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

On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 18:01 +0100, 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. 

A sentence parsed in such a way as to make any politician happy.

I have subscribed to 
the website mailing list when I have realized that the website group was 
totally disconnected from the SC. 

Sorry, it seems to me that was the other way round .

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.

Communities do not behave like companies. They are moving slowly because 
it is mandatory to reach consensus before making a step further ...

News to me, and I don't believe it is born out by the facts.

So, I have recognized SC 
mistakes, but in this specific domain everyone has made mistakes and 
accepting this is a sign of maturity.

Yes I would agree with that.

In another message, 

Please don't mix like this - you have been asked to issue an apology to
Micheal that is the crux of this mail thread.

I have asked five questions. They might look silly, 
but as I have explained it is necessary that they get an answer. Please 
assume that SC members are totally ignorant of the "23 roles", and that 
this is not their fault but a fault of the people that have decided 
about the "23 roles" without being sure that the concept was shared and 
agreed by everyone.

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. 

Yes I would agree when using the word blame, but the responsibility ends
at the SC - you don't get to self-appoint yourselves the final authority
and then side step the responsibility that comes with that. 

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'm not even sure how to speak to this, this issue has been huge for the
last 3 months.

I know that given the nature of the endeavor here that from time to time
people are not able to focus here, but this has spread over a pretty
lengthy time and has permeated a great many discussions on a myriad of
subjects, it's just hard to see how you missed it.



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.