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

Hello Charles,

You really need to work on your communication skills (both listening to people and writing what you 
actually mean.)

I have been the subject of two of your rants, both which you retracted later.
Such cowboy behavior cannot be good for the community.

Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 17:26:33 +0100

Hello Michael,

Le Fri, 4 Feb 2011 00:35:40 +0930,
Michael Wheatland <> a écrit :
Charles, it might be worth choosing your wording more carefully and
steering people toward a solution rather than dictating, just as you
have suggested others do.

I'm not dictating, I'm merely reminding. 

Your "reminders" come across as royal edicts: Final and non-negotiable.
To the "open source"-minded people, they look tactless and arrogant.
Particularly when you have to explain them later.

And then you have to agree to our POV after understanding what we really mean.
So you end up looking clueless as well.

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:08 PM, charles.h.schulz
<> wrote:
Just a reminder:

We will not consider any move to another CMS, platform, etc. until
at least 6 months. At that stage (in 6 months or so) we might/may
perhaps *consider* (not necessarily approve) a move to a platform
such as Drupal.

Until that stage:
1) no discussion about Drupal on this list.
2) no "major overhaul" of the website.

There may be people within the community who want to consider these
things, and they are free to do so. It's only natural for an open
source community.

An open source community focuses on code, not on website experiments. 

Who says so? Is that in the definition of "OS community"?
Italo rightly recognizes the website as a marketing tool. It is NOT trivial as you imagine.

By its very nature people come together according to their expertise and choice.
And rather than calling them "experiments", why don't you realize that the site is nowhere nearly 
And that is what we are talking about. 

BUT what we have been trying to discuss here is the development of the
'about pages', so I would suggest if you wish to discuss CMS choice
you start another thread.

I'm glad if improvements are done; and I'm cautiously warning against
not having discussions on CMS choice. 

Did you ever see "Drupal" mentioned here? Why are you fixated with it?

I particularly object at your tactless way of putting it, under the circumstances.
I have particularly in contributed solving Silverstripe problems, if you care to read the threads.
Have I ever bashed it?

What this does not mean:
1) we can't change the way some of the content is presented on the
website. (see the wiki page for this) 2) we can't improve the
website in minor ways. 3) we can't fix bugs.

It is difficult to gauge your opinions here as some of the changes
that people are suggesting might be considered a major overhaul rather
than minor bug fixes.

So let's call them "improvements"?  :-)

Call it whatever you like. I think it is a "yes" now, eh?

The changes such as further development of media rich content and
improved CSS for page structures falls under this major overhaul but
IMO 'essential' category which I am unsure of your opinion on.
In any case I don't think it is good to discourage this work as your
comments seem to.

What you describe above seems to fall for sure in improvements. 

So complete reversal of stand again?

Yes, there comes a time when the website is "completed" and where
only incremental improvements are needed. Again: LibreOffice is not
about a website nor about letting people satisfy their passion
about web design, at least not primarily. We do not want a website
that keeps on changing because people think their way is better. We
(the SC) do not want to reopen yet another thread about these
topics. The level of energy and effort spent on this topic (the
website) is ridiculously high compared to what we need to to work
on. We're therefore glad that there are people who want to help but
there comes a point where it's not helpful, because someone's
always pushing, pushing and always pushing. Same thing with respect
to the website confcall: we haven't agreed on working again on
overhauling the website, we haven't agreed on changing the website
team, which for the sake of clarity is composed of the same 4
people the SC has appointed.

"We (The SC)" do not dictate what the website team discusses. The SC
suggestions and the website conf call has clearly steered us towards
improving the site as it stands before looking for improvements in the
infrastructure, which is occurring. But it does not stop others from
investigating other options or proposing new ideas.

The last web conference call actually did NOT cover the agenda because many people could not 
We will need yet another meeting to proceed with the agenda.
So the major decisions are yet to be taken. The SC is also invited in it.
Given that, how can SC talk at cross-purposes and conclude on those topics beforehand?
I take offence to your insinuation that the only people in the website
team are appointed by the Steering Committee. The website team is a
wider group of people who work together, we do not rely on the
Steering Committee to tell us what to do, or appoint new members to
our team. There are many more people that 'the four' who I would
consider valuable, contributing members of the website team.

Given that I have already written precisely that the four people in
question are "community enablers" I'm not going to repeat it. 

So you reverse what you wrote in response to my post earlier?

Could I suggest that, like Florian and some other well respected
members of the Steering Committee, you allow the website team a little
breathing space at the moment to organically work the kinks out rather
than attempting to dictate what the team must or must not discuss or
what opinions people can express.
I would not like your comments result in an 'Us vs Them' relationship.
We are a community who should be respectful of others views and open
to listen to others opinions.

Just some ideas on more careful communication :)
Michael Wheatland

Here's what my problem is: we (all of us here) invest time and effort
into something which in theory should not cost us that much. People
here don't seem to get along, have twenty different agendas, and the
very factual comment I can make is that they simply have trouble
working together. I could say that several of them are not used to OSS
communities, but that would perhaps sound too paternalistic or
arrogant. The net result is that we have a website, that there is room
for improvement (yes, this website has way too much text on it) but
that this website has been a birth in pain and tears. 

Please understand that we are only struggling to correct that situation.
Perhaps the web team should discuss the finer details in private, but this mail list is the only 

OSS does not mean we forget the basic design principles.
Would you forgo Java coding practices/standards (or even commenting) just because it is OSS?
Would you not like to use patterns/antipatterns and refactoring?

Likewise website design is a specialized field, and too many outsiders are having strong opinions 
on that.
Unless they are educated on the subject, we would continue to have these differences.
We are trying to settle that, through a patient dialog.
But if the SC jumps in with spiked shoes, it only puts the group under wanton pressure.

Please have faith we are all mature people, and we can settle the differences on our own.
We would like the SC to take on a nurturing role.

Thank you.

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.