Counterproposal to the "actization" of LibreOffice Online

Hi Andreas! Hi Sophie!

On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 8:55 AM Andreas Mantke <maand@gmx.de> wrote:

Hi,

Am 14.01.22 um 19:14 schrieb Simon Phipps:

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!

Sure, without following an interest you wouldn’t participate and invest
your live time in that community.

But at least if you are a member of a charity’s body you need to be open
and transparent about such interests and rethink, if following them
foster the objectives of the organization. If following your interest
(commercial or non-commercial) is in opposite to that, a member of the
body has to put his interest last. If she / he is not able to follow
such rule, she / he shouldn’t reconsider his membership, because
otherwise she / he most probably will get very soon into the situation
to violate her / his duty as a member of the body.

In short: if you wear to hats (TDF / personal interest) you as a member
of a body has to wear the TDF hat in the first place.

I absolutely agree with you, Andreas. I especially agree with your observation above that vested interests can be of various kinds, not just commercial. I believe that’s an area that needs attention, as most people at TDF have a link with a community, political campaign, job, career reputation or company (and so on) that could make them act in a way that prioritises their interest over the charity.

I thought what Sophi said was relevant here:

On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 4:26 PM sophi <sophi@libreoffice.org> wrote:

We need to have a balance between commercial and charitable activities. In
my very own opinion, we have moved away from this balance and we could
have reshaped it during the pandemic.

I completely agree that things are out of balance, and I very much agree that we should look to restore a balance of interests, but I don’t think the contrast is between “commercial and charitable”. It is rather between the interests of individuals and the interests of the charity as a whole. We keep focussing on commercial interests, but in doing so we neglect other motivations for taking a position on the functioning of TDF. To move on we will need to recognise that TDF is a charity formed as home for a convergence of interests and that a focus too much on the harms or benefits of any one sort of interest is the origin of our problems.

Cheers

Simon

Hi Simon,

I’m deeply concerned by your comments as you are presenting a very distorted view of reality contributing in creating more confusion, misinformation and divisions.

If you are unaware of what happened within the board in the past two years then it would be better for you not to say anything about it and support all of us in making the things Sophi asked for in her email happen as some of us tried but others decided to ignore us or actively block us.

Then just some brief comments below to correct what you said a bit.

On 14/01/2022 19:14, Simon Phipps wrote:

Hi Sophie,

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 <sophi@libreoffice.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.

Maybe you missed the point here.

Some of us actually worked hard to prepare the ground to help others trying to act in a fair and balanced way but after months of work and negotiations someone decided that solidarity wasn’t a priority.

You once again missed completely the point when in a public meeting (22/05/2020) you said that making LOOL available “poorly thought out proposal” and that we should have focused on your proposal for LOOL on Raspberry Pi.

I know you may not have been aware of the months of well documented negotiations that preceded that proposal which took in consideration the eventual economical impact for a valuable member of the ecosystem and the need to act in solidarity of the people badly affected by the pandemic.

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).

Fortunately freedom, equality and solidarity are still in the core of what TDF does as some fought to keep it that way.

This has led to progress grinding to a halt through mistrust.

Life taught me that trust needs to be earned and should not be given blindly.

Also since my onboarding at TDF facts confirmed that whatever I’ve been told needs to be validated and supported by clear evidences.

That first day a member of the board shocked me when he said to me “TDF is utterly broken” and that made me think many things including “What have you been doing all these years instead of fixing things” and “This guy will have to work hard to earn my trust”. Sadly that person did not put much efforts in trying to earn my trust, others didn’t even try while fortunately I can say I found many more great people that demonstrated they can be trusted and are doing their best for TDF and our community.

For example, both TDC and LOOL were ended just at the point where the external conditions suggested they were going to flourish.

I guess by now most should know how LOOL ended and why.

I was hoping never to hear again about TDC but as you mention it that’s another situation where the patience of the community and the new members of the board has been tested thoroughly.

I had some doubt about that project since I’ve heard of it and I even wrote to you before becoming a deputy member of the board to express my doubts about the way it was being setup.
Your answer didn’t convinced me at all that the proposal was good for TDF and our community and it pushed me to look even deeper into the issue.

