incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jean Weber <>
Subject Re: Off topic
Date Sun, 18 Dec 2011 20:33:53 GMT
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 05:48, Rob Weir <> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Rory O'Farrell <> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:31:19 -0500
>> Rob Weir <> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Ian Lynch
>>> <> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> > Well one thing that definitely didn't work in the past was
>>> > alienating community members with ill-thought out arguments
>>> > no matter how logical those arguments might appear to an
>>> > individual. The community is made of people with emotions and
>>> > that is why brute logic is often a very ineffective tool.
>>> >
>>> And the community is also made up of members who think
>>> logically. Emotional responses, denying inconvenient truths,
>>> reinventing history, and other tribal responses are ineffective
>>> tools that can also alienate community members.
>>> -Rob
>> Quite honestly I am astounded at the amount of infighting and
>> petty point-scoring that goes on on the Apache OpenOffice
>> lists.  Are you grown, rational beings, or sub teen children?
>> Get your act together, or the AOOo project is doomed.
> So what point are you trying to score with, Rory?  What were you
> trying to accomplish with your name calling?  What are you adding to
> the conversation?
> I think part of the problem is that some members of this list do not
> appreciate the fact that the growth of this project is not going to
> occur exclusively or even predominately from legacy OOo participants.
> Growth is going to come from:
> 1) Re-engaging with legacy OOo participants who did not go over to LibreOffice.
> 2) Engaging those who were never involved in OOo in the first place.
> 3) Encouraging LibreOffice participants to get engaged.
> Each of these groups come with a different perspective and a different
> set of concerns.  But I think it is obvious that categories 2) and 3)
> are not going to be very receptive to assertions that the legacy
> project was entirely wonderful, free from problems and should be
> emulated in all respects.  In fact, such an attitude will raise red
> flags with them and discourage them from getting involved.
> I understand that needless and senseless criticism of the legacy
> project will also be a turn-off for category 1).  So let's not do
> that.  But let's not make the opposite mistake either.  Let's have an
> honest dialog about what went well and what didn't.  We all know that
> the situation was bad enough that large numbers of volunteers went to
> LibreOffice.  If we ignore that fact or just say that this was done
> for illogical or non-consequential reasons, then we're not being
> honest with ourselves and will not be making the necessary changes to
> improve.
> -Rob

To many people, there is a major difference between talking about
"what went well and what didn't" (or "what worked and what didn't")
and calling something a "failure". The latter term typically leads to
the sort of unhelpful discussion recently seen on this thread; the
former is far more likely to elicit constructive discussion.


View raw message