FWIW: I share they vision of Heiko. And also love answer to those
Holding on to LOOL without maintaining is kind of pointless, IMHO
However we land again in my beloved theme/question. What does TDF stand for?
Is TDF is an independent hub/platform sharing build infrastructure,
maintaining/grouping collective bug database, collective bug tracking
Or has TDF own ideals and such. If TDF supposed to be a hub/platform
they move of COOL is evil, as it touches to core purpose of TDF.
Content moving outside they TDF hub/platform. And less independent
Next step would be moving they LibreOffice code. Opening a new bug
tracker.. etc.. which leaves TDF to be empty shell and LibreOffice.org
In this scenario TDF LibreOffice becomes at a state OpenOffice currently
is. They major thing which maybe is holding back full fork is they
The most valuable asset of TDF. But this doesn't withholding to create
new brand or me get hands on they OpenOffice. Which would both reduce
they worth of LibreOffice.org over time
A fork would be they same code - pretty they same attitude (I assume)-
only with different management/governing body. Not much different (in
Except they neutral management is dropped. Which opens they possibility
of OpenOffice/Oracle stuff could repeat itself.
Not saying it would, history doesn't repeat itself exact the same way.
However they LOOL solution more temporal topic, if you ask me..
There must be some solution found to integrate COOL into TDF project. Or
I see dissolving TDF in long term with fork of LibreOffice next to COOL.
C'Office. Kind of modeled like OnlyOffice (or TinyMCE, CKEditor,
Adguard). Github free code access + professional company page for
end-users (paying non-geeks)
If TDF isn't code sharing platform (kind of github exclusively for
LibreOffice), what does it represent? And is this some kind of utopia
(idea)/ or down to earth (realistic) vision.
As TDF LibreOffice rather dependent on a limited number of partners
doing most of the work (code-wise). Not trying to discredit the work of
Next question positioning of COOL at LibreOffice.
Still thinking we should 'communicate' that a online versions is
available; to have full product range/ product palette.
To accommodate everybody. And having an alternative for MSO 365
[Sorry, for product vision of mine, for those who have strong project
preference. End-users are mostly product users, IMHO]
They latter is more 'product' positioning topic. Within a project
perspectives services kind out of scope.
However the world is changing (Office Online) so this means adapting.
Hosting LibreOffice Online by TDF would mean a move to services.
And those services fit more in a 'product' model and not in 'project'.
They other solution would be sharing they code only (so not binary's or
However LibreOffice/TDF should cater the whole product palette to be
'relevant'/ competitive. Or TDF should do they reverse.
Becoming more a code hub/platform. with bug tracker and kind daily
builds and 'pre final' releases. Where final could also mean LTS quality.
There surely a need for some strategic vision what TDF represents they
As TDF being pretty dependent on eco-system partners.
I don't want to wait for full detailed strategic vision of TDF (next
decade) before marketing stuff can get started.
So not want to squabble again 1-2 years about a strategic vision.
However going without idea about what TDF should kind of hard.
They whole label matter is kind of obsolete if LibreOffice by TDF isn't
a competitive product (because releases under label pre-release/testing)
Op 29-11-2020 om 10:32 schreef Heiko Tietze:
On 26.11.20 11:02, Florian Effenberger wrote:
1. to freeze (not delete) the "online" repository at TDF's git, for
the time being
1b. to switch the https://github.com/libreoffice/online mirror to
0 (mirror COOL at LOOL might be confusing for volunteers)
+1 (if we could forward from LOOL to COOL)
2. to freeze (not delete) the translations for online in Weblate
I'm for a clear cut and a complete "outsourcing". What actually
changes is the
location of the repository and the label (LOOL becomes COOL). We can
Online at any point in time by "reforking".
Consequently, l10n for COOL would be a different effort. But since
should be the same and translators probably don't want to create
the best in the interest of the l10n team might be to have some kind
memory, if that's possible.
Nevertheless we should actively support COOL and encourage volunteers to
contribute to both projects. It's a matter of communication and
marketing to let
users know that the front-end might be C'bra but it's actually
they use. Workflow, artwork, look and feel should make users not only
both online and desktop but also show what part of the sister projects
for example, reporting bugs.
Some remaining questions:
* How do we handle bug reports (BZ still has Online as project)?
* Will the LibreOffice help done by TDF also cover COOL (likely not)?
* Ask.LO is a convenient place for questions. Do we encourage people
support for COOL there too? Would be hard to stop them, but is this a
LibreOffice question that occur when using COOL.
* Will extensions and templates work for both and do we host it?
* What actions do we take or request to make COOL being clearly a
product (need a better term here since it should be the same product
too)? For example, the about dialog tells me nothing right now but
could be the
same as on desktop.
* Will TDF tender development for Online in the future?
* How do we advertise COOL (and expect the same from C'bra)?
* What are the expectation of C'bra to TDF? Could imagine not to build
binaries first of all.
To unsubscribe e-mail to: email@example.com
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
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