incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Off topic
Date Sun, 18 Dec 2011 21:00:19 GMT
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Jean Weber <> wrote:
> 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.

Failure is an outcome, or at least a way of labeling an outcome.
Maybe not the only way of describing it.  There may be other,
euphemistic ways to describe the outcome that consists of a large
portion of the community leaving for LibreOffice and the corporate
sponsor pulling out and laying off the core engineering staff for that
project.  We could call it a "transition",a "temporary setback", a
"challenge", an "opportunity" a "reboot", or whatever you wish.

But whatever you call it, the outcome was not good and we should be
sure we understand and avoid reinstitutionalizing the same causes.

If someone has a recommended euphemism, please let me know and I will
adopt it in future.


> --Jean

View raw message