Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

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

----- Original Message ----
From: Jim Jagielski <>
Cc: Robert Burrell Donkin <>;
Sent: Sat, 4 June, 2011 19:12:45
Subject: [steering-discuss] Re: Apache Incubator Proposal: 
Splitting^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HREUNITING the Community?

On Jun 4, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:

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 
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 :)
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 :)

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.