Thanks so much Simon for this comment ! I would especially like to
endorse your statement: 'It needs to be realistic about the pragmatics
of large-scale software engineering and how it's paid for and rein-in
those trying to frame "commercial" as tainted.' as an extremely
Open Source has won the argument in terms of how software should be
developed. I can't think of a commercial product shipping today that
doesn't include Open Source software. The struggle that remains is for
freedom and equality of access to the world-changing technology that
is being developed as Open Source (and also to commit to equality of
access to the decision making behind it), and I hope that TDF will
dedicate itself to these principles.
On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 10:14 AM Simon Phipps <email@example.com> wrote:
I appreciate your comment here and (with some fear) have to respond to amplify it.
On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 11:14 AM sophi <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On my point of view, it was not about achieving market dominance but
about solidarity. And TDF has failed here, again on my point of view.
Yes, I have to agree with you. Freedom, equality and solidarity used to be the norm at TDF. Over
the last couple of years that has largely ended at the Foundation level (fortunately our
community still has many parts where this is not true). This has led to progress grinding to a
halt through mistrust. For example, both TDC and LOOL were ended just at the point where the
external conditions suggested they were going to flourish. Little has been achieved in their
place as you observe, and as the tired bickering in this thread illustrates.
Egalitarianism was replaced by turning inwards to fight unproductively among those privileged to
be allowed information - and in the process to slander those involved before. As a result of this
the Foundation has turned even more closed, with Board inflighting leaving the Trustees in the
dark while the arguments went on. There has consequently been no spirit of solidarity to harness
to do good outside the project. As you say, that is tragic, and I really appreciate your
observation of it.
If TDF is to satisfy its mission this has to stop. The new Board has a huge opportunity and
responsibility to put all this behind them and lead positively. It must shun divisiveness and
seek ways to rekindle solidarity by emphasizing equality and promoting freedom. This will not be
done treating the motivations of some participants as suspect! In fact almost everyone is
pursuing an "interest", almost by definition in a collaborative community!
As Maslow observed, before higher-level behaviours can be cultivated, basic needs must be met -
especially belonging and esteem. The Foundation needs to be more inclusive of all its trustees in
its processes rather than just consulting them for votes once every two years. It needs to be
realistic about the pragmatics of large-scale software engineering and how it's paid for and
rein-in those trying to frame "commercial" as tainted. It has to seek ways to encourage both
community and commercial activities inside its "umbrella" rather than treating some as clean and
some as unclean.
I very much hope the new Board will engage positively and unanimously on these things. I'm not
finding the current conversation encouraging but I have hopes the new team will take a firm hold
and change things for the better.
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