Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 18th Oct 2010 21:56 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Permalink for comment 445654
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-16
I don't see anything wrong with this. This is like having people on a board of directors to show loyalty to the corporation and not do things to weaken the company at the expense of competition or any activity that is detrimental to the company. If a member of the OOo council is promoting a fork which diverts resources to a competing fork then they should voluntary resign and join the council of that fork instead. They don't deserve to stay on the OOo council anyway as a fork should be considered a failure of the council to resolve issues that required a fork. Good riddance to them. I hope that Oracle can have more influence on OOo in the hope that the quality improves.
Edited 2010-10-19 01:23 UTC