[steering-discuss] Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal: Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

Board Discuss
#1

Hi Robert,

Hi Florian

(Copying in Charles since he asked a similar question off list)

I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted to
join in here:

Just like the rest of us :slight_smile:

Noisy and open - everyone with an opinion is welcome :slight_smile:

The TDF is in no position to accept a major donation of either
copyright or code today. Apache is.

Why?

AIUI [1] the TDF is not a legal entity today and is still in the
process of building it's legal, organisational and process
infrastructure. I accept it has strong legal backing but today no
(related) US non-profit corporation exists which could accept the
donation.

The Apache Software Foundation provides a suitable legal no-profit
organisation and in place today a suitable process to accept large
donations of code from major organisations safely through the
Incubator. It has considerable experience of opening close source
projects and in working with rich downstream ecologies.

Can you elaborate?

IMHO LibreOffice community finds itself in a similar position to the
Apache group in the mid-90s. Great community. Fantastic momentum. Cool
product.

But establishing code provenance and the Apache Software Foundation
(ASF) took a(n unexpectedly) large amount of time and energy.
Establishing suitable licenses and agreements took time and energy
over several iterations. Establishing a sound Incubation process took
time and energy over many iterations. It took time for us to learn and
evolve secure processes which don't completely suck.

The TDF is at the start of a journey that the ASF started a decade ago
and is yet to reach the end. The TDF may wish to consider whether an
alternative path might achieve their aims faster...

Robert

[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/201106.mbox/<BANLkTi=AY5PM-XVCVBxxJwJ0EqQQPwwWug@mail.gmail.com>

#2

Hello Robert,

> Hi Robert,

Hi Florian

(Copying in Charles since he asked a similar question off list)

Did I send you a reply off-list? Damned phone...

> I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted
to
> join in here:

Just like the rest of us :slight_smile:

Noisy and open - everyone with an opinion is welcome :slight_smile:

>>
>> The TDF is in no position to accept a major donation of either
>> copyright or code today. Apache is.
>
> Why?

AIUI [1] the TDF is not a legal entity today and is still in the
process of building it's legal, organisational and process
infrastructure. I accept it has strong legal backing but today no
(related) US non-profit corporation exists which could accept the
donation.

2 comments here: 1) actually TDF has an existing legal entity at its core,
and it's a german association. 2) why a US non profit?

The Apache Software Foundation provides a suitable legal no-profit
organisation and in place today a suitable process to accept large
donations of code from major organisations safely through the
Incubator. It has considerable experience of opening close source
projects and in working with rich downstream ecologies.

> Can you elaborate?

IMHO LibreOffice community finds itself in a similar position to the
Apache group in the mid-90s. Great community. Fantastic momentum. Cool
product.

But establishing code provenance and the Apache Software Foundation
(ASF) took a(n unexpectedly) large amount of time and energy.
Establishing suitable licenses and agreements took time and energy
over several iterations. Establishing a sound Incubation process took
time and energy over many iterations. It took time for us to learn and
evolve secure processes which don't completely suck.

The TDF is at the start of a journey that the ASF started a decade ago
and is yet to reach the end. The TDF may wish to consider whether an
alternative path might achieve their aims faster...

We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. People
have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to scrap
that off in favor of something else and have people follow a governance they
don't even know?

Best,
Charles.

#3

Hi Robert,

Hi Florian

(Copying in Charles since he asked a similar question off list)

I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted to
join in here:

Just like the rest of us :slight_smile:

Noisy and open - everyone with an opinion is welcome :slight_smile:

The TDF is in no position to accept a major donation of either
copyright or code today. Apache is.

Why?

AIUI [1] the TDF is not a legal entity today and is still in the
process of building it's legal, organisational and process
infrastructure.

So it was urgent as in a matter of weeks ?

I accept it has strong legal backing but today no
(related) US non-profit corporation exists which could accept the
donation.

How is 'US' relevant here ?

The Apache Software Foundation provides a suitable legal no-profit
organisation and in place today a suitable process to accept large
donations of code from major organisations safely through the
Incubator. It has considerable experience of opening close source
projects and in working with rich downstream ecologies.

Opening close source ? how is it relevant here ?
The proposal is to relicense an open-source project... unless I missed
something the proposal concern OOo.org not Symphony right ?

Can you elaborate?

IMHO LibreOffice community finds itself in a similar position to the
Apache group in the mid-90s. Great community. Fantastic momentum. Cool
product.

But establishing code provenance and the Apache Software Foundation
(ASF) took a(n unexpectedly) large amount of time and energy.
Establishing suitable licenses and agreements took time and energy
over several iterations. Establishing a sound Incubation process took
time and energy over many iterations. It took time for us to learn and
evolve secure processes which don't completely suck.

