incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff
Date Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:48:41 GMT
On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Raphael Bircher <> wrote:
> Am 26.01.12 16:53, schrieb Rob Weir:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Graham Lauder<>
>>  wrote:
>>> On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 02:50:20 Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Graham Lauder<>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>> Second, new features and function, worthy of consideration by this
>>>>>> community as a 'Apache OpenOffice 4.0' release will be the primary
>>>>>> focus
>>>>>> for the IBM volunteers working in the project at Apache, after the
>>>>>> project successfully completes the Apache 3.4 release.  See the
>>>>>> 4.0
>>>>>> Feature Planning wiki page here: **
>>>>> IBM "volunteers?"  _I_  volunteer.  I don't get paid to be here, I
>>>>> here only on my own time.  That's what volunteers do, if someone is
>>>>> picking up a salary to work on AOO code that's hardly volunteering,
>>>>> except maybe in "doublespeak". Tsk!   However, whatever they're called,
>>>>> it will be good to see them pushing along 4.0, we are at a point now,
>>>>> having been out of the market for such a lengthy time, that with the
>>>>> new
>>>>> release there needs to be a substantially different product.
>>>> Let me challenge your views on this.  Anyone who participates in this
>>>> project does so because they get more out of it than they put into it.
>>>>  Further, they would be insane to participate in the project under any
>>>> other conditions.  What they put in is obvious:  their time, their
>>>> skills, their experience, their care, their overly long emails, etc.
>>>> What they get out is less tangible, but it still exists.  In some
>>>> cases it is a salary, in other cases it is enjoyment, or experience,
>>>> reputation, etc.  Cash payments are they only form of reward.  Even
>>>> those who think they are participating for purely altruistic reasons
>>>> are doing so to enhance their self-image, imagining themselves to do
>>>> altruistic deeds.  This is just basic balance of energy.  An animal
>>>> will not survive long if it chases down and kills prey where the
>>>> returned calories are less then those expended in the hunt.  Since no
>>>> one has a gun to our heads, forcing them to work on this project,
>>>> everyone here is a volunteer.  Everyone is free to go or remain, or
>>>> participate to whatever level they feel gives them a sufficient reward
>>>> (of any form) for their investment in the project.   Even those who
>>>> are employed had and have a choice of jobs they could take.  Maybe
>>>> they took their current job because it gave them the opportunity to
>>>> continue participation in the project?  Any illusion about this basic
>>>> fact, such as the the project has self-less martyrs and course
>>>> mercenaries,  is just sentimentality and does not really promote clear
>>>> thinking.  The form of your personal reward for working in the project
>>>> has zero impact on your rights, abilities, prerogatives, status or (to
>>>> me at least) the weight of your arguments in this project.
>>> Challenge away, I never said: people that volunteer, do it for altruistic
>>> reasons, not sure where you read that. I will clarify:
>>> I simply stated that IBM's motives were certainly not altruistic I just
>>> have
>>> no idea what they are, and given that a corporation is a sociopathic
>>> beast I
>>> would really like to know what they are, but in the absence of an OOo
>>> related
>>> mission statement, I have to try deduction.
>> I remind you that the Apache Software Foundation is also a
>> corporation.  So wild generalities of corporations being "sociopathic
>> beasts" are not going to get you very far.
>>> I also stated that someone paid by a corporate member to participate in
>>> this
>>> community cannot be called a volunteer.  Take your argument to the
>>> extreme and
>>> you could say that every one _lives_ voluntarily because they decided not
>>> to
>>> top themselves this morning.  A ridiculous argument.   Volunteer =
>>> someone who
>>> has to sacrifice personal time outside of their daily mortgage paying
>>> work, to
>>> contribute.
>> I never said that someone with corporate sponsorship is a volunteer.
>> What I did is challenge you on your belief that this distinction --
>> the form of reward a participant receives --  makes any difference
>> whatsoever in terms of how we work on the project. Some members might
>> be Irishmen, Lutherans or fans of Real Madrid.  These affiliations, as
>> well as employment status,  are just some of the many attributes of
>> our personhood.  We should be dealing with each other as persons,
>> looking at individual actions, rather than drawing wild stereotypes
>> based on speculated group characteristics.
> That's not realy true Rob. I think IBM employee will also speak up for IBM
> Interests here. But thats normal, and this is not bad. Also a load of

That's why "hats" are so important.  See the section "Individuals
compose the ASF" here"

On rare occasions, when I feel I need to say something on behalf of
IBM, I've been explicit about that.  I say, "wearing my IBM hat....",
as in:

or (an example from Don):

If I'm not doing that, then by default I am speaking as an individual
contributor on the project, expressing my own opinions, etc.  I hope
no one automatically agrees with what I say just because I happen to
work for IBM, or because I'm an American, or that I am a Red Sox fan,
but I also hope no one just automatically disagrees with me based on
these extraneous facts.

> "Volunteers" speek not only for them self. Remember, many has also
> commercial interrests. I have nothing against IBM. but don't tell me that
> they speak up all only as individual. For this reason it's good to know what
> people do in the rest of there life. So you understand same positions
> better.
>> I would have thought the
>> 20th century would have thought us something about the dangers of such
>> demagoguery?
>>> Everyone participates in an Open Source project for various reasons, some
>>> may
>>> be their own and some may be employers and all do it for some form of
>>> reward
>>> whether it be cash or something more esoteric.  There are a lot of people
>>> who
>>> do this as part of their 9 to 5 who are not what I would call volunteers.
>>>  How
>>> do I know this?  Easy, this list dies over the weekend.
>> Maybe that is because we volunteer for other things on the weekend?
>> Or spend time with family, based on their schedule?  In the end, it is
>> really not your concern.  Instead of questioning others motivations,
>> I'd recommend simply asking yourself what you want to accomplish in
>> the project.
>> Of course, there is the distinct possibility that part of the joy you
>> experience by your participation in this project is engaging in length
>> off-topic debates with me.  I'll let your next response confirm or
>> deny that theory ;-)
>> Regards,
>> -Rob
>>> Cheers
>>> GL
> --
> My private Homepage:

View raw message