If I recall correctly you said you spent two years in making TDC happen as a fix for systemic issues within TDF.
That made me wonder if it wouldn’t have been a better idea to invest those two years in fighting to fix the issues instead of creating a third party organisation to go around those issues.

Your answer made me also learn about a term, bike-shedding[1], its implications and to understand if we were trying to build a shed or a nuclear power plant.

It turns out that we have a lot of very clever and dedicated community members that spotted that the project that has been presented as a shed should actually have been considered as a power plant because there were many complex elements that haven’t been considered and/or fully explained.

The board received a very long list of questions and doubts clearly showing that the presented project has been underestimated in both its complexity and its negative effect for TDF and our community.

It seems like once again you missed the point as instead of taking onboard the questions, evaluate their merit and provide convincing answers, which could have included “we may have to go back to the drawing board”, you decided to feel offended and stopped responding.

Some members of the new board had to perform a full analysis of the project while the member of the board that were involved with that project kept hampering the process and sometimes coming up with alleged informations/reasons to carry on that have been disproved not long after.

Not happy about the underestimation of the size of the shed a few months ago you had the courage to state that you have “been betrayed by the Board” because TDC didn’t proceed as planned.

A very long book could be written about what the new member of the board had to endure and the tactics that have been used to force things through but that should be already enough to make you reformulate the above statement.

Little has been achieved in their place as you observe, and as the tired bickering in this thread illustrates.

If you observe carefully you may actually notice that what you see are people that had enough of being diplomatic and saying that all is fine.

If you think that little has been achieved then I suppose we have been very good in keeping for ourselves the pain we had to endure to manage to fix what was broken instead of looking for easier paths that could have been even more damaging.

Lots has been achieved even if we could have achieved more if we didn’t have to fight hard for months to define that TDC as presented wasn’t fit for purpose, to try to get LOOL to the community and to get the Conflict of Interest policy through.

The TDC issue has in a way been useful as we did the the due diligence that should have been done before presenting the project as a fait accompli and the result is only partially evident as that process has shown that the issue presented as the reason to create TDC are actually not there. The new board has now the benefit, that the current board hasn’t enjoyed, of having all the information to propose a plan that will be for the full benefit of the community.

You may now realise that defining “tired bickering” a thread where a member of the community, the staff and the board express serious ideas and concerns doesn’t help the situation at all and confirms you are still thinking that this is just bike-shedding while we have to look after a power plant.

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.

I personally felt that those that had information believed to be more equal than others when I joined the board and had to deal with TDC. The new members had no readily available information and those that had the information didn’t really help much as they thought the plan was OK and we should have gone ahead.

I had to spend a large amount of time digging into meeting minutes to find information that turned out to be contradictory to what I was being told.

Now we have a mailing list that contains notes and references so that the new members of the board won’t have to go through the same pain.

If some felt slandered they can simply state what they think is incorrect and I’m sure we can now find enough information to verify if they are right or not.

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.

Actually we have released a lot of information but some didn’t bother reading it and called it “tired bickering”.

There has consequently been no spirit of solidarity to harness to do good outside the project.

The spirit of solidarity has been there all the time and some started acting to help while others where not so keen.

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.

I believe I can see the light at the end of the tunnel (unless that’s just a train) and that after so much hard work some of the major issues have been sorted.

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’m not sure who told you that anyone is trying to frame “commercial” as tainted.
I believe you completely misunderstood the issue and you are creating an “us versus them” situation that does not exist.

Of course the commercial ecosystem is important and nobody denied that. You may also missed the fact that we launched the MarCom plan which has been developed with the precise intention of creating opportunities that lead commercial organisation to develop business models that allow the to grow and contribute but without asking us to go against our Statutes and objectives.

I may be naive but I thought this was clear to all.

The fight we had to go through were related to some people expecting that companies should have the freedom to do what they wanted without clear rules of engagement, that they were more equal than others because they write a lot of code (which seems the only thing the often mentioned “meritocracy”[2] measures) and that solidarity is OK as long as it generated leads.

Some think that freedom, equality and solidarity should have very different meanings.

Some of the things have been fixed, on some it has been shown we had no control over them but if the commercial entities finally accept to work with TDF and the whole community under clear rules for all then everyone will gain from it.

