Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On 2011-01-18 12:01 PM, Italo Vignoli wrote:
On 1/18/11 5:20 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
And no, they - meaning the SC - absolutely cannot claim ignorance, 
Michael was discussing their progress on the lists for a long
time. Someone from the SC should have taken him aside as soon as
they saw what was happening.

I am a SC member, and I have not seen any mention of the progress of
the web site on a mailing list pertaining to the SC

I have subscribed to the website mailing list when I have realized
that the website group was totally disconnected from the SC. Sorry,
but you cannot assume that everyone is reading every mailing list
message, as we are volunteers and we have a professional and a
personal life.

I understand that, and I didn't say it was on 'a list pertaining to the
SC'. Look, I hate to sound unappreciative, and I know this is a huge job
you guys have undertaken - and I for one am glad you did. But in taking
this on, you on the SC had and have the responsibility, like it or not,
for what has happened. 'In the beginning there was only one' discussion
list, then a few more were created, etc, but the fact is, some one (or
more) of you should have been monitoring *all* of these new means of
communication *from the beginning*... that's what I meant by 'mistake'.
I'm not 'blaming', per se - things happen, especially when a split like
this happens. I'd just like to see you guys own up to it formally. If
you can issue a statement essentially nullifying all of Michael's (and
the others) hard work doing something he clearly thought had the
blessing of the SC - and it's not like he tried to hide it - then you
can issue a formal apology (and mean it) simply for dropping the ball on
staying abreast of what was going on. I'm not saying you or anyone else
did this on purpose, of course you didn't, but it happened nevertheless.

I am deeply sorry for the time spent by volunteers on a project which
is not reaching his objectives, but it is overly simplistic to put
the blame only on the SC. We are humans, and because of this simple
fact it is a mistake to assume that we can be informed of everything
inside a project. Someone has made this mistake.

I didn't say that *only* the SC was to blame, and I don't pretend to
know what other discussions may or may not have happened behind the
scenes - but the bottom line is, you/they were/are *in charge*, and
you/they *absolutely* dropped the ball here. Whats the old saying? 'The
buck stops here.'. Like I said, it would go a long way for the SC to
just swallow some pride and/or eat some crow, and issue a formal apology
to Michael and the others, and move on.

Anyway, I'm just a regular user who just wants LibO to succeed, but saw
a lot to be discouraged about with a very rocky beginning to what will
hopefully end up being a very successful endeavor.


Best regards,


Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
List archive:
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.