Pax not Pox

[Louis Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org>]

I dislike using antagonistic rhetoric and tactics to give form to
community identity. I confess I did this myself, early in OOo's career,
but I never engaged in FUD--there was no need, the truth was good (or
bad) enough--though I was no doubt frequently wrong.

The current efforts by published journalists, intentional or not, to
cast aspersions on Apache OpenOffice, to discredit it, and to cheapen
the community's efforts, need to be addressed--but not with antagonism
and not with anger. Errors, accidental or intentional, in Wikipedia, for
instance, but also among journalists reporting on the successors to
OpenOffice.org, must be corrected impartially and accurately. The people
who benefit most from our work are the users who can rely upon a fair
community which they can join and contribute to and do so with the
satisfaction that their contributions are valued in the best possible
way: by making the product not only better but more likely to remain a
commons.

best
louis
-- 
Louis Suárez-Potts
Apache OpenOffice PMC
In Real Life: Community Strategist, Age of Peers
@luispo

Re: Pax not Pox

[Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>]

On 21/01/2013 Xuacu wrote:
> As a person working in both sides (and feeling part of both
> communities), I couldn't agree more. Our approach is to tell our users
> «Hey, we are translating a lot of free software. Try it and see what
> fits your needs better... It's free!»

I agree. And, actually, there are no "sides"; there are no "borders". It 
is a fact that a large number of volunteers are helping more than one 
project. Splitting in "sides", "camps", "factions" is best left to 
journalists and bloggers who need to spice up their stories. We needn't 
use or justify that terminology: this is a free and open project, that 
welcomes all volunteers and produces software that anyone can reuse.

Regards,
   Andrea.

Re: Pax not Pox

[Xuacu <xu...@gmail.com>]

Hi!

As a person working in both sides (and feeling part of both
communities), I couldn't agree more. Our approach is to tell our users
«Hey, we are translating a lot of free software. Try it and see what
fits your needs better... It's free!»

All the best
--
Xuacu

2013/1/21 Louis Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org>:
> I dislike using antagonistic rhetoric and tactics to give form to
> community identity. I confess I did this myself, early in OOo's career,
> but I never engaged in FUD--there was no need, the truth was good (or
> bad) enough--though I was no doubt frequently wrong.
>
> The current efforts by published journalists, intentional or not, to
> cast aspersions on Apache OpenOffice, to discredit it, and to cheapen
> the community's efforts, need to be addressed--but not with antagonism
> and not with anger. Errors, accidental or intentional, in Wikipedia, for
> instance, but also among journalists reporting on the successors to
> OpenOffice.org, must be corrected impartially and accurately. The people
> who benefit most from our work are the users who can rely upon a fair
> community which they can join and contribute to and do so with the
> satisfaction that their contributions are valued in the best possible
> way: by making the product not only better but more likely to remain a
> commons.
>
> best
> louis
> --
> Louis Suárez-Potts
> Apache OpenOffice PMC
> In Real Life: Community Strategist, Age of Peers
> @luispo

Re: Pax not Pox

[janI <ja...@apache.org>]

+1

On 21 January 2013 05:57, Louis Suárez-Potts <lo...@apache.org> wrote:

> I dislike using antagonistic rhetoric and tactics to give form to
> community identity. I confess I did this myself, early in OOo's career,
> but I never engaged in FUD--there was no need, the truth was good (or
> bad) enough--though I was no doubt frequently wrong.
>
> The current efforts by published journalists, intentional or not, to
> cast aspersions on Apache OpenOffice, to discredit it, and to cheapen
> the community's efforts, need to be addressed--but not with antagonism
> and not with anger. Errors, accidental or intentional, in Wikipedia, for
> instance, but also among journalists reporting on the successors to
> OpenOffice.org, must be corrected impartially and accurately. The people
> who benefit most from our work are the users who can rely upon a fair
> community which they can join and contribute to and do so with the
> satisfaction that their contributions are valued in the best possible
> way: by making the product not only better but more likely to remain a
> commons.
>
> best
> louis
> --
> Louis Suárez-Potts
> Apache OpenOffice PMC
> In Real Life: Community Strategist, Age of Peers
> @luispo
>