Re: [native-lang] Change in Lead

resent because SeaMonkey chose didn't find out the reason by now) the 
(unsubscribed) OOo mail address as sender (please don't moderate my 
other mail to the list):

Hi Louis, all

sorry if I misunderstand your action here, but (if timestamps are true) 
you posted this message exactly at the time when you have been part of 
the discussion in the Community Council about possible conflicts of 
interest for CC members being active in The Document Foundation too.

The result of the discussion was to have a chat between Cor Nouws and 
Martin Hollmichel on Monday and a deadline you insisted on for those CC 
members to resign until Tuesday.

So why can't you wait until Tuesday?

Charles has not been able to join the CC meeting. You know if he is well 
or can reach Internet these days?
> All,
> I have asked that Charles Schulz recuse himself from his role as lead of the NLC category because of the confusion his new role outside of OpenOffice.org would produce in the minds of contributors and users.  I have not received an answer, so I must presume one, that he would act with good grace and recognize the impossibility of his dual roles.
>
How long did you wait for the answer?

As you know from the past weeks, he and all the TDF people don't see any 
confusion that couldn't be solved by discussing the reasons to create 
the foundation.

All of them feel heavily involved in the OpenOffice.org community as 
they have been during quite a couple of years.

They have started to create a basic infrastructure only for the case 
that there might not be a chance to discuss the important topic about 
creating an independent foundation inside the OpenOffice.org community - 
because this would mean that Oracle would have to share their singular 
position at the top of the community with others.

Unfortunately your action seems to prove them right.

You have been heavily involved in creating the "Guidelines for 
Participating in OpenOffice.org"
http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/guidelines.html
that include a phrase about removal of project leads:
>
> Occasionally, disputes over leadership arise in a project. In these
> cases, the project members and lead should first seek to amicably
> resolve the dispute among themselves, via the primary mail list. If
> discussions among project members (including the lead) do not resolve
> the situation, the Community Council may be asked to intervene. Any
> project member, including a Project Lead, is entitled to request that
> the Community Council adjudicate the dispute. The project member
> should send a post explaining the desire to
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>.
> The Council will act as soon as is feasible.
>
> Project Leads may also be removed by a vote of project members (see
> below <http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/guidelines.html#nextpgraph>)
> or, in extraordinary circumstances, by the direct intervention of the
> Community Council. An extraordinary circumstance would include the
> dereliction of a lead's duties and responsibilities, as named above,
> as well as a prolonged absence, defined as lasting more than 3 months
> without prior notice and without introducing a stand-in. In cases
> where the Community Council intervenes to remove a Project Lead, it
> will also arrange for the election of a new Lead, should that be
> necessary.
>

As Co-Lead of the NLC you are not in the position to decide on such a 
step alone.

Even as Chair of the Community Council it's not your own decision, but 
needs a consensus among the CC.

You are the Oracle employed Community Development Manager - so you want 
to act in this position (I can't find any website on OOo describing your 
duties and rights in this position)?

You seem to act on your own or (as the vast majority of requests to 
split The Document Foundation from the OpenOffice.org community comes 
from Oracle employed community members) on behalf of Oracle.

Please prove me wrong by following the established rules you (together 
with others) created exactly for such unclear situations!

I don't want to repeat all the points mentioned by others, just one:

You differ the position as "Category Lead" (Charles as Lead and yourself 
as Co-Lead) from the Native-Lang Project Leads (Jean-Baptiste Fauré who 
asked if you want all of them to choose between LibO and OOo) by the 
representative status of the category leads, setting the policy for the 
overall category.

Charles didn't show any action to change the policy of the Native 
Language Confederation - so why do you need to remove him at this point 
of time?

On the other hand: Every Native-Lang Project Lead is in a representative 
position either. So I don't see the real difference between them and the 
category leads.
They are allowed to decide how they want to work. Why can't they decide 
by whom they want to be led or governed?

Best regards

Bernhard