That is all good, but irrelevant. we already have a license and we
would not need to incubate anything: the code base you
are trying to digest is our daily chore... It has already graduated as
a top level project
even better as THE top level project.

The TDF is at the start of a journey that the ASF started a decade ago
and is yet to reach the end.

As far as OOo.org is concerned, it is the other way around.

The TDF may wish to consider whether an
alternative path might achieve their aims faster...

Well, take a look: http://www.libreoffice.org/download/
I'm pretty sure that we've got nice head start...

Norbert

#4

From: Norbert Thiebaud <nthiebaud@gmail.com>
To: steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org
Sent: Sat, 4 June, 2011 14:03:55
Subject: Re: [steering-discuss] Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal:
Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

>> Hi Robert,
>
> Hi Florian
>
> (Copying in Charles since he asked a similar question off list)
>
>> I'm still reading a few messages and trying to reply to them, but wanted

to

>> join in here:
>
> Just like the rest of us :slight_smile:
>
> Noisy and open - everyone with an opinion is welcome :slight_smile:
>
>>>
>>> The TDF is in no position to accept a major donation of either
>>> copyright or code today. Apache is.
>>
>> Why?
>
> AIUI [1] the TDF is not a legal entity today and is still in the
> process of building it's legal, organisational and process
> infrastructure.

So it was urgent as in a matter of weeks ?

> I accept it has strong legal backing but today no
> (related) US non-profit corporation exists which could accept the
> donation.

How is 'US' relevant here ?

>
> The Apache Software Foundation provides a suitable legal no-profit
> organisation and in place today a suitable process to accept large
> donations of code from major organisations safely through the
> Incubator. It has considerable experience of opening close source
> projects and in working with rich downstream ecologies.

Opening close source ? how is it relevant here ?
The proposal is to relicense an open-source project... unless I missed
something the proposal concern OOo.org not Symphony right ?

>
>> Can you elaborate?
>
> IMHO LibreOffice community finds itself in a similar position to the
> Apache group in the mid-90s. Great community. Fantastic momentum. Cool
> product.
>
> But establishing code provenance and the Apache Software Foundation
> (ASF) took a(n unexpectedly) large amount of time and energy.
> Establishing suitable licenses and agreements took time and energy
> over several iterations. Establishing a sound Incubation process took
> time and energy over many iterations. It took time for us to learn and
> evolve secure processes which don't completely suck.

That is all good, but irrelevant. we already have a license and we
would not need to incubate anything: the code base you
are trying to digest is our daily chore... It has already graduated as
a top level project
even better as THE top level project.

>
> The TDF is at the start of a journey that the ASF started a decade ago
> and is yet to reach the end.
As far as OOo.org is concerned, it is the other way around.

> The TDF may wish to consider whether an
> alternative path might achieve their aims faster...
Well, take a look: http://www.libreoffice.org/download/
I'm pretty sure that we've got nice head start...

Norbert

Hi :slight_smile:

Yes, i think most people (lurkers) here only speak for themselves, not as
representatives of TDF, except perhaps the founder members.

The timing of this was surely chosen by Oracle rather than TDF or Apache? I'm
paranoid enough to think that Oracle deliberate chose this approximate timing
months ago, perhaps before September. That same paranoia leads me to suspect
that Oracle chose Apache to give Apache a 'mill-stone', something to sink time &
resources into without getting anything positive back, hence distracting Apache
from any on-going fights with Oracle.

Luckily, i think, they have chosen the 'wrong' people and the 'wrong' product.
Despite the efforts of Oracle since September and before OpenOffice is still a
good product with a good reputation and Apache are exactly the sort of people
most likely to be able to recover that position fast and develop from there
while doing so.

Also i think Oracle seriously underestimated how Apache are more likely to work
well with TDF, perhaps in co-operative competition or perhaps joining TDF and
resourcing a percentage of development here. At the very worst it's to keep
both products in the news which gives us both a level of free marketing.
Perhaps we should work at appearing to compete more than we really do while
splitting development costs between each other by sharing fixes and updates etc?

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

#5

Hi,

Hello Robert,

[...]

The TDF is at the start of a journey that the ASF started a decade ago
and is yet to reach the end. The TDF may wish to consider whether an
alternative path might achieve their aims faster...

We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. People
have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to scrap
that off in favor of something else and have people follow a governance they
don't even know?

This development of our governance and structure is also the result of 10 years of project and community life, working together and elaborating our rules and processes, having a deep knowledge of the ecosystem and of our user base. The TDF is born from this analyze and is the maturation of this community, this is why we see it unified even when creating the foundation.

