adaptation / design to fit in with it. @Christoph, it sounds like you're agreeable to the idea. @Bernard: you too? @christian: you too? If so, when can we give Nik a green light to start work? ;-) [1] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:Nik#Interim_Website_Design_proposals David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-design] Re: [steering-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-website] Website status
Hi, :-) On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 09:42, Christoph Noack wrote: > thanks for your mail ... I think the best thing is to also forward it to > the Design team list, and to him (BCC). Let's see how it evolves :-) Sure. I just hope we manage to take a fast decision about this, and *get it done* without too much futzing around. :-D David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-website] Website status
Hi Italo, all, :-) I'm very happy to see the site launched. A really big thanks to Christian for making that happen. :-) It currently looks like I might get a go-ahead to work on a really great new theme for the site with Nikash Singh, to be ready by the early days of the New Year... So there's still more work to do, but the site could look really Web 2.0 and good. I'm waiting for a response about that from Florian, Christoph and Charles in a mail that's awaiting their urgent attention in their mailboxes. ;-) Italo, as a key player in marketing, I created an account for you on the site. I mailed you your password, etc. I can tutor you online concerning working on content, if you like, via Skype. Just buzz me if you want that. Until then, you *might* like to submit me any content you want published, until such time as the SC takes decisions about editorial organization, etc. David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: RE : Re: [steering-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-website] Website status
Hi Charles, :-) On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 05:54, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > David, can you please resend that email you were referring to? > > Charles. I sent it again to your documentfoundation.org address. ;-) Look for "Re: Fwd: [libreoffice-website] Website status". Merry Christmas Day to you all! ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Review of progress on the libreoffice.org website and theme
Hi, :-) I was working on the new theme for the libreoffice.org website today, and then the server went dead. It's probably a nudge from fate. ;-) And then I was reading Stefan Siegel in a thread on the docs list, and it sounds like he has rather different ideas about at least some of the content on the libreoffice.org website. And I've also been thinking about some of the stuff that's been said in off-list threads about the website, the work I've been doing on it, and the theme [1] [2] that I'm developing for it (using Nikash Singh's template). Let's have this conversation *on* the list. I want to know a few things from all you guys. I asked for a period of time up to January 10 to finish what I started without consulting you very much. This is because, in my experience, the discussions turn into long rambling threads, with lots of conflicting opinions, and - in the end - no clear decision gets taken by anyone. I can tell you, as someone who's been at the sharp end of the actual work, it's really not easy to work like that. My intention has been to then hand the re-themed and content-filled website back to the SC and the community on January 10, 2011, and then get feedback from you all, and then implement changes that clearly seem to be wanted. Implementing Nikash' theme [1] [2] has been a lot of work for me. I've worked from the screenshot, produced all the graphics under Photoshop, sent them to Nikash for his approval and editing. I've started work on the SilverStripe templates and on the CSS stylesheets, and have been putting all of that on the SilverStripe sandbox that Christian provided me at http://188.40.32.145:7780/ (work is still much in progress). Christian gave me a go for the theme, setting certain size constraints [1] [2]. Florian said that he'd accept whatever Christian decided. Bernhard gave me a "kind-of" go. Charles gave me a go, if I understood correctly. Ultimately, I'm not really sure what Christoph's position was. So, let me ask you the first question: a) Do I have broad consensus of permission from you for this January 10 handover? Or should I accept that you all jump in as from now, and change things the way you want? b) Are you happy with the content I've developed (and am still continuing to develop)? Or am I going in a wrong direction? c) Do I really have a green light from the SC for this theme [1] [2]? It's a heck of a lot of work and, if I do it, I want to be *sure* that it is going to be used for the libreoffice.org site. So do I have a go or a no-go? Please do give me clear explicit answers from you all. TIA. ;-) [1] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:Nik [2] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/b/bc/SPECS_InterimSite_101224NS.jpg David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi Florian, Christian, Charles, Christoph, :-) I'm writing to you, in particular, as the 4 guys who *seem* to be the primary decision-takers as regards the English main site at libreoffice.org. By the end of the day on January 10, my remit to work on the site will be over. I'll be putting in a lot of time over the next days to spend more time on the content, and to make sure that the new theme is finished, too. IMHO, it was quite damaging to LibO that it has taken so long to put a site at libreoffice.org. I hope that the site will be well-managed in the future, with some proper strategic thinking about the content. I'd like to suggest that there should be an editing team officially appointed: - one *English NL* executive editor (with publishing/admin powers), who vets and edits content to be published, who follows the guidelines of Charles, Florian and Italo, and who liaises with and heads-up a contributors team from the marketing/website teams. I'd like to volunteer for that. But maybe there are also other better-qualified candidates? - Charles Schulz, Florian Effenberger and Italo Vignoli as managing editors (with publishing/admin powers). - one person from Design, Christoph Noack, with author powers, to consult with about buttons and images. I don't otherwise see the Design team playing much of a role in the running of the website, beyond ensuring compliance with the graphic charter (which is principally imposed by the theme). - one or two technical administrators: Christian Lohmaier and Erich Christian (with admin powers). My suggestion would be that they do limit themselves to *technical* administration alone, without any interest in the content side (this is what they currently do with the other NL sites). - one contributors team, principally of English NL speakers (each member with author powers). IMHO, if you organize things like this, you will have a tool that is efficiently run and that will provide TDF with the most-effective marketing platform. If you allow the site to be run in a chaotic, uncontrolled manner, I think you'll lose a lot of the benefit it could otherwise bring the foundation. In any case, may I encourage you to take some clear decisions about this over the next few days? David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi Michael, :-) On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 05:36, Michael Meeks wrote: >> a clear decision about the management of the libreoffice.org >> website. It's an important tool for marketing. I have plenty of ideas >> about how to market with it > > Here is my clear idea: since you are doing the work - you get to own > it, lead it, and those that don't like what you do get to gripe at you, > and everyone else gets to back you up :-) [ if only to keep you > motivated, happy and productive ;-]. I get the idea, but I'm not sure if it is really viable as a form of management. For instance, me, I want to do *work* for the project. But I don't want to spend more time writing to lists arguing with people, etc, than actually doing useful work. My experience to date has been 90% debating by e-mail and 10% actual work... And I certainly didn't feel too much back up until the last few days... So I probably won't be tempted to carry on the work past my original goal of seeing the LibreOffice community with a website. At the moment, spending more time with my guitar sounds more inviting! ;-) >> and I would like to get a clear remit to work on that with you. Please >> can you read my post [1] on the SC list and contribute your thoughts on it? > > I read it - it had about five new formal roles in it - so I didn't like > it. I'd much prefer that you were the leader by dint of actually doing > all the hard work (like you are now) :-) I do see what you mean, but working on the website for the project has not been a good experience so far... A whole lot of criticism, very little useful support, very little practical help from anyone... > (personally) I am not a big believer in lots of formal access control - > but in social pressure and consensus building: > you created some nice > content - how can we help you stop other people mangling it ? I don't really know, Michael... You tell me? :-D >> If you allow the site to be run in a chaotic, uncontrolled manner, >> I think you'll lose a lot of the benefit it could otherwise bring >> the foundation. > > True, so I wonder how we can help coax people into producing and > editing in a tasteful and restrained way ? how can we build good taste, > and/or asking-when-they-don't-know-the-answer into the community of > editors ? Well, again, this is apparently the SC's "laisse-faire" / anarchical style of community governance... or non-governance... so you tell me the answers to those questions... ;-) It's a system that might work when you're dealing with just people of goodwill and good intent... but we all know that there are always some people with negative behaviors and attitudes... How is one supposed to cope with them? In practice, this anarchical "management style" did not build you a website. When left to organize the work by themselves, the "website team" did not build you any kind of website at all. It took nearly 3 months before LibreOffice got a website. And that was due, in large part, to the bloody-minded obstinacy of one person. My humble 2 cents is that the SC's social experiment has proved a failure. And if you count on the same methods for the future management of your website, I think you'll reap either more failure or - at best - a mediocre result. I think I'd like to start a larger debate about where TDF is going when i finished the work on the website and hand it back to you to manage however you feel best. ;-) > Does that help ? :-) Well, it gives me an idea of you guys' position... Thanks for that... But so far it doesn't actually help as such, no... :-D In any case, thanks for your input. ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi guys, :-) I would like to make a proposal. I consider that the libreoffice.org website is a resource that can be of strategic importance to TDF and the community. I have a bunch of ideas for further developing it and using it to further the project's aims and interests. To do that job, I would ask - for a period of 4 months, subsequently renewable on condition of the SC's approval - for complete authority and final veto on all content on the libreoffice.org website. I want to be considered *the boss* of the libreoffice.org website, and my decisions would only be overridden by a majority vote of SC members. Anything short of that, my decision wins. This would give me the necessary authority to try some imaginative and ambitious plans that I will put to Marketing. I would ask for the title of "Executive editor of the libreoffice.org website". The only reason I have for asking for this title is that it gives me a handle to use in relations with outside parties, such as the press. If you feel able to grant me this trust, you can be sure that I will act responsibly and wisely, and that my sole aim will be to advance and protect the interests of the LibreOffice project and community. I believe in teamwork and community-building. I would be keen to listen to and to learn from others, and to take the smartest decisions possible. I would seek to leave behind a positive contribution. Your decision would be sealed by an official vote at the next SC meeting. What do you say, guys? ;-) Can we try this experiment and see what it produces? David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi Charles, guys :-) I've read all your responses. Thanks for having taken time to give me an answer. ;-) On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 00:28, Charles-H. Schulz wrote: > I'm not really comfortable with this extraordinary powers over that > period and I would rather favour you driving a team (-an official team > that is-) . However, this is the Steering Discuss list, which means > that you have written an official and public request to the SC and we > are bound to discuss it at the next SC call, which we will do. OK, thank you. if that will be OK with you guys, I'd like to take not more than 60 seconds to present my thinking to you. If you decide to take a vote on it, then I will happily accept whatever decision you take. In any case, the most important thing would be to take *some* kind of decision that ensures some form of proper future development of the website. Personally, I'm wondering if this is not going to end up as some kind of committee of committees, with endless discussions, little opportunity to take action, etc. Or should one give everyone publishers rights and the first one to log in gets to deface the site to his/her taste? ;-) Two ridiculous extremes, but they could easily happen unless you do something to prevent it... In any case, I have been feeling rather strongly for a few weeks that some affirmative action is needed in community governance. IMHO, the situation with the website is closely linked to an unsatisfactory situation regarding governance. I will start another thread on this subject. I will be listening with interest to the next SC confcall. ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws
Hi SC members, :-) Charles wrote an excellent set of Community Bylaws. I would like to see them officially adopted and applied. And I would like to see the various committees and governance systems in the Community Bylaws set up and become active. I feel that this is important for the future of LibreOffice. I strongly support the project, and I want to see it succeed. I think we need to take action quite quickly. I have noted how the level of involvement and contribution by "active community members" has tailed off. I have noticed how few user support queries there are on the user support list. It is my impression that the level of contribution to development is also decreasing. We have a situation in which a key project resource, the libreoffice.org website, is becoming the center of pushing and pulling for control over its development. Decisions are needed about the website's management (editorial team), and about the future direction of its development (the question of Drupal adoption is becoming extremely disruptive and divisive in this fledgling project). I personally have experienced wanting to implement 2 great initiatives (proactive contact with Linux projects, and organization of interviews with BBC TV and radio for Charles and/or other SC members) only to find certain SC members strongly discouraging me to take action, refusing to give any constructive consideration, or totally ignoring me and not giving any reaction at all on the subject. When I have suggested bold initiatives, there have been very proprietary, "control freak" reactions from some SC members, with talk of "this is so and so's field of responsibility", and I'm strongly discouraged from taking the idea further. These attitudes and some other attitudes I have encountered from certain SC members are contrary to the principles of good meritocracy and equality of membership laid down in the bylaws. Personally, I sometimes get the impression that there is currently a three-tier membership in this project: new community members like me: 1 vote. past OOo community members: 1.5 votes. SC members 3 votes (or simple dictation of decision). I have had this impression a number of times while contributing work to the project. I know that there are at least *some* other people who would agree fairly closely with this assertion. I have an impression that, "All members are equal, but some are more equal than others". :-D The SC was a necessary institution when TDF was first launched. But it was only supposed to be a temporary body. Some SC members now seem to becoming rooted in their positions of decision-taking power. The situation is becoming undemocratic and non-meritocratic. IMHO, it starts to resemble a form of "Communism going wrong". ;-) I seriously believe that, if you do not take quick action, the LibreOffice project is in serious danger of imploding within the next couple of months or before the end of the year. Contributors will progressively drop away. Less and less work will be contributed. Ultimately, tensions will arise within the SC itself, and disagreements will break out; if the SC itself were to fragment, the LibreOffice project could end up orphaned. In the present situation, you cannot attract more corporate contributors/partners to the project, because there is not the necessary governance. The SC lacks proper legitimacy. If you do not take action fairly soon, could you perhaps even end-up losing the corporate contributors you currently have (Novell and Red Hat)? Even if TDF does not now have the funds to establish itself legally, there is nothing to stop you implementing the bylaws at a moral and organizational level right from the present time. You might then attract more financial contributions to enable you to set up a legal structure in either Germany or the UK. I hereby request you to discuss the issue of formal adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws during either the next SC confcall or - at latest - during the next-but-one SC confcall (if you need time to prepare), and to take some formal decisions in this respect within a short time frame. David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws
Hi Bernhard, guys, :-) On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:38, Bernhard Dippold wrote: > The Bylaws have been approved by the SC during their last call (or the one > before), so they are already adopted. I have seen *no* announcement about this on the TDF Discuss list. Plus I have monitored every public SC confcall, and I have seen no mention of this in the minutes. Has the SC been holding meetings that were unannounced and not public? > After the release of LibO 3.3.0 the Membership committee could start their > work in approving all the requests by active community members to become TDF > members. > > This will probably take a several weeks, Why so long? > but the main part of their work > will be finished before we start the election process for the Board of > Directors, that has to be established in September latest (as proposed by > the Steering Committee limiting it's existence to not more than one year). One year? Why so long? Maybe not all contributors are willing to wait so patiently. Reluctantly, I have to tell you that, IMHO, the SC is starting to fall into some of the same habits and attitudes that they said they were fleeing from within OOo. >> Personally, I sometimes get the impression that there is currently a >> three-tier membership in this project: new community members like me: >> 1 vote. past OOo community members: 1.5 votes. SC members 3 votes (or >> simple dictation of decision). I have had this impression a number of >> times while contributing work to the project. I know that there are at >> least *some* other people who would agree fairly closely with this >> assertion. I have an impression that, "All members are equal, but some >> are more equal than others". :-D > > Your assumption is not really wrong: Even if there are no real votes, merit > does count more than just discussion. What I am talking about is my experience that, for example, some ex-OOo people have seemed to feel in a position of authority to direct my own work contributions, despite the fact that they don't seem to have made any visible work contribution themselves since the launch of the LibreOffice project. This also seems to apply to certain SC members, too. This is contrary to the meritocratic and egalitarian principles of the Community Bylaws - as is the assumption that former OOo involvement gives you a free credit of authority and merit within the LibreOffice project. The bylaws talk about *equality*. Situations like this always tend to worsen over time, and fester. I believe it's time to fix the problem before it causes irremediable damage to the project. > But the SC has legitimacy until September - I didn't hear any possible > sponsor asking for a shorter period of time. Please can someone explain, with no bullshit, why we have to wait 9 more months? ;-) Bernhard, thanks for your responses. What I wrote above should be understood to have been said in the friendliest of terms. ;-) Frankly, I tend to lose track of long mailing list discussions - my attention span for them is very short. I will look forward to talking about this during an SC confcall, and i will happily read anyone who posts back here in the meantime. I do support TDF. I thoroughly support the values and principles Charles wrote so admirably into the Community Bylaws. And I am very keen to see a true and proper community life and governance started as soon as possible. ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Re: Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws
