[Libreoffice-qa] Role of the QA calls
jmadero.dev at gmail.com
Thu Apr 25 12:12:58 PDT 2013
I want to second virtually everything Sophie said. I do hope that you
reconsider as your are really one of the core members of our team.
What I want to say are a couple things:
a) communicating through electronic form takes some marketing skills and we
are working on this, I promise you that every time you have a suggestion we
talk about these things and try to improve on how we present ideas.
b) We are always welcoming to your thoughts, even if they are very much
different from our own, we respect you and what you have to say.
Our main goals going forward are to really get ourselves organized, this
isn't a way to "tell you what to do" so maybe we need to clarify this and
say these are suggestions
What we want to avoid is endless discussions, there are so many times when
a project is held up because of endless discussions and this IMO is not
okay - this is where voting (openly, publicly, and through call AND email)
is best. A 2 week period to allow everyone to get their thoughts down and
then allow a vote to me seems most democratic - this is vs. 1 person (not
saying you, just a single person) disagreeing and leading to an endless
stream of thoughts where nothing moves forward.
When we say "AGREED" on agenda it means those people who made the call
agreed to something, if someone has an issue with this, they can voice it,
we can have a 2 week talking period (through email, again publicly) and
then we need to make a decision - this is how any successful project is
run. Sometimes an individual may end up on the "losing side" of a decision
but we will ALWAYS respect their opinion.
One thing I did notice, and I was irked, was that you requested the end of
a "pointless conversation" because you disagreed with where "most people"
that were involved thought - we need to encourage debate/conversation, not
These are my thoughts, I really hope you reconsider and I apologize if I've
done something to push you to this point.
> 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
> Libreoffice-qa mailing list
> Libreoffice-qa at lists.freedesktop.org
LibreOffice QA Volunteer
jmadero.dev at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Libreoffice-qa