[Libreoffice-qa] Role of the QA calls

Sophie Gautier gautier.sophie at gmail.com
Thu Apr 25 11:19:48 PDT 2013

Hi Rainer,

I'm so sad to read that, you're a key person for QA and that's a so long
time I read and learn from your advices that I can't imagine you
leaving. Please, may I ask you to reconsider your decision, we really
want you in the project, not only in QA but as member of our project.
I'm sure the organization can be discussed and modified, sometimes
decisions are taken without knowing all the outcomes and consequences,
but we are able to communicate about that (and there is a point here
about the lack of communication in our LibreOffice project) may be
because we are too short in resources in some areas so we go straight
where we should take more time to discuss.

Kind regards

On 25/04/2013 19:40, Rainer Bielefeld wrote:
> Hi,
> in discussions I sometimes read statements like  „...formal vote next
> call”. I think here some clarification is required.
> The QA call has no command of the QA community. The calls and their
> participants are not a formal entity of TDF. The only legitimation of
> the results of these calls can be that decisions are wise, well and
> comprehensible founded, what would be an appropriate base that community
> might follow. Only a logic decision, promising success and plausible for
> the other members of the community grant acceptance. The sight of an
> accidental majority of accidental present laymen is irrelevant. TDF is a
> meritocratic institution, not a democratic one, and that's the same with
> the QA community.
> So, of course, the calls may coordinate the work of the participants as
> they want. And some of the results are really great, for example the
> rework and additionally new creation of the QA Wiki and web pages. But
> if the talk is about things affecting other people's work or even do
> something what might be called decisions, the results should be
> presented to the community in clear, brief, transparent way like: „Our
> conclusion was that we should do abc because of def, we also thought
> about ghi and jkl, but we dismissed those alternative because of mno and
> pqr. If we don't hear concerns, xyz will proceed”.
> So please think about the presentation of the results of the calls. To
> be honest - my regard concerning the QA calls is not good. All the
> "decisions" are reasoned with "we agreed". That's not sufficient, the
> call has to reason why the rest of the community should accept and
> follow those ideas. Currently for many issues (not only related to QA
> calls) I only see actionism what often shows a lack of understanding of
> the complex matters. Because I do not want to compromise someone here in
> the project I choose an example from somewhere else, "advice" I got the
> last weeks often was very similar to this joke:
> <https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=122133#c3>.
> The working sphere in the LibO project caused considerable discomfort
> for me, and because I doubt that this incompatibility can be solved, I
> decided to leave the LibO project. In future I will contribute to Open
> Source PLC Programming Libraries.
> Bye
> Rainer
> _______________________________________________
> List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list
> Mail address: Libreoffice-qa at lists.freedesktop.org
> Change settings:
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa
> Problems?
> http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
> List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/

Sophie Gautier <sophie.gautier at documentfoundation.org>
Membership & Certification Committee Member - Co-founder
The Document Foundation

More information about the Libreoffice-qa mailing list