JoomlaLeaks

Leaks, Drips, and Spills

Liar, Liar

13 Mar 2012
Written by 
Rate this item
(0 votes)

li·ar noun \ˈlī(-ə)r\ Definition of LIAR : a person who tells lies

  MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE

lie verb \ˈlī\lied ly·ing
Definition of LIE:  intransitive verb 1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive 2 : to create a false or misleading impression transitive verb : to bring about by telling lies

  MERRIAM-WEBSTER ONLINE

What else would you call it?

OSM has repeatedly lied to the Joomla! Community. No, those lies were not mistakes. They intended to deceive. Let's take a look.

OSM's website:

Unaudited Financial Reports: The following unaudited reports will be available at this location, and updated monthly. We have included a brief reference URL that might help to understand the reports.
Yearly Budget
Balance Sheet
Budget compared to actual year-to-date
Company Snapshot
P&L Statement

Only received two partial reports during all of 2011 and none so far in 2012 (emphasis mine). So no reports means the statement is an outright lie! Liar, Liar!

OSM's J!People group:

FAQ or Policy on Reports and Questions As mentioned in Article VIII of the bylaws OSM will publish within a reasonable period of time documents for public review such as annual reports, plans for the coming year, minutes from all board meetings, financial reports, and tax filings.

Our goal is to publish the approved Board Meeting Minutes within a week after the following board meeting.

Our goal is to publish un-audited financial statements within three months following the end of the reporting period. If we are unable to meet such a deadline we will communicate that to the community.

 As mentioned above, only two partial financial reports were published during all of 2011 and none so far in 2012. Board meeting minutes for January not posted within one week of February's meeting. No notice to the community. Liar, Liar!

Note that Article VIII of the Bylaws state:

ARTICLE VIII - PUBLIC OVERSIGHT

To the extent the corporation creates any of the following documents, it will, within a reasonable period of time, publish such documents for public review: annual reports on the state of the organization and plans for the coming year, minutes from all board meetings, financial reports pertaining to periods of 3 months or more, tax filings, reports of audit results. Nothing in this provision will be construed to require the corporation to create any of the mentioned documents.

Nowhere in the Bylaws does it state anything about financial reports being published within three months following the end of a reporting period. Instead it states that the board will publish financial reports pertaining to periods of three months or more. And it goes on to say that if the report is created the corporation will publish the report within a reasonable period of time for public review. No notice to the community. Liar, Liar!

Also in the OSM J!People Group in a discussion started by Jennifer Marriott , on Friday, 28 October 2011 14:13 :

About the financial reports: The un-audited financial reports are auto-generated on a weekly or monthly basis (depending on the type of report). These reports are shared with the OSM board and the Community Oversight Committee.

  Jacques Rentzke

So, back to the OSM Bylaws: "To the extent the corporation creates any of the following documents, it will, within a reasonable period of time, publish such documents for public review:...financial reports pertaining to periods of 3 months or more, tax filings..."

So, again, the Board publishes the financial documents on a regular basis, they should have been made available to the community within a reasonable period of time. No notice to the community. Liar, Liar!

Have you see the tax documents OSM filed for 2010? I sure haven't. Since they would have had to create that document and file it with the IRS a long time ago, why wasn't it made available for public reveiw? No notice to the community. Lair, Liar!

In his vocabulary-building book “Word Power Made Easy,” Professor Norman Lewis uses each chapter to describe certain types of people to introduce the reader to words. At the beginning of Chapter 10, Lewis describes 10 types of liars and then attaches a word to each.