Hi, :-) @Sophie: Me, too, I was a little saddened at your answers. a) I am not bringing up this issue because of any response to my proposal about the website management. I said at least a couple of times that the SC needs to take some kind of decision in order to ensure it gets managed properly in the future. At this point, I don't mind at all whether I am involved in the website in the future or not. ;-) My goal of seeing that site operational and looking halfway decent has been achieved. I already got my satisfaction. So, please may I ask you all to have the courtesy not to make that accusation again. It sincerely hurt my feelings. ;-) b) I am sad that you do not seem to share in *all* those fine ideals in the Community Bylaws. I am sad that you don't share in the egalitarian, purely meritocratic principles, and that you see a multiple-tier membership. I am sad that you do not seem to want that adventure of democratic and meritocratic community life to begin soon, and that you use the excuse of complicated legal arrangements to procrastinate. In reality, the implementation of the bylaws and community governance is not necessarily linked to the legal formation of the foundation, and can be conducted on a moral and organizational level *totally independently*. @Charles: I just read your reply as I was writing back to Sophie. > David I must admit I am surprised by your reaction, because the reason > our bylaws are not officially implemented at this stage was explained > during one confcall (early September if I recall) and on this mailing > list too. Read this: > http://www.mail-archive.com/steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org/msg00229.html Yes, I realize the bylaws are largely finalized. I had hoped to see them implemented with *much* more urgency than September, 9 months away. You will remember how I assisted you when you were drafting them. I was excited, enthusiastic very inspired at the prospect of a truly open, meritocratic and egalitarian Open Source community. I don't want to see the hopes fade. > Last but not least, your perception of our health as a community is > somewhat pessimistic and does not seem to rest on any clear metrics; > but perhaps you're just expressing your opinion. Yes, this is purely what I gage through my own observation. But I'm only saying to *warn* you guys of a possible scenario. Believe me, friends, I have *also* invested serious work in trying to make sure such a scenario will not happen. That is why I pushed so hard to get the libreoffice.org website online. > However, it is true that since nobody's perfect, the SC and its > members did some mistakes and the ones I can point out were that we > haven't been directing the website works enough. I think that we're > entering a stage where the SC and are project is going to rationalize > its own activities as purpose and specific goals will be set and > discussed and teams will be formed. Then this will be good. Charles, you know very well that I have not simply ranted about problems on mailing lists. Instead, I have put in plenty of work to fix them. But this issue of slowness and inertia in fully implementing the Community Bylaws and governance is something that only *you* guys can fix. And, as a concerned community member, all I can do is to raise the issue for discussion and action. I sincerely believe that it is for the ultimate good of the Community. > But to claim that there are dual > and perhaps triple standards depending on the people is perfectly > wrong. While for specific things we do integrate members of the OOo > community faster than others the door is always open and everyone has > to contribute: there are reserved seats as long as the people sitting > on them fulfill their roles. If they don't, the seat goes to someone > else. I do *hope* I am wrong. I hope all of the above is true. For the moment, I have not seen the proof. ;-) Don't *tell* me I'm wrong, *show* me I'm wrong. ;-) > So to come back on the bylaws: we can start to implement them little by > little but they will only be fully enforced and implemented once we > have a legal entity. Before we can only lay the pillars and set up > whatever can be set up without interfering with the legal entity in > formation. I think that most of the bylaws can be put into practice absolutely independently of the existence of any legal entity. They are a moral form of governance and organization. Very little is keyed on any legal entity as such. Therefore, may I please enjoin the SC to start with implementation as soon as possible? I truly hope that the dream you envisioned in the Community Bylaws you wrote is not going to slip away. ;-) David Nelson P.S. For those who have not yet read my original post, can I invite you to read it below? ;-) On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 10:49, David Nelson wrote: > Hi SC mem
[steering-discuss] Re: Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws
Hi Andreas, :-) > There is currently no legal entity or a legal organisation TDF. Every thing > is in the > course of formation. Because I know a bit about German law I can assure you > that it > takes a longer time (not days or a month) to establish a foundation. Forming the legal entity, the Foundation will take time. But that has no connection with the implementation of the Community Bylaws. The existence of the Foundation is *not* necessary before implementing almost every clause of the Community Bylaws. You can set up the ESC. You can set up the membership committee. You can hold elections for the BoD, as a *morally-implemented* team. You can set up the proportional-representation voting system. You can hold elections and votes. You can appoint teams. You can appoint team leads. The *moral* life of the Community can exist and function entirely independently of whether or not there is yet an officially-formed Foundation under German or UK law. And most notably, you can already implement all the principles of community consultation and information, membership equality and meritocracy, exactly as Charles wrote them and as I re-phrased them into good, clear English. When you *truly* implement the Community Bylaws, and all the instances and principles of governance of the Bylaws, and all the principles laid down in the Bylaws (without waiting for the legal, "physical" formation of the Foundation), then you will have truly built a community, and you will be able to claim legitimacy. I would like to see an interim MC formed within the next 2-3 weeks, and for members to be considered and approved/rejected within 2-3 weeks after that. Then I would like to see elections held for the 9 seats of the BoD (a "virtual", "moral" BoD) within 3 weeks after the existence of an official body of Community members. When that happens, I feel sure that LibreOffice will truly take-off as a community, we will see genuine meritocracy, and there will be a healthy situation within the LibreOffice project. David Nelson On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 10:49, David Nelson wrote: > Hi SC members, :-) > > Charles wrote an excellent set of Community Bylaws. I would like to > see them officially adopted and applied. And I would like to see the > various committees and governance systems in the Community Bylaws set > up and become active. > > I feel that this is important for the future of LibreOffice. I > strongly support the project, and I want to see it succeed. I think we > need to take action quite quickly. > > I have noted how the level of involvement and contribution by "active > community members" has tailed off. I have noticed how few user support > queries there are on the user support list. It is my impression that > the level of contribution to development is also decreasing. > > We have a situation in which a key project resource, the > libreoffice.org website, is becoming the center of pushing and pulling > for control over its development. Decisions are needed about the > website's management (editorial team), and about the future direction > of its development (the question of Drupal adoption is becoming > extremely disruptive and divisive in this fledgling project). > > I personally have experienced wanting to implement 2 great initiatives > (proactive contact with Linux projects, and organization of interviews > with BBC TV and radio for Charles and/or other SC members) only to > find certain SC members strongly discouraging me to take action, > refusing to give any constructive consideration, or totally ignoring > me and not giving any reaction at all on the subject. > > When I have suggested bold initiatives, there have been very > proprietary, "control freak" reactions from some SC members, with talk > of "this is so and so's field of responsibility", and I'm strongly > discouraged from taking the idea further. > > These attitudes and some other attitudes I have encountered from > certain SC members are contrary to the > principles of good meritocracy and equality of membership laid down in > the bylaws. > > Personally, I sometimes get the impression that there is currently a > three-tier membership in this project: new community members like me: > 1 vote. past OOo community members: 1.5 votes. SC members 3 votes (or > simple dictation of decision). I have had this impression a number of > times while contributing work to the project. I know that there are at > least *some* other people who would agree fairly closely with this > assertion. I have an impression that, "All members are equal, but some > are more equal than others". :-D > > The SC was a necessary institution when TDF was first launched. But it > was only supposed to be a temporary body. Some SC membe
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: Decisions about libreoffice.org English main site management
Hi, :-) I took the liberty of adding an item to the agenda of the next SC meeting on Thursday, Jan 13, for you to discuss and decide about the future management of the website. I have explained my ideas about the need for an editorial team, I am not trying to push any personal agenda. My only wish, after having pushed so hard to get it to its current state of existence, is that it should be properly managed and developed as a resource for the community. I trust in your intelligence and discretion to achieve that. ;-) David Nelson On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 09:26, David Nelson wrote: > Hi Charles, guys :-) > > I've read all your responses. Thanks for having taken time to give me > an answer. ;-) > > On Sat, Jan 8, 2011 at 00:28, Charles-H. Schulz > wrote: >> I'm not really comfortable with this extraordinary powers over that >> period and I would rather favour you driving a team (-an official team >> that is-) . However, this is the Steering Discuss list, which means >> that you have written an official and public request to the SC and we >> are bound to discuss it at the next SC call, which we will do. > > OK, thank you. if that will be OK with you guys, I'd like to take not > more than 60 seconds to present my thinking to you. If you decide to > take a vote on it, then I will happily accept whatever decision you > take. In any case, the most important thing would be to take *some* > kind of decision that ensures some form of proper future development > of the website. > > Personally, I'm wondering if this is not going to end up as some kind > of committee of committees, with endless discussions, little > opportunity to take action, etc. Or should one give everyone > publishers rights and the first one to log in gets to deface the site > to his/her taste? ;-) Two ridiculous extremes, but they could easily > happen unless you do something to prevent it... > > In any case, I have been feeling rather strongly for a few weeks that > some affirmative action is needed in community governance. IMHO, the > situation with the website is closely linked to an unsatisfactory > situation regarding governance. I will start another thread on this > subject. > > I will be listening with interest to the next SC confcall. ;-) > > David Nelson > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Re: Adoption and implementation of the Community Bylaws
