incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>
Subject Re: Apache OpenOffice.org Incubator Proposal: Collaboration with TDF/LO
Date Fri, 03 Jun 2011 21:54:16 GMT
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 16:01,  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> Greg Stein <gstein@gmail.com> wrote on 06/03/2011 03:24:02 PM:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 15:12,  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> >...
>>> > This is the OpenOffice proposal, not the LO proposal.  So we should be
>>>
>>> This is the section on how we collaborate with LO, among others. I
>>> consider that part of the OpenOffice proposal.
>>>
>>> Look at it this way: you can exclude them from the proposal in the
>>> name of "purity" (and division of community), or you can be inclusive.
>>> The LO community is going to be a huge influence here at Apache. It
>>> would be silly not to recognize that, and downright *detrimental* to
>>> try and pretend otherwise. I just call that divisive and not what we
>>> want to see here.
>>
>> Greg,  TDF/LO are already mentioned in the proposal. If you have concrete
>> suggestions, fire away.  But please do not accuse me of "excluding" them
>> from the proposal or "purity" or "division of community" or suggest that
>> I'm "pretending" anything.  It seems to me that you are being very quick
>> to take offense, and I don't see where this is coming from.  Please be
>> civil and assume that I am being sincere.  I will strive to do the same of
>> you.
>
> It is the pattern of query and response that I am objecting to.
>
> Consider the string of emails:
>
> R: The first email didn't mentioned anything about LO consuming our source.
> G: I said it should, as that is a very real possibility
> R: You said "is that really collaboration?"
> G: Of course it is, and here is why
> R: this is *our* proposal. not theirs. We don't need to talk about them.
> G: give up
>
> It is like pulling teeth to have you simply recognize that LO is a
> part of this proposal and the eventual community. It's like you don't
> even have that in your *mindset*, and that very much scares me. When
> you argue to *not* put them into the proposal, then I call that
> "exclusive" rather than "inclusive".

I may have failed at mentoring.

This could also be a bit of a telephone game where what I thought I
said and what ultimately resulted after passing through several
people's retelling is not recognizable to me.

My principles were to suggest that people focus on what they bring to
the table, and to and to actively seek out others and get THEM to
identify what they bring to the table.

Again, the end result clearly did not come out that way, and I will
see what I can do to rectify that.

- Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message