One of the things that still need to be fixed, IMHO, is that some still think that TDF should not develop any code directly and should be fully dependent on third parties.
Well, LOOL demonstrated that by being dependent only on third parties, that have a majority control over a project, we can’t guarantee we can satisfy our objectives.

I’m sure that the new board will look at the issue, it will learn from past mistakes and approve both the investment on new developers and to set clear rules for existing and new projects controlled by commercial entity to protect the rights and interests of all parties involved.

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.

A lot of work has been done to make life easier for the new board members, a very well written Conflict of Interest Policy is in place as a clear guide for them and lots more information (than I had when I started) is now readily available to understand better and faster the issues we had to fix and what we still have to do.

So I’m fairly optimistic that the new board will be able to move better and faster now that the road has been fixed.

Best regards

Simon

Ciao

Paolo

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Etymology

Hi *,

my first email with that subject wasn't really meant to start a
discussion, but make a statement.

I'll not debate individual points (or answer further in this thread);
in the end we can agree to disagree (as long as we manage to pull
together & towards shared goals).

It is therefore encouraging to see that almost all participants on
this collection of threads are trying to pull things together, and
either try to convey wisdom and vision, or finding middle ground.

Sadly, there's some divisiveness injected repeatedly. This has to
stop, for the benefit of this project & its community. It is patently
untrue that the board did everything right, and some hostile external
forces were screwing us over.

This is from the standard populist playbook, and I've had enough of
it. We've all made mistakes, and mis-calculated (sometimes badly) here
or there. Let's move on.

Two things need a dedicated answer:

First:

I would rather not stop looking at the past as it's only by learning
from the past that we create a better future.

Open Source in general, and this project (and its ancestors) in
particular have a very rich history indeed, that is worth learning
from. So let's not cherry-pick our stories, and acknowledge that a
project of this size relies critically on a working commercial
ecosystem.

Second:

> 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 foundation!).

This comment worries me a bit.

There is nothing to worry about. I'm stating here, that the goals of
TDF (as enshrined in the statutes), and the shared goals of our
community (all those contributing to LibreOffice) are not necessarily
exactly the same. It is useful for all of us to remember, that TDF is
there (and was founded) to serve the community, and not the other way
around.

My original comment was pointing to something else though, so this is
again a tangent. What I said was, that there's three large camps
(ecosystem, TDF, volunteer community), that ideally complement each
other in what we do. Instead of eyeing each other with mistrust.

And now - let's move on!

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Let's now stop this infighting. Nothing good will come from it.

In particular: this is a public list, so let me remind everyone that
our statutes suggest, and our code of conduct mandates:

- that we behave respectfully towards all others, including those that
  are different or think differently from yourself
- be helpful, considerate, friendly and respectful towards all other
  participants
- we don't condone harassment or offensive behaviour

Thank you all for considering, and let's move on!

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Hi Thorsten,

Let's now stop this infighting.

IMHO what is being called "infighting" has been an excellent exercise of transparency and exchange of point of view.

It was probably overdue as some members of the community, due to lack of communication, formed their own view of what may have happened during this term.

More information is now available to all so that it will be easier to ask more questions and help us moving forward in a positive way.

Nothing good will come from it.

I do agree that lowering the quality of the debate characterising members of the community as "populist" or anti "commercial" won't bring anything good.

Everyone has the right to have opinions and it's our duty to allow everyone access to actual facts so that they can validate their opinions and bring something positive to the discussion.

In particular: this is a public list, so let me remind everyone that
our statutes suggest, and our code of conduct mandates:

- that we behave respectfully towards all others, including those that
   are different or think differently from yourself
- be helpful, considerate, friendly and respectful towards all other
   participants
- we don't condone harassment or offensive behaviour

It is a very good reminder for all, I'm sure that both Michael Meeks and Sophie Gautier, which are surely following with interest these conversations and are members of the Code of Conduct support team, would have flagged any behaviour that goes against the CoC.

More information and contact details here:

https://www.documentfoundation.org/foundation/code-of-conduct/

Thank you all for considering, and let's move on!

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Thanks for contributing to open and constructive conversations.

Ciao

Paolo

Hi Sophie, all,

what I find interesting is, that everybody in these thread(s) around Sophie’s mail is asking for balance. And let me add, I do too.

