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: Updates: IBM Lotus Symphony, Apache OpenOffice, IBM Docs and other fun stuff
Date Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:53:29 GMT
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Graham Lauder <g.a.lauder@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 26 Jan 2012 02:50:20 Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Graham Lauder <g.a.lauder@gmail.com> 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 AOO 4.0
>> >> Feature Planning wiki page here: *http://s.apache.org/hW*
>> >
>> > IBM "volunteers?"  _I_  volunteer.  I don't get paid to be here, I come
>> > 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.  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

Mime
View raw message