Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2022 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi Thorsten,

On 14/01/2022 16:27, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Paolo Vecchi wrote:
So, to conclude, this "distraction" has actually helped the board in dealing
with a situation which impaired its freedom to act in a well informed and
structured way and created a new situation where, thanks to important and in
some cases overdue work done by the board during this term, we know where we
stand, we know that we can do a lot more that some thought we could and we
can finally move forward and do more good things for the community.

I have a hard time reconciling the objective loss of a quite important
project at TDF, with the above paragraph.
I guess I've anticipated your change of title as can't do much about LOOL, unless someone decides to deliver on his part of the agreement, so may as well look forward.

Then anyway what has TDF and our community lost?
It's only when we started looking into it and we wanted to do the right thing that the main contributor decided to fork. Up to that point TDF has been hosting and promoting a project on which it had little say and it has never been allowed to fully deliver it to the community.
Whatever the reasons (perhaps it was inexperience), the board managed
to alienate an important corporate ecosystem member enough that they
left with their project.
Sorry but that is not correct.
The whole board, included you which I believe don't lack of experience, negotiated openly with a fellow member of the board that coincidentally is also the director of the company that then forked the project. For months the signs were positive but when we were nearly ready to deliver to the people where in need of it our fellow member of the board/director of the ecosystem company decided otherwise.

I would really like to stop looking at the past now, and instead see
how we all together can shape the future - with some impact.
I would rather not stop looking at the past as it's only by learning from the past that we create a better future.

I did propose the following additional article to the "de-atticisation" as the past told us that things can go seriously wrong:

> - If the parties involved in the development of the project are commercial
> entities an agreement must be signed to make clear the final scope, the
> benefits to the community and the eventual limitations in publishing it
> following TDF's objectives.

You should look at the past as it's months I've been asking you to lead by example and tell us what will happen to the project that your company is leading when it will start becoming an important revenue maker.

We don't want the past to repeat itself, don't we?

That means, keeping as many existing contribution, while attracting &
growing more contributors in green fields (where there are plenty!).

I fully agree with you as long as the rules with corporate contributors are clear from the beginning.
Personally, I'm not interested in playing zero-sum games (taking
development away from the ecosystem, and re-patriating it into
TDF). Instead, we need to work much more on creating win-win setups,
and supplementing each other.
TDF must make its choices as corporate contributors have to make theirs.

Fortunately corporate contributors have business models that allows them to grow without counting on TDF tenders so, while tenders will be still made to deal with complex development that other contributors are unable to tackle, we need to become capable of managing some of the project so that we are not always dependent on third parties that may not find a specific project fun or commercially interesting.

There's definitely things that TDF can do much better than any
ecosystem company. There's also definitely things that ecosystem
companies are likely better suited for, than TDF. The same is true for
our volunteer community
True and that's why there is room for all to have fun and participate to make LibreOffice and related project great.
(which is BTW not the same as TDF, the
This comment worries me a bit.
TDF is the home of our community and the entity that guards LibreOffice from situations that in the past (here it is again) led to the formation of TDF itself to create the great community around it and LibreOffice.

Without TDF protecting the brand and putting the resources donated by our community to help our community to improve LibreOffice all the time then the project would be at risk of fragmentation and take over by less community friendly entities.

In the past, we've been envied for actually striking a
nice balance, and complementing each other.

And we should get back to that stage.

We had to go through a painful process to fix a few things that needed fixing but now that things should be clear to most it would be great to get back to work in a way that benefits TDF and its LibreOffice community

One obvious area where there's very little commercial incentive to do
things is a11y. At the same time, that would be something very
charitable to fund & further! If there's budget for funding internal
development, a11y would be very high on my list of topics to focus on.
That's something that has been on the list to do for a long time.
I haven't noticed anything related to it in the ESC ranking or maybe it's simply not marked clearly enough.

If it isn't there then we should ask the ESC to propose fixes in that regards?

-- Thorsten


Paolo Vecchi - Deputy Member of the Board of Directors
The Document Foundation, Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin, DE
Gemeinnützige rechtsfähige Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Legal details:

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


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.