But what I could observe is, that independent of what is about in the daily work, is it coming to decision making or formulating a text or even just defining a reasonable and fair process to get such a result/decision/text, everybody is within his/her own frame and not much interested in getting a compromise/a consensus. Proposals for such “coming together”, no matter from where they come, are often not enough “fitted” for the own interests (with some few exceptions which were very hard work to get) and getting questioned again and again in long and exhausting processes.

And that makes it hard to get results and even more it bounds our all time resources and motivation instead of doing other good things. And I am thankful, that Sophie was speaking up for one aspect of it, out of these bounded resources we all did not manage to use our really good status in/of TDF during the pandemic for helping, showing more solidarity with people who hit it a lot more than TDF or even community members of TDF, of which we sometimes do not know that they are suffering.

So, my personal conclusion of this is, we could become better if we all really value all sides of it more and show our respect to “the others” in more often acknowledging a compromise even if not all of the own interests are in it, or facilitating a consensus. Coding contributions is a critical part and nevertheless as well as all others like documentation, translation, marketing, quality assurance, local activities of the volunteers independent where, mentoring, certifying, organizing and maintain the infrastructure,…

We would not have these good status of our foundation during the pandemic when we did not have all of them. They are all intertwined and dependent on each other. And indeed, we should use this status more for doing good within the founders will.

It is never too late to do so.

Thank you all for your various contributions,
Lothar

Am 15.01.2022 um 17:26 schrieb sophi:

Hi Simon, all,
Le 14/01/2022 à 19:14, Simon Phipps a écrit :

Hi Sophie,

I appreciate your comment here and (with some fear) have to respond to
amplify it.

Thank you for your support. You amplified more than my initial thoughts
which were only about solidarity, altruism and generosity.

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 11:14 AM sophi [<sophi@libreoffice.org>](mailto:sophi@libreoffice.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.

I don't want to go back in these stories of TDC and LOOL again but they
are two very different situations for me. What I can agree with you is
that both have damaged the community's confidence in what is TDF and
what it should represent.
I've read all the minutes of the board meetings, attended several of
these meetings, and I can say this board has took several actions during
this two very difficult years without having a chance to meet. My mail
was not to address reproaches to the board, but a reaction to what
Thorsten and Michael said on the pandemic period.

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.

Well that's not exactly what I said, and in my opinion the board was
more open to discussions than some years before. But I agree with you
that even arguments should be more transparent and the community should
be aware when things are going worse.

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!

Yes and I really appreciate the tools provided by the MC to rebuild trust.

As Maslow [<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs>](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs)
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.

This is not what I've seen in the project, commercial is not tainted. We
need to have a balance between commercial and charitable activities. In
my very own opinion, we have moved away from this balance and we could
have reshaped it during the pandemic.

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.

Well this discussion has been proposed by a community member, and I find
it encouraging in the sens of I hope it will clarify who is TDF and what
it should do for its community at large.

cheers
Sophie

Hi Paolo, hi all,

IMHO what is being called "infighting" has been an excellent exercise
of transparency and exchange of point of view.

I agree, a lot of new (at least for non-board people) information came
out from this thread, although the topics I proposed in the first email,
regarding, as per subject of the thread, counterproposal(s) to the
"actization" of LibreOffice Online, were barely discussed.

I also think, and I hope those that have written here will agree, is
clear that we need fixed and strong rules for projects hosted at TDF. I
hope source-only projects will not happen again.

All the best,

Marco

Hi Marco,

thanks a lot for your engagement and your contributions to the discussion.

Hi Paolo, hi all,

IMHO what is being called "infighting" has been an excellent exercise
of transparency and exchange of point of view.

I agree, a lot of new (at least for non-board people) information came
out from this thread, although the topics I proposed in the first email,
regarding, as per subject of the thread, counterproposal(s) to the
"actization" of LibreOffice Online, were barely discussed.

I hope that the provided additional information has helped you understand why I have replied the way I did.

(original:
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00043.html

and with my answer:
https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00057.html)

Where we stand at present, IMHO, there is nothing much TDF can do to revive the LOOL project as most of the developers involved are Collabora's employees so they now only contribute to Collabora's GitHub repositories.