number of real project workers; - it would undoubtedly be perceived positively by outside corporate / enterprise observers (Ubuntu and many others); - each announcement of a significant step forward in bylaw / governance implementation can be turned into very positive publicity and marketing, and reverberated around the Net (via TDF blog articles, coverage on our social media, and proactive contact with prominent bloggers and journalists). Conclusion = I hope you will not perceive everything I have said in this thread as just negative ranting. Having posted this message, I will spend a large part of this day doing actual work for the project. It is all uniquely intended to try and raise your awareness about possible dangers that I see, and about viewpoints that may not have occurred to you. I hope only to see the LibreOffice project and TDF survive and succeed. But I do think the SC needs to take action *urgently*. [1] http://www.itworld.com/open-source/132546/ubuntu-libreoffice-replacing-openofficeorg-reports-premature David Nelson On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 10:49, David Nelson wrote: > Hi SC members, :-) > > Charles wrote an excellent set of Community Bylaws. I would like to > see them officially adopted and applied. And I would like to see the > various committees and governance systems in the Community Bylaws set > up and become active. > > I feel that this is important for the future of LibreOffice. I > strongly support the project, and I want to see it succeed. I think we > need to take action quite quickly. > > I have noted how the level of involvement and contribution by "active > community members" has tailed off. I have noticed how few user support > queries there are on the user support list. It is my impression that > the level of contribution to development is also decreasing. > > We have a situation in which a key project resource, the > libreoffice.org website, is becoming the center of pushing and pulling > for control over its development. Decisions are needed about the > website's management (editorial team), and about the future direction > of its development (the question of Drupal adoption is becoming > extremely disruptive and divisive in this fledgling project). > > I personally have experienced wanting to implement 2 great initiatives > (proactive contact with Linux projects, and organization of interviews > with BBC TV and radio for Charles and/or other SC members) only to > find certain SC members strongly discouraging me to take action, > refusing to give any constructive consideration, or totally ignoring > me and not giving any reaction at all on the subject. > > When I have suggested bold initiatives, there have been very > proprietary, "control freak" reactions from some SC members, with talk > of "this is so and so's field of responsibility", and I'm strongly > discouraged from taking the idea further. > > These attitudes and some other attitudes I have encountered from > certain SC members are contrary to the > principles of good meritocracy and equality of membership laid down in > the bylaws. > > Personally, I sometimes get the impression that there is currently a > three-tier membership in this project: new community members like me: > 1 vote. past OOo community members: 1.5 votes. SC members 3 votes (or > simple dictation of decision). I have had this impression a number of > times while contributing work to the project. I know that there are at > least *some* other people who would agree fairly closely with this > assertion. I have an impression that, "All members are equal, but some > are more equal than others". :-D > > The SC was a necessary institution when TDF was first launched. But it > was only supposed to be a temporary body. Some SC members now seem to > becoming rooted in their positions of decision-taking power. The > situation is becoming undemocratic and non-meritocratic. IMHO, it > starts to resemble a form of "Communism going wrong". ;-) > > I seriously believe that, if you do not take quick action, the > LibreOffice project is in serious danger of imploding within the next > couple of months or before the end of the year. Contributors will > progressively drop away. Less and less work will be contributed. > Ultimately, tensions will arise within the SC itself, and > disagreements will break out; if the SC itself were to fragment, the > LibreOffice project could end up orphaned. > > In the present situation, you cannot attract more corporate > contributors/partners to the project, because there is not the > necessary governance. The SC lacks proper legitimacy. If you do not > take action fairly soon, could you perhaps even end-up losing the > corporate contributors you currently
Re: [steering-discuss] libreoffice.org e-mail accounts
Hi, :-) Small idea: have you considered using Google Apps for the project's mail needs? *So* easy to set-up, *so* easy to maintain, feature-packed, and I'm sure they will give TDF a free upgrade to an enterprise account. Lots of other benefits, too. David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] libreoffice.org e-mail accounts
Hi, :-) If it's not a "real" libreoffice.org or documentfoundation.org account, I don't think anyone will be interested. I know I wouldn't bother using one of these "libreofficecommunity.org", etc., accounts myself i'd just use my own mail account in that case 0.2 cents. ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] Minutes of SC call 2011-01-13 for review
Hi Stefan, :-)
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 04:34, Stefan Weigel
wrote:
> # decision: SC appoints a team of 4 people that will be responsible
> for managing the website for a trial period of two months
> this team consists of:
>
>
> Is this for the international ("main") site only? Are we still
> allowed to use our roles as authors and publishers in Silverstripe,
> as we have done the past weeks?
My interpretation is that the decision concerns the English main site
(it does not cover the NL sites).
During this trial period, you should not use your SilverStripe
author/publisher permissions to do any stuff on the English main site
without the prior agreement of the person in charge of content (me).
But people can do what they like on the NL sites - it's not our/my business.
However, the SC specifically asked me to seek to build a contributor
team, as regards content, and I will be doing that (started already -
see [1]). So if you're interested in working on the English NL site,
there will definitely be the opportunity (although I will be
preferring English NL contributors for drafting content).
However, you do need to get a remit from me first. No just jumping in. ;-)
And, of course, we will be paying attention to feedback from the community.
SC, is the above a reasonable interpretation of your intentions?
[1]
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Call-for-volunteers-to-work-on-the-libreoffice-org-website-content-tp2258026p2258026.html
David Nelson
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] libreoffice.org e-mail accounts
Hi, :-) On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 20:53, Volker Merschmann wrote: > Don't you think that the rule that active contributing is mandatory > for membership does apply? Else there will be members of different > degrees. :-( +1 David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] connecting external services to our domain
Hi, :-) The situation is that the workflow can already be considered to be 80% or 90% complete, and the next step will be some pilot testing with actual work on documentation content, which could start later this week. In parallel, I'd also been planning to throw open an invite to i18n people who might be interested in Alfresco as a tool for their work. That might require the development of a separate workflow, depending on what usage was envisioned. But what seems to be the active core of the documentation team does not seem to be at all averse to adopting Alfresco for documentation work. Personally, I'm perfectly happy to operate the Alfresco site on my server, and to grant all appropriate access to relevant TDF SC members at OS level. I had suggested alfresco.libreoffice.org for the sub-domain. However, I will - of course - cooperate fully with whatever decision the SC takes. The main need would be to take a decision fairy soon, before the number of user accounts, the sophistication of the workflow and the mass of data and content reach a point at which migration becomes a bigger task. You would probably find it useful to know that installing and setting-up Alfresco is a not-inconsiderable process, and that you want a minimum of 1 Gigabyte of memory, with 2 to 3 being recommended to me for a busier system. My server has excellent 24/7 technical support. Thoughts? David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] connecting external services to our domain
Hi Florian, :-) On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 21:37, Florian Effenberger wrote: > * self-hosted servers can only be connected if they are in our > infrastructure management and fit our security requirements Actually, I only just properly read your original post Is there a way I can satisfy this constraint, or should we just set this idea aside? If you don't want to assign the subdomain 'alfresco.libreoffice.org' and if the docs team seems interested in using the site on my server, what would be your thoughts if I renamed the domain to 'libreoffice.myserver.com'? David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] connecting external services to our domain
Hi Florian, :-) Ah! Now I understand why you kept me waiting for 2 weeks for any kind of reply to my request! :-D http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/ODFAuthors-Site-with-workflow-tp2282617p2282617.html David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] next SC call tomorrow, 1700 UTC
Hi Florian, :-) Wow! What inconvenient timing... We had planned the website conference call for Friday 21 January @ 5pm GMT too! I was going to catch you on the Marketing call tonight to ask you if you could give us the codes for that... Is there any chance you could maybe re-schedule the SC call for this one time? This would really be an important call for the website team... Could you maybe do the SC call at 9 pm GMT, for instance? David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] next SC call tomorrow, 1700 UTC
Hi, :-) Could you maybe make it 2 hours later? This would be likely to be a long call. David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] next SC call tomorrow, 1700 UTC
Hi, :-) If you could have the SC call at 19.00 UTC it would be so great... This is a very special conversation we want to have tomorrow, and it's likely to be lnngg... David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] connecting external services to our domain
