openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Another introduction
Date Tue, 05 Jul 2011 02:37:22 GMT
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Graham Lauder <> wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 09:21 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Graham Lauder <> wrote:
>> > Greetings all,
>> >
>> > My name is Graham Lauder AKA Yorick or Yo.  I've been involved with OOo
>> > for a number of years mainly in the marketing project but also in the
>> > website project.  I am somewhat responsible (some would say to blame)
>> > for the look of the present front page, (although I was just responsible
>> > for the conceptual elements, Maarten, Kay, Ivan and others did the real
>> > work and improved vastly on my original idea).
>> >
>> Welcome aboard, Graham!
> Glad to be here.
>> I'd compare the situation with OOo under Sun/Oracle, where there the
>> copyright was assigned to Sun, where there were reserved seats on the
>> Committee Council for Sun staff, where the project leads on the dev
>> side were almost all Sun employees.  You will not see things like this
>> in Apache.  Apache projects are run by a meritocracy, not by a
>> corporate-dominated hierarchy.  We're not going to have "leads" who
>> control the destiny of a component by power that has been assigned to
>> them by a central authority.  Power is not centralized.
>> Yes, time + merit does give a form of power.  But time comes in many
>> ways.  By employment, but also by retirement or by avocation.   I know
>> we have some retired engineers contributing to the project as well.
>> Should we deny them the ability to do so because they have a luxury of
>> time that we don't all have?  I don't think so.  There is competition
>> for an open source developer's time and attention as fierce as any
>> other competition in the marketplace.   I think we should be grateful
>> for any contribution of time we receive, big or small.
> Fair comment
>> > So the question is: Will decisions be made at IBM that will translate
>> > into fait accompli in OOo simply because the IBM members of the
>> > community have been given the time to contribute to Apache, above and
>> > beyond those of us who can afford only a number of hours outside of work
>> > time?
>> >
>> To correct a error in your question:  IBM (or any other company) does
>> not make "decisions" in this project.  Employees of IBM (or any other
>> company) do not make "decisions" in this project.  However,
>> individuals of IBM (and other companies) will make contributions to
>> this project, and these contributions will be reviewed and accepted or
>> rejected, like any other contributions.
> There was no error in the question, decisions made at IBM, whether
> policy on OSS, Developer time allowance, code release to the core, work
> on elements that are only useful in Symphony.... these are corporate
> decisions that can affect the project.

Actually, none of this can affect the project unless the project
accepts the work we do.  We have a PPMC of what?  50?  60? 70 members?
 And how many IBM employees on it?  Maybe 6?  7? 8?  All we can do is
offer contributions.  Remember, even a project Committer does not have
absolute ability to make changes at whim.  Changes are reviewed and
can be rejected by other Committers.

If you are saying that IBM engineers collectively have the ability to
make contributions that could be accepted by the project and by being
accepted would affect the project, then I thank you for the
compliment.  But I don't see a problem here.  Honestly, we're getting
pretty equal criticism from people suggesting we're not going to
contribute enough as there are people concerned that we're going to
contribute too much.

> In any case not being privy to the internal politics at IBM, this is
> mostly educated conjecture on my part so not really worth debating.
>> You have quite a list of concerns, Graham.  I hope you will agree that
>> debating them will achieve nothing, and that the best way to allay
>> these concerns is to move forward and demonstrate good acts and even
>> better results.
> Agreed, I've made my concerns known. Corporations are, by their very
> nature, sociopathic.  Not a new revelation, but one that needs to be
> restated on occasion.  Thankfully, Corporations are also made up of good
> people and are repositories of resources and networks that are not
> always available to a disparate group of volunteers.  That's the plus
> side.
> I'll drink to the future of ApacheOOo.
> Cheers
> GL
> --
> Graham Lauder,
> MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ
> Migration and training Consultant.

View raw message