incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Off topic
Date Sun, 18 Dec 2011 19:48:39 GMT
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Rory O'Farrell <ofarrwrk@iol.ie> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 13:31:19 -0500
> Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Ian Lynch
>> <ianrlynch@gmail.com> 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

Mime
View raw message