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

What is the targeted objective? To get a marketing communication plan passed? I prefer to put that 
on hold. Consensus about what to do, yes. A plan preparing a change. A Schedule. List of things 
what needs to be done. Research. Investigating options products/solutions. Markets/ Products. Say, 
should there be Personal Edition with some extra's (StarOffice) or doesn't that work (StarOffice 

Setting a *5 year*!! communication plan is surely not go. If really, really want to push that thing 
through, do it for 1 or 2 years an re-evaluate.

However I a Marketing Communication Plan still really problematic as this should be an part of 
large Marketing Plan which is part of a clear business plan (or business plans)
Those other elements (Business Plan, Marketing plan) are pre-requirements for a Communication Plan. 
And even more problematic because we are talking about Communication Plan of TDF, and not vendors

Yes, compromises are needed. And there are a lot of compromises to be made. However a Communication 
plan is build on the other building blocks (Business plan/Marketing plan).
First a compromise must be found about the business plan, next the marketing plan and at that point 
the Communication plan. Not the other way around. The foundation is missing. Hanging in air with 
loses ends everywhere. Not enough substance. Enough munition to shoot (criticize) sharp. There is 
no clear vision/proposition target. Nor an evaluation if the target makes sense. One/two big fish 
or plenty of small fishes? Losing a big fish is far more painful compared to few small fishes.

The whole input here, by different people shows this (jonathon / Lionel √Člie Mamane / me). Their 
are lose ends everywhere

There should be consensus how to move forwards. Doing a Market analyses (what is the market/market needs; type of 
customers) / Developing a Marketing Strategy/ crushing the numbers what returns would be/ overthinking the 
position of TDF. Assessing why there is no interest in paid services. L1/2 support relevant for 
Goverments/University/s NGO or those doing this kind of stuff in house? Overthinking if there should be multiple 
Enterprise Desktop editions by different powered by different company's. The whole forking thing is typically for 
open source. The one year Ubuntu the number one, next Mint, next OpenSuse, or Arch or should I use Debian. 
Everybody repeating lots of stuff, wasting resources &  capital to make point on some "minor" 
differences. Ubuntu didn't want to include codecs? Mint did. Mint became bigger. Ubuntu changed minds [not that I 
follow the Linux community regular basis, but I assume it's gone this way]. And Collabora/CIB are already 
convicted to each other anyhow, I think. Both can't maintain LibreOffice alone as the knowledge about the code is 
distributed across. So combine resources. Start some kind of joint venture, where the Enterprise (or other 
editions are sold). And make agreements about how profits are shared and the new projects etc. It's not much 
different compared to the current case. Not sure how to fit in RedHat (or if it needs to). Again; I think things 
should be reshuffled a lot;

So I personally would prefer to leave the marketing communication plan. Use it as a starting point 
for a revamp of the whole Enterprise around LibreOffice. On that point consensus is needed. So 
start a business plan project. Make a schedule. Dividing tasks. To a market scan (and write it 
out). Develop product options/ assess the feasibility product options. Developing strategy's etc. 
Making people responsible. Ideally the eco-partners should take the lead; it's about their 
business. TDF should be in the loop. And people possibly want to help (because this is shared 
effort) to the continuity of LibreOffice.

Introducing a business strategy at the LibreOffice 7.0 release would have be a nice thing. However, 
we pasted that station already. The preparation should have been started 1,5-2 year ago (to make it 
for 7.0). You maybe lucky to get it done before 7.2 release. Or bend the rules, and jump to 8.0 at 

If the company's are gonna promote of the shelf editions, a webshop must be build. You have to take 
rules of VAT in account (different country's different rules) or some kind of payment provider 
servicing that. So lots of research etc. The Enterprise edition will not suddenly sell million of 
copy's. Large organizations are hard to convert taking years. And I hope that the company's 
involved have enough cash to survive 1/2 years without major cuts in Development. And have some 
budget (quite) available to short this whole thing out; this is surely a upfront investment, with 
intended to repay itself.