Hi Florian, :-) All the active members of the docs team have accounts on the Alfresco site I'm hosting right now. There is a general consensus/willingness to use it, and people have already started trying it out for actual work. Putting it under a TDF sub-domain will only further strengthen people's commitment to uptake. We're ready to start a pilot work project, using the workflow that has been developed. We have a system set up with: - a custom-designed workflow for the docs team, developed by a professional Alfresco developer and a member of the docs team, - full git-like versioning, - rollback, - discussion around documents, - full built-in support for ODF/OOo/LibreOffice file formats, - simple usage (publication/updating) for users via the use of an existing plugin for OOo/LibO that lets you collaborate right from within the LibO applications, - sophisticated searching capability, that can extend right into hosted documents. Basically, we have all the sophisticated functionality we need for properly-managed, automation-assisted documentation development and prepping for publication, with the potential ability to interface with a variety of outside systems, such as directly with the LibreOffice code repository... It would be a great tool for producing developer documentation in the future, in addition to the user documentation the docs team is now working on. It could also be used for easy management of HTML content on TDF servers (documentfoundation.org, for instance), and for a variety of other purposes. Using Alfresco, we will be able to develop all our documentation and many other kinds of content in-house, and we will acquire expertise and autonomy within the LibreOffice project and docs team. The advantages of hosting it on my server would be as follows: 1) It's quite a complicated package to set-up and configure. It is quite memory-hungry. On my server, it is already fully operational. No workload or worry for you. Version upgrades will be done whenever I want, without putting workload and responsibility on you. 2) On my server, it is running within an environment that is simple to manage. No problems of conflicts with the many other software products that TDF runs. You get none of the complications that would inevitably exist with integrating Alfresco into a TDF server. 3) I have access to 24/7 professional technical support, with in-house Alfresco expertise. Any problems can be troubleshot within minutes, at any time of day or night, with no problems of people on vacation, sick, etc. 4) On my server, I have full root access and full control over all the other software running on the server. I can't have that on a TDF server. 5) On my server, I can peacefully reboot the system at any time and, generally, do anything I want, without having to worry about other users, running software, etc. And one does need to anticipate occasional *total* system outages during the running-in period. 6) On my server, I can do memory and disk space upgrades 24/7 within minutes. That kind of turnaround will not be available on a TDF server. 7) The server is hosted in a secure data center in the UK, and automated backups are taken at regular intervals, under my control. 8) You and Christian already have admin access to the Alfresco back end. You can also both have permanent SSH user accounts to inspect the server, suggest security improvements, etc. But you will find pretty much the same security arrangements as I found on documentfoundation.org. 9) I undertake to provide TDF with the best-possible service, and to work on building a strong docs team and documentation base for LibreOffice. I will also make a major effort in the future to expand the number of active docs contributors within the LibreOffice project. If you agree, the sub-domain name I would suggest would be alfresco.libreoffice.org. What do you think? ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] next SC call tomorrow, 1700 UTC
Hi Charles, :-) I understand that Mike is rescheduling the call. I'll fit in with whatever time is chosen. (It will be about 2 a.m. my time, most likely, if 19.00 UTC is chosen.) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] connecting external services to our domain
Hi, :-) On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 23:20, Nino Novak wrote: > 1) Is there any integration (planned?) with odfauthors or is it just > about a new and different place to produce documentation (specific for > libreoffice maybe)? IMHO, it is in the best interests of LibreOffice project for the LibreOffice documentation project to have its own workflow, expertise and policies for LibreOffice documentation. However, I proactively asked Jean Weber (odfauthors.org) to be part of the Alfresco site and the LibreOffice documentation team. I invited her to have an admin account on the Alfresco site, and actually gave her one despite her only-lukewarm interest, to encourage her close participation. But she is very taken up with odfauthors, and does not seem want any close involvement in the LibreOffice documentation team. I even suggested to her to take team leadership of the LibreOffice docs team two times in the past. But she's very much occupied with odfauthors. In any case, no matter what similarities there might be between OOo and LibO right at present, the two products are quickly going to diverge. LibreOffice might as well start developing its own documentation team and expertise now. On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 23:20, Nino Novak wrote: > 2) what about the l10n people? Are they involved already or is it > planned to involve them? Or is it just about to create "international" > (i.e. English) documents (optionally serving as master for translation)? There is every opportunity for interested l10n people to work with Alfresco, and I have been intending to throw open an invitation. But I've held back on that until a) the SC grants me a remit to operate an Alfresco server for the project and b) I've been able to consult and liaise with Sophie Gauthier beforehand. On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 22:35, Jaime R. Garza wrote: > who is sponsoring your server? No-one is sponsoring it. I operate it myself. On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 22:35, Jaime R. Garza wrote: > What would be your benefit? The pleasure, interest and kudos of working for TDF and the LibreOffice Open Source project? Worthwhile professional experience? On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 22:35, Jaime R. Garza wrote: > And how can you warranty the uptime and performance and for how long? The server is hosted in a high-quality, secure data center in the UK, with all the security and backup systems you find in such modern infrastructures. I can't *warranty* the server uptime and performances beyond a best-effort, good-faith commitment and the guarantees offered by the data center. But Open Source projects don't offer better, do they? For how long? Not beyond my death, in any case. Up to then, things should be OK. But, seriously, I would always cooperate in all good faith in a handover, and would always make best arrangements not to damage the LibreOffice project's interests. I *care* about the project, and I *care* about my reputation. ;-) Florian, SC, please read my post below: David Nelson On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 22:02, David Nelson wrote: > Hi Florian, :-) > > All the active members of the docs team have accounts on the Alfresco > site I'm hosting right now. There is a general consensus/willingness > to use it, and people have already started trying it out for actual > work. > > Putting it under a TDF sub-domain will only further strengthen > people's commitment to uptake. > > We're ready to start a pilot work project, using the workflow that has > been developed. We have a system set up with: > > - a custom-designed workflow for the docs team, developed by a > professional Alfresco developer and a member of the docs team, > - full git-like versioning, > - rollback, > - discussion around documents, > - full built-in support for ODF/OOo/LibreOffice file formats, > - simple usage (publication/updating) for users via the use of an > existing plugin for OOo/LibO that lets you collaborate right from > within the LibO applications, > - sophisticated searching capability, that can extend right into > hosted documents. > > Basically, we have all the sophisticated functionality we need for > properly-managed, automation-assisted documentation development and > prepping for publication, with the potential ability to interface with > a variety of outside systems, such as directly with the LibreOffice > code repository... > > It would be a great tool for producing developer documentation in the > future, in addition to the user documentation the docs team is now > working on. > > It could also be used for easy management of HTML content on TDF > servers (documentfoundation.org, for instance), and for a variety of > other purposes. > > Using Alfresco, we will be able to develop all our documentation and > many other kinds of content in-house, and we will acquire expertise &
Re: [steering-discuss] connecting external services to our domain
Hi Andreas, :-) You're obviously entitled to your opinions, and I'm obviously entitled to mine. ;-) But this is a request that I'm submitting to the SC for their consideration. David Nelson On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 22:02, David Nelson wrote: > Hi Florian, :-) > > All the active members of the docs team have accounts on the Alfresco > site I'm hosting right now. There is a general consensus/willingness > to use it, and people have already started trying it out for actual > work. > > Putting it under a TDF sub-domain will only further strengthen > people's commitment to uptake. > > We're ready to start a pilot work project, using the workflow that has > been developed. We have a system set up with: > > - a custom-designed workflow for the docs team, developed by a > professional Alfresco developer and a member of the docs team, > - full git-like versioning, > - rollback, > - discussion around documents, > - full built-in support for ODF/OOo/LibreOffice file formats, > - simple usage (publication/updating) for users via the use of an > existing plugin for OOo/LibO that lets you collaborate right from > within the LibO applications, > - sophisticated searching capability, that can extend right into > hosted documents. > > Basically, we have all the sophisticated functionality we need for > properly-managed, automation-assisted documentation development and > prepping for publication, with the potential ability to interface with > a variety of outside systems, such as directly with the LibreOffice > code repository... > > It would be a great tool for producing developer documentation in the > future, in addition to the user documentation the docs team is now > working on. > > It could also be used for easy management of HTML content on TDF > servers (documentfoundation.org, for instance), and for a variety of > other purposes. > > Using Alfresco, we will be able to develop all our documentation and > many other kinds of content in-house, and we will acquire expertise > and autonomy within the LibreOffice project and docs team. > > The advantages of hosting it on my server would be as follows: > > 1) It's quite a complicated package to set-up and configure. It is > quite memory-hungry. On my server, it is already fully operational. No > workload or worry for you. Version upgrades will be done whenever I > want, without putting workload and responsibility on you. > > 2) On my server, it is running within an environment that is simple to > manage. No problems of conflicts with the many other software products > that TDF runs. You get none of the complications that would inevitably > exist with integrating Alfresco into a TDF server. > > 3) I have access to 24/7 professional technical support, with in-house > Alfresco expertise. Any problems can be troubleshot within minutes, at > any time of day or night, with no problems of people on vacation, > sick, etc. > > 4) On my server, I have full root access and full control over all the > other software running on the server. I can't have that on a TDF > server. > > 5) On my server, I can peacefully reboot the system at any time and, > generally, do anything I want, without having to worry about other > users, running software, etc. And one does need to anticipate > occasional *total* system outages during the running-in period. > > 6) On my server, I can do memory and disk space upgrades 24/7 within > minutes. That kind of turnaround will not be available on a TDF > server. > > 7) The server is hosted in a secure data center in the UK, and > automated backups are taken at regular intervals, under my control. > > 8) You and Christian already have admin access to the Alfresco back > end. You can also both have permanent SSH user accounts to inspect the > server, suggest security improvements, etc. But you will find pretty > much the same security arrangements as I found on > documentfoundation.org. > > 9) I undertake to provide TDF with the best-possible service, and to > work on building a strong docs team and documentation base for > LibreOffice. I will also make a major effort in the future to expand > the number of active docs contributors within the LibreOffice project. > > If you agree, the sub-domain name I would suggest would be > alfresco.libreoffice.org. > > What do you think? ;-) > > David Nelson > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] connecting external services to our domain
