Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2020 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Re: [board-discuss] Re: [tdf-members] Discussion about options available with marketing plan draft and timetable


Hi Regina,

        First - thank you for your help getting at least one TDF tender
un-blocked to get that ODF 1.3 support implemented. That's much
appreciated :-)

On 13/07/2020 14:13, Regina Henschel wrote:
"Edition" itself is dangerous too, because it implies, that the download
from TDF might not contain all features.

        Interesting to see you changed your mind on this; your last mails
suggested that some sort of Edition tag would be ok for you IIRC.

Another distinction is the kind of support.

        As I've said - I don't believe that support by itself is something that
companies know they should need and value; they don't expect to get it
from Microsoft - they expect an extremely polished product.

To make these more visible, I can think of changes for the download page:
Introduction
Download option "fresh"
Download option "still".

        I think Mike had plans for wire-frames to consider how the website
might look, we can perhaps integrate this.

Introduction
The Document Foundation (TDF) provides LibreOffice releases on a /time
based cycle/. TDF provides a feature release half yearly, followed by
usually six bug fix releases.

        Why would I not choose that for my company ?

Other versions, including long-term support versions, and special
services for the needs of companies and larger organizations are
available from LibreOffice partners, read /<site to be created>/ for
more details.

        This presupposes that people want long term support, or 'special' (ie.
which I read as not-for-me) services.

        Microsoft has been moving the world to a stream of constant updates for
Windows 10 with some success. On what basis do we think that
highlighting this feature will have any noticeable impact ?

        That we think that they -should- want those things is fair enough, but
that doesn't mean that they do. We can of course do the change, and
measure the result - and iteratively A/B test the website until it is
effective - if we know what effective is of course.

        I would suggest that saying "are available" is very short of a concrete
endorsement, or a call to action, or ...

Remove the comment "If you're a technology enthusiast, early adopter or
power user, this version is for you!" from "fresh"-rectangle.

        Hmm? we replace that with ? - my (English) download page doesn't have a
Fresh vs. Still thing - just versions.

Replace the comment "This version is slightly older and does not have
the latest features, but it has been tested for longer. For business
deployments, we strongly recommend support from certified partners which
also offer long-term support versions of LibreOffice."> with the comment
"Last bug fix release for this LibreOffice series is in <month year>".

        So we remove a strong recommendation to use a long-term supported
version - and replace it with an implicit suggestion that they might
need that, and also with a date ?

        Well - it may do something, but - I'm deeply skeptical that minor
cosmetic re-arrangements here will have any effect at all. We can of
course test it easily enough.

        It would be really sad that TDF no longer strongly recommends support
from certified partner. That will impact all trainers, migrators and
development companies, as well as the certification program.

        But - the impact is perhaps limited: we already know that this existing
strong recommendation is almost completely ineffective in helping our
ecosystem thrive. So - presumably weakening it will have little negative
impact.

        It looks to me like a step in the direction of doing even less to help
the ecosystem, and more to spread the myth that TDF + volunteers alone
create LibreOffice.

The short time where bug fixes are available for a LibreOffice series,
should make it clear to companies, that they need a different solution
than just downloading LibreOffice.

        So you're happy to say -something- bad about LibreOffice: that it does
not have long term support in order to help the ecosystem differentiate ?

        That's encouraging - but I assume that other people will also want to
point out on the page that there is really no need at all to buy
anything and that you can just upgrade to the very latest version when
that time limit expires.

        Still others will want to band together to provide a free LTS version -
to help enterprises avid feeling they need to contribute anything back
because they're worried support will run out.

        Others will say this creates FUD that the project is going to end in
under six months =)

On a related topic, I also wanted to comment on the underlying tone
that some segments are using LibreOffice, but not contributing. I
think that is hard to measure because open-source is a very large
field, and in my opinion, anyone who invests well in open-source
anywhere should have the moral right to use all open-source products.
So for example, a company that supports a lot of code development for
GIMP shouldn't be shamed for not contributing/donating directly to
LibreOffice even if they heavily use it.  For me, it made most sense
to "pay" for our open-source use as a volunteer LibreOffice developer.

This is an important aspect. Shaming people for not paying for
LibreOffice without knowing the background is not the right way.

        I have some sympathy for that view. I have lots of respect for people
contributing code like Justin and yourself: you rock, and I'm pleased to
work alongside you =)

        However - these changes appear to do nothing to help people understand
-our- background as a project, or that the LibreOffice Project needs the
ecosystem to thrive in order to create the software. This has to be a
two way street.

        Personally I think if you just take from FLOSS and (according to your
ability) contribute nothing back, then as a rule you are doing something
profoundly antisocial - and I've no problem with us saying it loud &
clearly.

        My goal is not to make anyone reading this E-mail feel guilty - clearly
you care & are engaged, but instead to try to effectively communicate
with the vast number of enterprise uses that neither know, nor care
about our principles, but just want something for free.

        ATB,

                Michael.

-- 
michael.meeks@collabora.com <><, GM Collabora Productivity
Hangout: mejmeeks@gmail.com, Skype: mmeeks
(M) +44 7795 666 147 - timezone usually UK / Europe

-- 
To unsubscribe e-mail to: board-discuss+unsubscribe@documentfoundation.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Context


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.