Re: [board-discuss] Big organisations not contributing
Op 14-7-2020 om 12:58 schreef Sam Tuke:
This thread seems to be conflating separate things:
-> It's surely the case.
On 14/07/2020 11:15, Michael Meeks wrote:
On 13/07/2020 22:07, Leo Moons wrote:
It strikes me that there's a lot of talk about large organizations,
that don't contribute to the community.
1) large orgs should donate to TDF?
2) large orgs should buy services from ecosystem companies?
These are largely different problems with different solutions.
-> It's big bowl of spaghetti from my point of view. Everything is
intertwined and entangled. They published Marketing Strategy draft
illustrates this. It's a TDF document, but quite obviously addressing
issues of the eco-partners. Or is TDF starting to be a software vendor
themselves; releasing an Enterprise Edition.
example when C'bra first went into business - we sunk Eur 100k+ into
a full-time sales & marketing person mostly focused on governments
for over a year. They were backed by great enthusiasm and a political
push from central government in the UK, net result: around zero
This speaks to problem 2, which is first and foremost the responsibility of ecosystem companies to
solve, with secondary support from TDF .
Some interests are shared between TDF and companies, and some interests conflict, and that's right
and healthy in my view. For the sake of constructive debate let's keep clear who is being
recommended to do what.
Brainstorming potential ecosystem company strategy case-by-case could be a useful exercise, but I'm
frustrated when the problems and goals interchange and merge.
However TDF is - based on the current situation - more or less founded
by the eco-system partners (not sure if this actually was the case back
in the day). And they eco-system partners trying to profit from the
LibreOffice brand. While the whole existent of LibreOffice is more or
less based on the contributions of the eco-system partners.
TDF is a kind of a joint (multi ?) venture (or co-operation) run by a a
Stiftung without commercial interest, and maybe even different interest
compare to the main contributors. The with the Board of Directors being
staffed with eco-system partners. Which doesn't make things any easier;
it potential of Conflict of Interest. I really can't tell which interest
are represented when the BoD makes a decisions (especially on the topic
here). In the interest of TDF sec, or... No offense :-). I personally
don't call this good governance. It perfectly fits the join/multi
venture / co-operation model, except the TDF has slightly larger
community (and it's intended this way). Not sure if _single _Stiftung is
the best entity to run things.
Lawyer are likely able to create a better/ nifty scheme to accommodate
the interest of everybody (with it's proper share in the saying) without
a multiple heats structure. And it's possible to split of things etc. So
code maintained by separate entity/ Stiftung etc. Of course with some
overhead costs, but current I'm not the fan they current structure
either. As it doesn't match the reality based on position of the big
There are the marketing strategy's of the eco-partners themselves,
however build around LibreOffice. With TDF in the middle. TDF
distributing promoting a free edition. While at the same time referring
to the partners for others services (which isn't a business of TDF). So
here is TDF competing with the partners.
Point to eco-system partners having their own branded "LibreOffice"
suite and services is again problematic ; so in essence competing with
each other (assume World Wide Delivery; not country of origin). Which
even more interesting based on the distribution of the code knowledge.
Eco-system partners with more knowledge about Writer others know more
about Calc (based on my observations).
The whole construction is really mind boggling. TDF is a community, not
limited to the eco-system partners. However the eco-system partners are
they major contributors; so their position is relevant for TDF (to get
contributions from them). While the partners profit from the
LibreOffice brand (or attempting too). While those partners are
competing with each other. And at the same time people are contribution
code/translations/QA for free, and maybe don't like commercialization of
their donated code or other work. And the code being available for free.
Even to desktop editions of the eco-partners (I think).
Somehow everybody is condemned to each other. And I personally prefer an
integral marketing/ communication strategy/ distribution strategy
including the dimensions of TDF but also Collabora/CIB (and others). As
everybody being in the same boat anyhow. And I really don't see how to
entangle it the interest; so the other way is an integral solution.
I'm really seeing 'deficiencies' at seen at Collabora/CIB in their
attempt promote their product. Blaming TDF for lack of customers, while
looking away for their own marketing/communication failures. Sure, a
part of the issue is at LibreOffice/TDF. However it's only a part of
they story. TDF (and eco-system partners) need a product (or should I
say products: software + L1/L2 services + L3 services + consultancy)
and proper marketing. A product doesn't sell without marketing.
Marketing without a (proper) product won't work either. And a strong
LibreOffice brand doesn't automatically create customers at the
The whole thing could - theoretically - arranged differently. TDF
becoming a (commercial) software vendor/ entity Buying code from the
eco-system partners and have all sorts of out sourcing contracts with
eco-system partners for delivering services to customers. With, yet
again, all sorts of issues.
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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