Hi Andreas, :-) Thought: I think that odfauthors.org is a great resource for smaller Open Source projects that don't have the people, time or resources to properly develop their own documentation. But I think it's in the best interests of a *major* software project like LibreOffice to have an in-house documentation team that is really specialized in the product. David Nelson On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 22:02, David Nelson wrote: > Hi Florian, :-) > > All the active members of the docs team have accounts on the Alfresco > site I'm hosting right now. There is a general consensus/willingness > to use it, and people have already started trying it out for actual > work. > > Putting it under a TDF sub-domain will only further strengthen > people's commitment to uptake. > > We're ready to start a pilot work project, using the workflow that has > been developed. We have a system set up with: > > - a custom-designed workflow for the docs team, developed by a > professional Alfresco developer and a member of the docs team, > - full git-like versioning, > - rollback, > - discussion around documents, > - full built-in support for ODF/OOo/LibreOffice file formats, > - simple usage (publication/updating) for users via the use of an > existing plugin for OOo/LibO that lets you collaborate right from > within the LibO applications, > - sophisticated searching capability, that can extend right into > hosted documents. > > Basically, we have all the sophisticated functionality we need for > properly-managed, automation-assisted documentation development and > prepping for publication, with the potential ability to interface with > a variety of outside systems, such as directly with the LibreOffice > code repository... > > It would be a great tool for producing developer documentation in the > future, in addition to the user documentation the docs team is now > working on. > > It could also be used for easy management of HTML content on TDF > servers (documentfoundation.org, for instance), and for a variety of > other purposes. > > Using Alfresco, we will be able to develop all our documentation and > many other kinds of content in-house, and we will acquire expertise > and autonomy within the LibreOffice project and docs team. > > The advantages of hosting it on my server would be as follows: > > 1) It's quite a complicated package to set-up and configure. It is > quite memory-hungry. On my server, it is already fully operational. No > workload or worry for you. Version upgrades will be done whenever I > want, without putting workload and responsibility on you. > > 2) On my server, it is running within an environment that is simple to > manage. No problems of conflicts with the many other software products > that TDF runs. You get none of the complications that would inevitably > exist with integrating Alfresco into a TDF server. > > 3) I have access to 24/7 professional technical support, with in-house > Alfresco expertise. Any problems can be troubleshot within minutes, at > any time of day or night, with no problems of people on vacation, > sick, etc. > > 4) On my server, I have full root access and full control over all the > other software running on the server. I can't have that on a TDF > server. > > 5) On my server, I can peacefully reboot the system at any time and, > generally, do anything I want, without having to worry about other > users, running software, etc. And one does need to anticipate > occasional *total* system outages during the running-in period. > > 6) On my server, I can do memory and disk space upgrades 24/7 within > minutes. That kind of turnaround will not be available on a TDF > server. > > 7) The server is hosted in a secure data center in the UK, and > automated backups are taken at regular intervals, under my control. > > 8) You and Christian already have admin access to the Alfresco back > end. You can also both have permanent SSH user accounts to inspect the > server, suggest security improvements, etc. But you will find pretty > much the same security arrangements as I found on > documentfoundation.org. > > 9) I undertake to provide TDF with the best-possible service, and to > work on building a strong docs team and documentation base for > LibreOffice. I will also make a major effort in the future to expand > the number of active docs contributors within the LibreOffice project. > > If you agree, the sub-domain name I would suggest would be > alfresco.libreoffice.org. > > What do you think? ;-) > > David Nelson > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] connecting external services to our domain
Hi Andreas, :-) IMHO, the odfauthors.org software is far from being an ideal tool for the LibreOffice docs team. A) The odfauthors.org software is a product of a past time, when leading-edge systems like Alfresco had not yet reached maturity, that does not have all the features and power of a full-blooded content development system like Alfresco: a mature version control system; powerful and sophisticated workflow management; powerful content search capability able to search within the managed content; built-in discussion system that lets you anchor a discussion on a particular content object; easy updating and uploading of content from directly within the LibreOffice applications, via the Alfresco plugin for OOo/LibO; etc. B) The odfauthors.org software is a hybrid, one-off, custom application without any community taking its development forward. The odfauthors.org system is a software dead-end, based upon a CMS that is not very widely used, for which little technical support is available except from a small group of developers. Alfresco has an entire community behind it. C) The odfauthors.org software does not have the capabilities of Alfresco to cater to the LibreOffice project's future needs for a sophisticated product that can integrate closely with the project's other development systems. Alfresco can provide a powerful platform for the production and maintenance of developer documentation: API manuals, etc. The odfauthors.org software cannot compete with it feature-wise: it is a fairly manual system that is now dated. However, Andreas, please may I respectfully ask you to understand that, in this thread, I am trying to have a conversation with the SC members, and that I very much want them to be able to read my ideas without the thread being filled with OT comments about my posting habits, etc. You are actually giving rise to more posts in the thread than are necessary, and are making my actual topic harder to follow. Could you please respect my right to communicate with the SC? Thank you for your kindness if so. ;-) If you want to continue a discussion of the relative merits of the two products, may I ask you to reply to this post in a *new and separate thread*? Thank you for your understanding if so. ;-) David Nelson On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 22:02, David Nelson wrote: > Hi Florian, :-) > > All the active members of the docs team have accounts on the Alfresco > site I'm hosting right now. There is a general consensus/willingness > to use it, and people have already started trying it out for actual > work. > > Putting it under a TDF sub-domain will only further strengthen > people's commitment to uptake. > > We're ready to start a pilot work project, using the workflow that has > been developed. We have a system set up with: > > - a custom-designed workflow for the docs team, developed by a > professional Alfresco developer and a member of the docs team, > - full git-like versioning, > - rollback, > - discussion around documents, > - full built-in support for ODF/OOo/LibreOffice file formats, > - simple usage (publication/updating) for users via the use of an > existing plugin for OOo/LibO that lets you collaborate right from > within the LibO applications, > - sophisticated searching capability, that can extend right into > hosted documents. > > Basically, we have all the sophisticated functionality we need for > properly-managed, automation-assisted documentation development and > prepping for publication, with the potential ability to interface with > a variety of outside systems, such as directly with the LibreOffice > code repository... > > It would be a great tool for producing developer documentation in the > future, in addition to the user documentation the docs team is now > working on. > > It could also be used for easy management of HTML content on TDF > servers (documentfoundation.org, for instance), and for a variety of > other purposes. > > Using Alfresco, we will be able to develop all our documentation and > many other kinds of content in-house, and we will acquire expertise > and autonomy within the LibreOffice project and docs team. > > The advantages of hosting it on my server would be as follows: > > 1) It's quite a complicated package to set-up and configure. It is > quite memory-hungry. On my server, it is already fully operational. No > workload or worry for you. Version upgrades will be done whenever I > want, without putting workload and responsibility on you. > > 2) On my server, it is running within an environment that is simple to > manage. No problems of conflicts with the many other software products > that TDF runs. You get none of the complications that would inevitably > exist with integrating Alfresco into a TDF server. > > 3) I have access to 24/7 professional t
[steering-discuss] Re: [libreoffice-website] Hassles and woes - and how to solve them
Hi Florian, Steering Commitee, world, :-) Really great job, Florian. Blogging like [1] this brings home to people the human side of the SC members (we used to think you were all wizards sitting on a cloud in the sky, who could accomplish miracles on first demand). Blogging is also a great chance to set forth and explain the reasons for many aspects of TDF policies and decisions, and for explaining your thoughts and feelings in a place that is rather more sticky and durable than a mailing list post. It also makes the TDF blog a hot place to visit regularly for "inside" news and views. I would really encourage *other* members of the SC to also blog in the same way: Charles, Michael, Thorsten, Italo, and all of you. I really feel that it is one *important key* to good communications and community cultivation. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this post, and would love to see blog posts coming at the rate of about 3 a week... That would only be one blog post per SC member every once in a while... Could be very beneficial to community life? 2 cents. ;-) [1] http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/01/22/hassles-and-woes-and-how-to-solve-them/ David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] help in blog moderating
Hi Florian, :-) I could volunteer as well, if you like. David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] About Membership Committee
