incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <>
Subject Re: Clarifying facts
Date Wed, 14 Mar 2012 03:52:09 GMT
Hi Joe,

While I agree that Rob may have been heavy handed and aggressive with his edits of this wiki
page and general tone. I reviewed each of his 6 (or so) edits and must admit that each of
them is not objectionable individually.

I think that this FAQ is valuable and all have contributed. Thanks to Simon for starting it.

We could all be more gentle and less "bitchy" about the process.

Take a deep breath! We've come a long way in less than a year at Apache!


(Joe, you're a rock too!)

On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:27 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:

> It was a WIKI PAGE and there was NO NEED to ensure it conformed
> to the standards of SITE DOCUMENTS.  You just decided to play
> the ass card again and there's one less active volunteer working
> on the wiki now as a result.
> The world isn't black and white Rob, there are shades of grey
> that you should start factoring in before you scare off more
> potential collaborators that don't see eye-to-eye with you.
> At Apache the "plays well with others" attribute trumps just 
> about everything else, and you are missing that by a country
> mile again.
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Rob Weir <>
>> To:
>> Cc: 
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:14 PM
>> Subject: Re: Clarifying facts
>> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Simon Phipps <> wrote:
>>> On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:36, Rob Weir wrote:
>>>> Let's see if anyone else thinks this is too verbose.  Remember, 
>> FAQ's
>>>> are not intended to be read as an article, one after another.
>>>> Typically they are things we we link to and point users to for
>>>> specific questions.
>>> Since you have essentially eliminated my contributions and replaced them 
>> with something different, I'll withdraw from this activity until the 
>> partisan style you've chosen changes. A pity as we genuinely had some 
>> collaboration sparking between unlike minds.
>> I'm sorry you think it is partisan for new FAQ's to adopt the style of
>> existing ones.  In school we had a different word for this.  We called
>> it "editing".  It would probably have been worth the effort to check
>> the existing FAQ's before spending four hours of your evening writing
>> in a contrasting style. Fortunately I was able to clean it up into a
>> uniform style, add supplemental information, useful links for the
>> reader, etc.
>> In any case, your edits are not holy writ, and neither are mine.   If
>> there was a presumption against bold editing, then that presumption
>> was in error.  So let's have someone else take a pass, e.g., not you
>> and not me,  and see if they can improve it even further.
>> And if your "client" has a specific question that you think is still
>> not answered on the wiki, then please speak up.
>> -Rob
>>> As an added bonus you'll not have to worry about any edit locks :-)
>>> S.

View raw message