Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B721498B for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 19:35:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 45769 invoked by uid 500); 2 Jun 2011 19:35:26 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 45653 invoked by uid 500); 2 Jun 2011 19:35:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 45645 invoked by uid 99); 2 Jun 2011 19:35:26 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:35:26 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=GAPPY_SUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of robert_weir@us.ibm.com designates 32.97.110.154 as permitted sender) Received: from [32.97.110.154] (HELO e36.co.us.ibm.com) (32.97.110.154) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:35:19 +0000 Received: from d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.228]) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p52JT5UW009008 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 13:29:05 -0600 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by d03relay03.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p52JYs3O069936 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 13:34:54 -0600 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p52JYrVr018162 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 13:34:53 -0600 Received: from wtfmail03.edc.lotus.com (WTFMAIL03.lotus.com [9.32.140.19]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p52JYqE9018054 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 13:34:53 -0600 In-Reply-To: <4DE7DE06.6080500@documentfoundation.org> References: <4DE7DE06.6080500@documentfoundation.org> To: general@incubator.apache.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community? X-KeepSent: 9262B968:9CF16E36-852578A3:006A05BD; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Build V852_05272010 May 27, 2010 From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 15:34:51 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on WTFMAIL03/WTF/M/Lotus(Release 8.5.2FP3NP|April 26, 2011) at 06/02/2011 03:34:54 PM, Serialize complete at 06/02/2011 03:34:54 PM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Florian Effenberger wrote on 06/02/2011 03:01:26 PM: > > Hello, > > as we have a public holiday in Germany, I will reply to the other > messages tomorrow. However, I cannot leave this sentence uncommented: > > Noel J. Bergman wrote on 2011-06-02 20.50: > > If there is a community split, that > > decision will rest solely on those who choose not to join our all-inclusive > > environment. > > So, if TDF does not join the Apache OOo project, a community split is > our (=TDF) fault. However, if the people proposing the Apache incubator > project do not join TDF, a community split is not their fault. > > This looks like a rather one-sided view to me. > If I may make a quick observation. We're spinning around on words here. That is not useful. The word "community" is being used in two different senses, and this equivocation is wasting a lot of time on this list. Let me just spell it out explicitly and maybe we can avoid wasting more time on it: Community (sense 1): Any specific existing group of people who are members of an actual open source project. Community (sense 2): An aspirational vision of a group of people whom someone thinks ought to be working together on a specific open source project. I don't think that anyone can argue that Apache OpenOffice would, in any active sense, "split" an existing community, in sense 1. Sense 2 is a but more subjective, since each person might have their own vision of what the ideal community would look like. To some Apache OpenOffice would be bringing that community together. To another person, with a different vision, it might be splitting it. But I suggest that using a violent term like "split" and to accuse others of doing it, but then to have it applied to an idealized vision of a community that does not exist today, that is a rhetorical device best omitted. An alternative way of expressing it, in a more natural fashion, might be: (and not to put words in Florian's mouth) "I have a vision of a unified community in LibreOffice but this future unity cannot be achieved if there exits others who are contributing to a different community". -Rob --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org