Hi, :-) "assign one MC-member to each application who is in charge to review the application (this should be based on the work area of the applicant. e.g. Fridrich might review developer's applications, Sophi UX, design, work in locale teams, André does l10n, QA, website)" Documentation team contributors are currently in disgrace? ;-) David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] On forums for LibreOffice
Hi Charles, :-) In that case, would it be a good idea to have a link to them in the text of the "Get Help" page? If so, can you give the links you suggest? David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] About Membership Committee
Hi, :-) On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 20:45, Andre Schnabel wrote: > I'd guess sooner or later three MC members will not be enough to process > all the applications and review all types of activities. If you need a hand, please feel free to invite me. David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] SC Vote on first members of TDF
Hi, :-) I really like this open vote - it's just the kind of openness I was longing to see when we worked on the bylaws. I know it's maybe not suitable for every single vote, but it would be good to see it for as many as possible. Congratulations, and thank you for this one more step forward towards the community's organization. Viva LibreOffice! David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[steering-discuss] Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: LibreOffice Community starts 50, 000 Euro challenge for setting-up its foundation
Hi Alex, :-) On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 19:27, Alexander Thurgood wrote: > Le 16/02/11 13:18, Florian Effenberger a écrit : > > Hi Florian, > > I see that this page exists translated into German and Spanish. If I > wanted to provide a translation into French, how would I go about doing > that ? At present, I have no access as author to the TDF website, and > don't see any real need to have one. Couldn't I just send someone the > translation ? If you like, you can send it to me and I'll post it Monday or Tuesday. David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [steering-discuss] proofreading the German bylaws
Hi, :-) I had another read through the bylaws, and there is one section that might be usefully updated: Continuity of Membership. The clause granting merit for past OOo contributions and qualifying former OOo people is surely past now? Does that clause still have utility? David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Suggested blog about MC work and philosophy
Hi, :-) I took the liberty of proofreading the post a bit and editing slightly. See below, plus attached ODT file. HTH. David Nelson TDF has new members The opening of the membership process was announced last Tuesday (http://blog.documentfoundation.org/2011/04/19/the-document-foundation-is-open-for-members/), and we already received lots of applications. Sophie did a great job scanning those and preparing the list for our first Membership Commitee meeting. So, on Friday, we processed 59 applications (roughly all we received up to Thursday midnight). We are happy to tell you that we felt able to approve 23 applications immediately. For 22 more applications, we need to take a closer look. We will ask the contacts named in the applications for verification, scan our systems – such as Git, Pootle, the Wiki, Alfresco and the mailing lists for appreciable contributions. Please bear with us while we collect the information to enable us to take an informed decision. Unfortunately we had to decline 14 applications – in almost all cases, this was because no information was given about current contributions. However, these people are welcome to send in a further application with appropriate information. All applicants will be informed within the coming days about the status of their application (we are just preparing some mail templates for this). We will also publish a list of accepted TDF members on our website. What we learned from some of the comments and mails that came in is that we will have to review our application form. Some phrases are not very clear (like the "contact information"), and we should provide a link to our bylaws so that you can check that you meet the membership criteria as well as read about our members' rights and responsibilities. We also received some mail messages asking why we need a membership application at all. Let me try to answer to some of those comments. Question: "Does the mean that unless we are 'members' of the 'Community' we are not allowed to represent and promote LibreOffice at trade shows, or to provide support to users?" Answer: This is not the case at all. Everyone is welcome to contribute to LibreOffice and TDF, and this can be done in various ways. Our Community Bylaws list some ways to contribute, but this list is not necessarily exhaustive. The Membership Committee will also evaluate other ways of contributing (we anticipate that there are many other ways that we even did not think of yet). So, everyone is welcome to contribute and the status of official membership is our way to acknowledge these contributions. Question: "Before the fork, members of the Community Council were elected by the members of the community. The only requirement to be a member was to have created an account on the OpenOffice.org website. So what's the situation now?" Answer: There are two things two consider. First, only one seat on the OOo Community Council was directly elected by the community (defined as above). Most seats were elected by project leads, who had to be elected or appointed beforehand. So the OOo process is also not open to everyone. Even worse, the OOo process did not give equal rights to contributing members, because of the non-egalitarian system of project leads. We at TDF are sticking closely to the rule that there is no difference of equality among accepted members. Second, if we allowed just anyone to get voting power "with one click", this would completely invalidate our philosophy of merit. Why should anybody work hard and give continuous user support, and then just see his/her voice overruled by people who "just clicked the right button"? This does indeed not mean that we will ignore the voices of our user base. Those people who give support and are in close contact to end user are especially encouraged to represent user concerns. Question: "I refuse to apply for membership in the community. I do not feel that anyone has the right to judge me when they know nothing about me. So?" Answer: This is indeed very unfortunate, and a misunderstanding of what the Membership Committee's is intended to accomplish. We want to get to know you so that we can properly and fairly process your application. The information we ask for is intended to help us with this task. My experience is that everybody who is contributing to a community is known within the said community. Our obligation as the Membership Commitee is to seek counsel from the community so that we can arrive at the right decision. The next meeting of the Membership Committee will be in about one week, and we'll be looking forward to receiving your applications. :-) -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] Fwd: [libreoffice-website] General appeal on communication style (was: Re: Litmus to remove form the main site)
Hi Nino, :-)
I have not read your entire post above, but frankly I consider this kind of
discussion unsuitable, off-topic, misrepresenting the facts and personally
unpleasant. I had thought that the "atmosphere" on the website had calmed
down in comparison to the beginning of the year but it seems that the
lessons have not been learned.
MC, SC, could we perhaps hear your thoughts about this?
David Nelson
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 21:09, Nino Novak wrote:
> David,
>
> please bear with me as I am not an native English speaker, so therefore
> I might pick the wrong expression or idiom from time to time.
>
> My mail is intended to disclose possible issues of mutual
> misunderstanding. Of course, maybe I'm somtimes exaggerating a bit but
> look at it as a caricature. My goal in the end is to speak in favor of
> a - let's say - smooth way of collaborative communication.
>
> On Tuesday 26 April 2011 12:47, David Nelson wrote:
>
>> Any points of
>> view I have posted have been perfectly rational and sensible.
>
> Hopefully, in a minute you will be able to recognize that people could
> have a different perception of your post and action.
>
>
>> And I
>> am certainly not engaged in any "personal struggle" with Sophie or
>> anyone else. :-D
>
> Hm. So my perception is - or at least might be - rather different from
> yours. Let me show you my thinking, so you can follow it's rationale
> and thus possibly understand the different perceptions.
>
>
>> Would you maybe like to post links to ML posts supporting what you
>> say? Your words seem to be at odds with the true facts...
>
> Let's concentrate at this[1] thread, I just numbered the successive
> incidents resp. mails in temporal/thread order.
>
> 0) Pre-condition (fact): Someone (assumably you, but does not matter who
> for this meta-considerations) has put the Litmus link on the website.
> So now, it is there.
>
> 1) Sophie finds the link and requests to remove it. She gives some
> explanations for her request. How I read her mail:
> Fact: "There is a Litmus link on the website."
> Reasonning: "The link is wrong as it impairs work at the moment" (or
> similar).
> Appeal: "Please remove it."
> Self-reveal: "I'm feeling in charge for Litmus on the one hand, and for
> informing the community about it on the other. And I'm a constructive
> community member and I'm taking care for good collaboration, too. I
> therefore want the link to be removed it but cannot do it myself" (or
> don't want to or what ever)
> What she tells (me) about her relationship to the community: "I care for
> you as a community, and I have substantial knowledge in this matter.
> Now, I'm asking for technical help in a community of equals."
>
> 2) K-J removes the link (presumably he accepts Sophie's reasonning) and
> writes a response mail.
> New Fact: ("Wrong") link is removed.
> Self-reveal: "I'm feeling in charge for the website and I am a
> constructive & collaborative community member, therefore I'm taking the
> task. I'm helping another member."
> Relationship "We are a collaborative community of domain experts"
> Appeal: "Please correct me if I've missunderstood something, otherwise
> please approve my action"
>
> 3) You re-install the link without reasonning.
> Fact: Link is visible again.
> Reasonning: - none given -
> Self-reveal: "I think, the link is ok." but also: "I do not need to
> argue, I just (can) act"
> Relationship (maybe a bit caricaturized): "I am the boss, and you are
> just unimportant: what is done by the community does not bother me. I
> am acting from a superior position. At least, my position is superior
> to Sophie's and K-J's, so I can revert their actions without giving
> further arguments."
> Appeal: "Please accept my superior position and stop acting against me"
>
> So from this (my) perception, your behavior does not appear to support
> the "common goal" first and foremost. It rather appears mainly intended
> to regulate mastery, the "who is in the driver's seat" question. At
> least in my eyes, acting in this way does not look rational, neither
> sensible. It looks like a pure interpersonal action, revenge, bashing,
> fight, whatever you like to call it.
>
> Hopefully, you can follow my cartoonish explanations and see that it
> could give rise to my interpretation as interpersonal issue. Or at
> least as communicational problem.