Are those plan of StarOffice/Oracle still around? Market has changed, of course, but might be some 
thing useful in it. Or something from Ubuntu of whatever you can get a hold off. Sparring partners 
operating commercially in same type of eco-system could be helpful. As their are commercial and 
other interest to be taking into account. Of course LibreOffice is not the same thing as say Ubuntu 
or Firefox.

I'm not wanting to stall or create differences within board. I want everybody to talk, being very, 
very precise what the want (and why its right move). And an argument if things are feasible based 
on facts. Research. Not some notations; idea's. You can publish the market analyses (maybe you 
overlooked something). You can publish some concept Marketing plan (to get feedback). Not sure how 
many people are able/wanting to asses that (being in the scope of their interest). However idea is 
should be public. How open you want to be about development costs/revenue in public is up to the 
company's. However at the end the Directions of eco-system partners and Board of directions at TDF 
need to decide. With lots of info publicly available you can defend the discussions made. People 
will disagree; see things differently. At minimum the large stackholders support it. I read quite 
some useful things. Also quite some 'cruft' lacking substance. Or wrong arguments (which should be 
countered within based on the research done). Not boldly ignore, reject. as non-sense. Disproof. 
Try to explain (some people can't be convinced; sure), but never stop trying. However you might 
have to rephrase or choose a different perspective to make the point clear. People have different 
ways of thinking. Miscommunication easily arises.. as we have seen about change in license fuzzy 
with a Personal Edition. Which wasn't the intention

It's really needed that every body speaks out himself. Not holding back to much to 'get a 
compromise' or consensus; I prefer an open discussion. Everything on the table. The group of people 
who makes the decisions isn't to large. They should now everybody's position; how and why. The 
community has role; but lots comes down on the persons in charge (the government decides in the 
interest of the people; even if a small groups sees that differently.) I think the interests a the 
top are pretty aligned and clear. Communicating that the community, yes that might be bit of a 
thingy. Note: this not an invitation to object against everything, but convincing people on basis 
of arguments, facts, insights.

Oh, for the record, compromises can not always be made. Sometimes you have to choose between evils; 
not ending up in the middle. With some watered down solution which won't work for nobody, except 
being a compromise. A compromise isn't always a target by its own.
tough decisions maybe be somethings better. Of course consensus is preferred. So convincing people; 
making people see things your way. Ideally the discussion is made in consensus (and published that 
way). Or opting for dissenting opinion system; where they objection are made clear (similar to 
Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (BVerfG). So everybody can see what's happening. Of course 
objections isn't blaming people. It's about arguments. It helps people understand a decision, whats 
talked about, why people disagreed. Open communication is of course also a lot work :-). However 
you might get people with you and sympathy. [there surely are nice books about change management 
books]. Yes, quite some stuff management guru's write is oversold crap. However so basic notions 
does give a framework and help you navigate.


Op 17-7-2020 om 10:21 schreef Italo Vignoli:

On 7/16/20 11:36 PM, Uwe Altmann wrote:

Slide 28
What is the surplus of the sum of "volonteers" and "ecosystem" to form the "community"? Users? 
That is a visual representation of the relationships between volunteers
and ecosystem inside the community, and has no relation with the size of
the constituents. So outside community and ecosystem there is nothing,
but an oval which contains both smaller ovals to show that they are part
of the same community has some extra space as a consequence of the oval
shape (if I has used circles, the extra space would have been bigger).

And my "ceterum censeo..."
Slide 49/50
This is why I and some others propose "" set as TDB - so we get "LibreOffice" and "LibreOffice Enterprise,[brought 
to you by XYZ]" as a result. This avoids all of the possible negative connotations each of the proposed "additions" to the 
build distributed by TDF brings. And allows the intended discrimination as well:
Basically we say there is a "LibreOffice" (vanilla) and "LibreOffice with benefits" 
(Enterprise,...) - and that's exactly what we want to tell the people, isn't it?
We have to find a solution where there is consensus by all parties, and
it looks that consensus is partially missing on the one you suggest.

I may or may not agree with the proposed solutions (there will be a day
when I will write a lengthy blog post where I will tell in a transparent
way what I think about this story and the people involved, but this is
not the right time), so the objective is to reach consensus with an
acceptable compromise.

reach consensus with an acceptable compromise.

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
Privacy Policy:


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.