  1. “Everybody knows your propensity for avoiding facts. You have built so solid and unsavory a reputation that only a stranger is likely to be misled — and then, not for long. A notorious liar"
  2. “Your ability is top-drawer — rarely does anyone lie as convincingly or as artistically as you do. Your skill has, in short, reached the zenith of perfection. Indeed, your mastery of the art is so great that your lying is almost always crowned with success — and you have no trouble seducing an unwary listener into believing that you are telling gospel truth. A consummate liar"
  3. “You are impervious to correction. Often as you may be caught in your fabrications, there is no reforming you as you go right on lying despite the punishment, embarrassment, or unhappiness that your distortions of truth may bring you. An incorrigible liar"
  4. “You are the victim of firmly fixed and deep-rooted habits. Telling untruths is as frequent and customary an activity as brushing your teeth in the morning, or having toast and coffee for breakfast, or lighting up a cigarette after dinner. And almost as reflexive. An inveterate liar"
  5. “You have such a long history of persistent falsification that one can only suspect that your vice started when you were reposing in your mother’s womb. In other words … you have been lying from the moment of your birth. A congenital liar"
  6. “You never stop lying. While normal people lie on occasion, and often for special reasons, you lie continually — not occasionally or even frequently, but over and over. A chronic liar"
  7. “You are not concerned with the difference between truth and falsehood; you do not bother to distinguish fact from fantasy. In fact, your lying is a disease that no antibiotic can cure. A pathological liar"
  8. “You are completely without a conscience. No matter what misery your fabrications may cause your innocent victims, you never feel the slightest twinge of guilt. Totally unscrupulous, you are a dangerous person to get mixed up with. An unconscionable liar"
  9. “Possessed of a lively imagination and a ready tongue, you can distort facts as smoothly and as effortlessly as you can say your name. But you do not always get away with your lies. … We admire your nimble wit, but we listen with a skeptical ear. A glib liar"
  10. “Lies, after all, are bad — they are frequently injurious to other people, and may have a particularly dangerous effect on you as a liar. … If you are one type of liar, all your lies are vicious – calculatedly, predeterminedly, coldly, and advisedly vicious. In short, your lies are so outstandingly hurtful that people gasp in amazement and disgust at hearing them. An egregious liar

Do any of these remind you of  OSM's actions or lack thereof?

Liar, Liar!

I encourage all of you to read the two petitions  linked here and sign them. It is time OSM heard from its constituents!

Read 4699 times
David Huelsmann

Dave Huelsmann was Treasurer of Open Source Matters, Inc. from 2008 to July, 2010 and Joomla Forum Global Moderator from 2005 to November, 2010. Now retired, he was a senior healthcare executive who managed large and diverse clinical laboratory, radiology, electroencephalography, and centralized patient transport operations/departments in both not-for-profit and for-profit companies throughout the United States.

Dave was a Navy Corpsman who served in Vietnam while attached to Seabee battalionmcb71
MCB-71.

Read more about Dave Huelsmann

Comments

0 # Andrew Eddie 2012-03-15 00:15
I'll give you the grace of agreeing things are late, but I think the glossary theme is getting a bit tired, and this went a little over the top even for you? I've no doubt the information will present itself at some point in time, but tell me, when it does, will you be going through it with a fine tooth comb to find the smallest speck of dust out of place? I really wonder whether your concern is for the public interest, or the fact that you can't wait for the opportunity to have more public material in which to find fault - and blog about it (including the obligatory back links to past articles, another tired theme).

Will you be as forgiving to honest mistakes (though, I think we've established you don't believe neither OSM nor the CoC nor possibly anyone on the LT makes honest mistakes) as I recall those in the LT showed you when they found the odd blooper or three? I guess all, er some, er a couple of eyes will be on this blog when they come out. Can't wait!
0 # David Huelsmann 2012-03-15 09:23
There you go again Andrew. Minimizing things by calling them "late" when, in fact, late is a month or so, entirely missing for most of a year is not just late! Also minimizing what has already been discussed by implying all I do is look for little things out of place to blog about is another method of trying to make the issues seem smaller then they really are.

Really Andrew and now you state that the LT found some blooper or three while I was Treasurer? (At least that is what I assume you are trying to do.) That's akin to asking when I stopped beating my wife. Really such old political tricks should have been beyond you Andrew.

Stick to reality. The issues have been clearly described and as you hinted somewhat painfully laid out so even the slowest among us could figure it out.

Perhaps you should get the CoC moving on this as you hinted would be appropriate in your last comment?
0 # Andrew Eddie 2012-03-15 16:57
I'm sorry, excessively late then *sigh* I at least agreed with you.

I'm also sorry I gave you the impression I was playing politics. I was just perusing the old LT mailing list and, not often, but from time to time an obvious mistake came up. I certainly had that happen to me as a past and present Treasurer of non-profits. Attention to detail is very important, but we aren't infallible and I know I'm honest enough to admit it.

And while I do believe the CoC needs to restructure itself out of existence (morphing into a Board of Review which is more typical in the US I am told), I am happy overall with the job they and OSM are doing. Sorry I gave you the impression otherwise.