>
>> Or shall we just cut this thread short? I'm personally bored with
>> this kind of
Re: [steering-discuss] proofreading the German bylaws
Hi, :-) On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 02:20, Florian Effenberger wrote: > hm... why would this need adaption? I guess the paragraph was meant to > support those people who joined us in the early days, i.e. three months > after we started TDF and LibreOffice. That's what I remember, too. > Anyone recalls when the bylaws had been finalized in their current state? > How much time between this date and December 31st (as mentioned in the > bylaws) did people have? IIRC, it was around December 10 or shortly before. > If we approved the bylaws shortly before or even after December 31st, it > makes sense to adapt that date, but if not, I'm a bit undetermined, if we > need it at all... the rationale behind it was that people joining TDF early > would have a "benefit", IMHO. My 2 cents would be that it's not fair on new contributors who started with the project after the project launch to forever give free entrance to people from OOo. David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] SC Meeting 2011-05-12 recording incomplete
Hi, :-) The recording of the SC meeting of 2011-05-12 placed on the wiki is incomplete. Please, would it be possible to have the recording of the entire meeting posted? David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
[steering-discuss] Recent incomplete or non-existent records of SC meetings
Hi, :-) In addition to the recording of the SC meeting of 2011-05-12 [1] being incomplete (which is a pity since it contained some *interesting* discussion about the Brazilian community and about the MC), the same also applies to: * 2011-05-06 [2] * 2011-04-30 [3] * 2011-04-21 [4] * 2011-04-06 [5] * 2011-03-26 (no recording at all) * 2011-03-16 [6] All the recordings are cut short, with some containing very little audio. This is a pity since no notes were taken during some of those meetings, meaning that there is no public record at all - including of the open question time at the ends of the meetings, during which community members have the chance to bring subjects up for discussion with the SC. Another aspect that is somewhat sad is the recent fall in attendance at meetings, and the discussion about possibly greater use of e-mail as a channel for debate and decision-taking - I am hoping that this *does* mean open communication on the SC Discuss list, and not some kind of non-public process... While I do realise that people also have other areas of life to take care of, please can the SC reassure us that this is not going to be a gradual and chronic deterioration in the high standards of governance laid out in the bylaws? [1] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:Talkyoo-537138-2011-05-12-1492250.mp3 [2] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/c/cb/Talkyoo-537138-2011-05-06-1483340.mp3 [3] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/1/16/Talkyoo-537138-2011-04-30-1473097.mp3 [4] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/4/4e/Talkyoo-537138-2011-04-21-1462577.mp3 [5] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/9/9c/Talkyoo-537138-2011-04-06-1438151.mp3 [6] http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/7/75/Talkyoo-537138-2011-03-16-1403977.mp3 David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Recent incomplete or non-existent records of SC meetings
Hi Norbert, :-) On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 23:12, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: > That must have been a recent glitch, because I do recall having listen > to these recording in their entirety a the time... > actually I think that is a problem on your side. I just re-listen to > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/cgi_img_auth.php/1/16/Talkyoo-537138-2011-04-30-1473097.mp3 > and it is fine and complete I have an excellent Internet connection, and looking at some of the file sizes tells me that they really are incomplete... But, even putting that aside, the lack of notes at some meetings and the falling attendance are both indisputable... David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] About elections
Hi, I remember that, some time ago, Michael Meeks suggested OpenSTV as a tool (http://www.openstv.org/). -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] proposed bylaws changes
Hi, When you've made your edits, can I have permission to proofread and make minor grammar/spelling corrections? -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] proposed bylaws changes
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:28, Charles-H. Schulz >> When you've made your edits, can I have permission to proofread and >> make minor grammar/spelling corrections? >> > > > Sure :) > > Charles. Cool. I'll watch this thread and write back before starting work and after finishing work. :-) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] proposed bylaws changes
HI, On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 22:22, David Nelson wrote: > Otherwise, I was only going to add a clause about transferring TDF's > funds into my personal bank account every 6 months... For those of you that didn't realise, that was a joke... Someone just mailed me off-list who didn't seem quite sure about that... (rofl) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] FYI: Apache Incubator is now voting
Hi, On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 23:09, Greg Stein wrote: > * "non-binding" votes are from other participants in the conversation. > Their "votes" are allowed as a measure and gauge over the broader > community opinion, even though they will not actually be tallied in > the final ballot. It's true that this could be a good way to "take the temperature" in the community about issues being voted on... Maybe our LibreOffice SC could think about this before the bylaws are fully stabilized? -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] proposed bylaws changes
Hi Michael, On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 23:20, Michael Meeks wrote: > Hi David, > > Thanks for these, really makes it cleaner, I applied them all - they > seem un-controversial etc. Cool, thanks. :-) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] grammar mistake in the bylaws
Hi Florian, On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 18:45, Florian Effenberger wrote: > Each organization *appoints* a single representative to the Advisory Board > based on a yearly fee to be determined by the BoD. Correct. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Hi Tom, *, @Tom: thank you very much for your kind words and your moral support and practical help regarding Alfresco. However, usage of Alfresco is really a bit off-topic for bringing to the attention of the SC. Alfresco usage/non-usage is more a question of natural, Darwinian survival/non-survival, and the SC would probably not want to get involved in that :-D @Tom, *: However, the question of acceptability of Windows screenshots in LibreOffice documentation and web pages has more relevance. As Tom explains, the issue has been discussed a number of times, with various people perceiving a risk in the usage of screenshots of our product taken on a Windows OS, and with various other people dismissing any such risk as implausible. My own 2 cents on the matter would be this: "I've carefully read the pages put forward as pointing-up the problem with taking screenshots under Windows, and I must admit that I don't interpret them in a way that poses any risk to LibreOffice. In the cited pages, IMHO, Microsoft is legitimately protecting itself against screenshots of its own products' splashscreens, dialog boxes and windows being hijacked to publicize other products. It is not trying to limit use of the Windows platform by third-party products, nor documentation of those products. It actually spends a lot of time and effort promoting Windows as a development platform for third-party products. And the Internet is *full* of screenshots of Open Source and closed source products taken on Windows. What's more, if it *did* take action against an OS project for simply taking screenshots of the aforesaid OS product on the Windows platform, it would probably score a considerable "own goal" of negative publicity in public relations terms. So I think that Microsoft would be very unlikely to do so. And, even if it *did* do so, in what court/jurisdiction could it make such action stick? Under US federal law? In certain US states? I'm not convinced they'd succeed. In European courts? I'm even less convinced they'd succeed. And if they *did* succeed, what could they possibly win other than a cease-and-desist order? I really cannot imagine them winning damages as such. And, in either case, it would truly be a Pyrrhic victory in terms of image damage. So, IMHO, it's rather implausible. This is a subject that has been discussed a number of times over the past months. I think I'll ask for it to be discussed at a forthcoming SC confcall. It would be very convenient for docs team contributors to be able to take screenshots under Windows, as well as on Mac and Linux. Plus it would contribute to making it clear to users that LibreOffice is a truly multi-platform package, and not a niche product that seems to mainly target Linux. (I say this as a daily Ubuntu user and total Linux lover.)" Please may I request this subject be discussed at the next SC meeting? (Or at your earliest possible convenience?) If you accept the subject for the agenda, I will be there to listen in and, if invited, debate the angles. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Hi, I won't repeat what I said in my previous post but, basically, my interpretation would be exactly the same as Simon's. I see the pages Alex cited as simply protecting Microsoft's own products - such as Office, etc. - in a perfectly legitimate manner. I don't see them as preventing the LibreOffice project from taking screenshots of its own software for the purposes of documentation and website content. Alex, Tom, *, would you happen have any other content to put forward to support your POV, please? Thank you for your time and trouble if so. I think this is a good opportunity to put this issue to rest, one way or another, once and for all, by asking the SC to adopt a position. :-) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] wording on TDF website
Hi, I'm assuming this the item you're talking about: "It is an independent self-governing meritocratic Foundation, created by leading members of the OpenOffice.org Community." My suggestion would be to replace the words "meritocratic Foundation, created by" with "meritocratic organization created by". Maybe that would solve the problem? (Did you notice the removed comma, which was unneeded?) -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Hi, On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Michael Meeks wrote: > published. So, ultimately, I guess the SC would need to make a call on > this in a private session if it was asked to. I didn't get time to bring this subject up at the last SC meeting, but I would indeed like to submit a request to the SC to take a decision on this issue in a private session. IMHO, it would be good to put the subject to rest once and for all. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Request for changes of Membership Committee
Hi, 2011/7/11 André Schnabel : > Dear SC members, > > as today's MC meeting had to be postponed again we (Sophie and me) like to > suggest following changes for the MC: > > 1. approve all current deputies of the MC plus David Emmerich Jourdain (who > volunteered as deputiy but has not yet been approved) as full MC members. > (so the MC will have 6 members in total - curent deputies and David of > courrse need to agree on this ) > > 2. approve that the MC should decide on applications in consensus with a > needed qurom of 2/3rd (means currently 4 members). > > > Reviewing membership applications is (imho) one of the key tasks for our > community - so the current situation is quite unfortunate. Sophie and me > agreed, that we should not take a decision if only two members are in a > meeting. IMHO, it would be better if the MC were to be composed of more than 4 members... I feel that at least 6 to 9 members would ensure better processing of MC business, and would ensure better quality decision-taking (better assurance of impartiality, etc.). -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] wording on TDF website
Hi, Well how about "meritocratic community created by" then? -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Hi Florian, On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Florian Effenberger wrote: > feel free to add the topic to the agenda in the wiki. It would be good, > however, if someone would attend the call who has insight on the topic. > I, for example, didn't follow the thread closely. OK, I'll add it to the next agenda and would be there to listen, and to present both sides of the issue, if invited. But if it's going to be a private session then maybe non-SC members won't be party to the discussions? -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [steering-discuss] Re: screen-shots Documentation Team
Hi Florian, On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Florian Effenberger wrote: > we have a public session every week. Oh, sure, but Michael seemed to feel that this might be better discussed in a private session? Would that be the intention? I can sort-of understand that, given the kind of debate that might ensue? In any case, I'll add it to the next agenda and thank you for your permission for that. -- David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to steering-discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/steering-discuss/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