Kind regards
Sophie

#6

How can one respond to the question (and the original one that
predicated this one) without someone misinterpreting it as
confrontational, self-serving or condescending?

One issue that was, from all I have been told and heard, is
that having OOo at some place with a known track record,
with real FOSS street cred and the ability to work with
other FOSS organizations as well as commercial entities was
important. That it wasn't just "getting rid" of OOo but instead
placing it someplace where it had the best chance to growth,
thrive and prosper.

I've also been told that Oracle and TDF did discuss moving
OOo there, but that in addition to some "requirements" that
were unacceptable, that TDF was still a foundation-in-creation.
Reading over the blogs, it is even admitted that the complexity
and time involved in creating one was underestimated. The
concern was putting the life and longevity of OOo into, basically,
an unknown quantity.

With that in mind, the ASF (or Eclipse) is much different. We've
been a foundation since 1999, and an active force since 1994. We
have a legal structure, a non-profit 501(c)3 status, existing
infrastructure, a healthy fundraising effort, a methodology and
governance model that is copied and well respected, and a proven track
record of building exceptional FOSS projects and communities.

There are *obvious* things that, with OOo in mind, the ASF lacks
that TDF has in spades: the build and distribution system is the
one which has been mentioned most of all. There are things that
the TDF lacks that the ASF has in spades. I don't see why we can't
work together to use each other to fill in the holes that the
other lacks.

P.S. I am again reminded by people (privately, in order to keep
the noise down a bit) that although TDF is a major player in the
OOo space, it is not "just" the ASF and TDF, but *everyone*.

#7

From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Cc: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>;
steering-discuss@documentfoundation.org
Sent: Sat, 4 June, 2011 19:12:45
Subject: [steering-discuss] Re: OpenOffice.org Apache Incubator Proposal:
Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

>
> We have been developing our governance and structure for 8 months. People
> have put their trust and their faith in us. Why would you want us to scrap
> that off in favor of something else and have people follow a governance

they

> don't even know?
>

How can one respond to the question (and the original one that
predicated this one) without someone misinterpreting it as
confrontational, self-serving or condescending?

One issue that was, from all I have been told and heard, is
that having OOo at some place with a known track record,
with real FOSS street cred and the ability to work with
other FOSS organizations as well as commercial entities was
important. That it wasn't just "getting rid" of OOo but instead
placing it someplace where it had the best chance to growth,
thrive and prosper.

I've also been told that Oracle and TDF did discuss moving
OOo there, but that in addition to some "requirements" that
were unacceptable, that TDF was still a foundation-in-creation.
Reading over the blogs, it is even admitted that the complexity
and time involved in creating one was underestimated. The
concern was putting the life and longevity of OOo into, basically,
an unknown quantity.

With that in mind, the ASF (or Eclipse) is much different. We've
been a foundation since 1999, and an active force since 1994. We
have a legal structure, a non-profit 501(c)3 status, existing
infrastructure, a healthy fundraising effort, a methodology and
governance model that is copied and well respected, and a proven track
record of building exceptional FOSS projects and communities.

There are *obvious* things that, with OOo in mind, the ASF lacks
that TDF has in spades: the build and distribution system is the
one which has been mentioned most of all. There are things that
the TDF lacks that the ASF has in spades. I don't see why we can't
work together to use each other to fill in the holes that the
other lacks.

P.S. I am again reminded by people (privately, in order to keep
the noise down a bit) that although TDF is a major player in the
OOo space, it is not "just" the ASF and TDF, but *everyone*.

Hi :slight_smile:
I think there is a lot of confusion and mis-information out-there. Oracle seems
to have an extremely bad reputation in FOSS communities. All the FOSS projects
that Sun used to run almost immediately forked as soon Oracle started to take
over, except perhaps VirtualBox.

While TDF has constantly communicated with Oracle there has been no response.

Oracle might be good at PR and marketing itself but it seems unable to deliver
anything. Just my opinion and i wasn't a founder member nor a current member.

It seems that you were kindly offering something that TDF would have valued
greatly if TDF had been in the position you were told it was in. Since that is
quite far from reality it upset people that thought you might have been trying
to take over. Perhaps whoever gave you the mis-information from was hoping that
exactly this sort of misunderstanding would "drive a wedge between" Apache and
TDF. However, i think both organisations have a great deal to gain from
co-operating and that is exactly something that Oracle would dislike. I think
your offer was extremely generous and meant kindly.

Regards to all from
Tom :slight_smile:

Impressum (Legal Info) | Datenschutzerklärung (Privacy Policy)   Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 license.