I must be one your "slow" people because I still don't get it. I find it difficult to reconcile that many of the volunteers producing the "software" hold the people you chastise with a healthy level of respect.
0 # Andrew Eddie 2012-03-15 17:28
And yes, I do think you leverage little things out of place for effect. Side references to poorly worded motions (which wasn't poorly worded at all) comes immediately to mind.
0 # Andrew Eddie 2012-03-15 17:31
... and they still can't spell Cloud Access right. I think it's safe to say you are *very* concerned about the little things ...
0 # David Huelsmann 2012-03-16 10:05
Let's see if we can crowd my responses into one comment:
1. Board of Review is for things like adjusting property tax rates for individual protestors. Not really appropriate here.
2. I have made no references side or otherwise to poorly worded motions. My issues have been action by board individuals with supposed board approval yet NO motions made - therefor no board approval.
3. If you are going to pick nits then at least quote the entire sentence. "And, in spite of two board secretaries and the supposed minutes review and approval by all members of the board, they still can't spell Cloud Access correctly." The point here was that ten individuals on the board and it looks like none of them even bothered to read the minutes or offered an opportunity to correct before approving the minutes. A nit? Yes. Attention to detail? No. Just one more example of group think.

I am not chastising people. I am bringing attention and hopefully concern about the board's failure to follow its own bylaws, NY law, and its own statements about process. Simple to make it right! 8) So, why hasn't it been? :sigh:
0 # Andrew Eddie 2012-03-16 18:19
Ok, Board of Review must have different meanings in different countries.

"And, no, it is not the vote by OSM (and poorly worded by Jacques Rentzke the supposed "vote" by the Leadership Team and the Community Leadership Team) to be affiliates of OSI."

The minutes are still better than those you approved!

Making it [OSM] right won't preclude you from nit picking. That was my point. Paul's so-called "tunnel vision" has nothing to do with NY law. That's just your personal opinion.

So Dave, a pressing issue that actually does concern the community at the moment is the length of the long term release cycle, in fact the whole development cycle in general. When are we going to hear your critique of that?

You are obviously aware that the Platform separation is also having some negative impacts on the project? Who are you going to hold in account for that?

When are we going to get to the real issues that affect the "software"?
0 # David Huelsmann 2012-03-16 20:21
We must be on separate planets! I have never criticized the development cycle - the separation of Platform or any other dev issue. I realize those are your pets but they are not mine.

As I have reiterated over and over, the issue is whether the OSM board is following its own bylaws, NY law and its own promises. The secondary issue is the apparent willingness to give a group that can't do the former even more power to be independent.

If you get this group to do what they are required to do and what they promised, I would feel more comfortable that they will support the devs on into the future as is their primary mission.

Thew minutes I approved showed a heck of a lot more discussion and interest in the project then what you have seen with OSM the last two years. Come on Andrew - admit it. The current board is just a bunch of zombies!
0 # Andrew Eddie 2012-03-17 05:21
Who, other than you, are saying that OSM, the CoC and the PLT are not supporting the developers as their primary mission (and how would you know anyway since you freely admit it's not your area)? You certainly aren't doing me any favors as an active contributor and I can tell you posting tax returns on time, while should be done, is not on my top-ten list of things for OSM to fix to directly improve software production.

If you have a problem with law, report it to the relevant authorities or make a formal complaint to the CoC. Beyond that, I still contend your opinions are driven by personal issues with individuals and not the greater good of the community (it's all about you). Resorting to petty name calling is a testament to that but more than that is the absence of well rounded, civil and professional class argument covering all aspects of the project.
0 # David Huelsmann 2012-03-17 10:31
There you go again Andrew. You just expanded my statement about OSM supporting the devs on into the future into a supposed statement by me about OSM, CoC, and PLT not supporting the devs.

Continued references to a supposed ulterior motive about personal issues with individuals isn't helping your argument one bit. That's the same tactic used by OSM members to attack anyone on J!People who brought up issues that OSM didn't want to address. Talk about tired approaches! :P

Your argument that a discussion about one aspect of an operation is not valid unless you address the entire operation really doesn't hold water. Such an approach would have hobbled law enforcement eons ago.

If the petty name calling refers to me calling the board zombies, please substitute GroupThink. Personally I think zombies describes GroupThink very well. Apologies to any zombies who might have taken offense! ;-)

Comments are now closed for this entry