Unless the valuable member of the ecosystem changes its mind, other members of our community have other proposals and/or want to help us restarting the development of LOOL I don't see many other ways forward.

It would be great to have more comments from the rest of the community about it.

I also think, and I hope those that have written here will agree, is
clear that we need fixed and strong rules for projects hosted at TDF. I
hope source-only projects will not happen again.

Thank you for supporting this proposal which is very much linked to the above issue.

I've been proposing this for quite a while and I hope the new board will support it so that we won't find ourselves in the same situation in a few years time.

All the best,

Marco

Ciao

Paolo

Hi Marco,

Marco Marinello wrote:

I hope source-only projects will not happen again.

In fact, if you just count by the number of projects, almost all code
that is hosted at TDF is source-only.

There's a lot to discover and weigh here, and it's a challenge (in the
wider context) that the entire FLOSS universe is struggling with since
a number of years. I don't think we'll be able to solve that
conundrum anytime soon.

So again, I suggest we focus, and solve questions one by one. Next up
is the general attic proposal. Let's move on with that.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Hi all,

On 17/01/2022 13:08, Thorsten Behrens wrote:

Marco Marinello wrote:

I hope source-only projects will not happen again.

In fact, if you just count by the number of projects, almost all code
that is hosted at TDF is source-only.

There's a lot to discover and weigh here, and it's a challenge (in the
wider context) that the entire FLOSS universe is struggling with since
a number of years.

There is a lot to discover and we should fully evaluate what we are hosting.

Only a short while ago I discovered that the Android Viewer still gets contributions from Michael Weghorn:

https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00003.html

As it seems like there is still interest from the community we should have a look at how we can help.

While we go through the discovery process we might find other projects that we need to review and maybe publish, like the Android Viewer, and some that may require to be under a formal agreement.

Ciao

Paolo

Hi Marco! Thanks for contributing.

regarding, as per subject of the thread, counterproposal(s) to the
“actization” of LibreOffice Online, were barely discussed.

My apologies for the delay Marco, I had meant to comment on your proposal but got distracted!

I also think, and I hope those that have written here will agree, is
clear that we need fixed and strong rules for projects hosted at TDF.

I suggest being very cautious with making “strong rules” in a volunteer community. While superficially they seem good at the time, our experience at TDF has been that strong rules made under challenging condition turn out to be problematic when conditions have changed, and can then be used disruptively. The more rules there are, the more games can be played with them.

I especially liked something in your first idea:

TDF should publicly endorse
this choice, stating that the project is now hosted on Github and the
development is managed by a company of the ecosystem but is – at the end
of the day – always LibreOffice Online

I think this is the seed of a great approach which we could pursue in the context of the ingredient brand we have been evolving. It would need to be designed to apply to any relevant project, not just LOOL. We are more likely to see TDF’s mission advanced by encouraging and supporting fellow community members who try to innovate than by discussing what others should do and then looking for those others!

Cheers,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I suggest being very cautious with making "strong rules" in a volunteer community. While superficially they seem good at the time, our experience at TDF has been that strong rules made under challenging condition turn out to be problematic when conditions have changed, and can then be used disruptively. The more rules there are, the more games can be played with them.

I believe Marco supported my proposal because he read my various emails where I was clarifying that the rules weren't at all directed at the volunteer community in general.

Eg.: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/2022/msg00061.html

We surely don't want to make life difficult to individual volunteers contributing to LibreOffice and related projects.

For corporate contributors, shouldn't be a big issue as they already need to go through internal reviews to see what they can contribute and how so may as well make things clear for all and protect not only our community but also the corporate contributors that may inadvertently lead the community to believe that the whole project will be available for free and for all to use while they may have also other plans for portions of it.

Then surely once some rules are in place there will always be someone in bad faith that tries to circumvent them if at the time seems more convenient for them but at least we'll have to deal with a case where we know what the community was supposed to get out of it instead of wasting months in fruitless negotiations.

At present I don't have development plans for a new commercial project based on LibreOffice but if I had one I would ask TDF to work together to shape an agreement where I state the objective of the project, my plans to make it commercially sustainable (if that is an end goal as it may not be necessary the case/needed) and what the community could expect out of it under the TDF umbrella. Then it's up to the board and the community to decide if we should invest in the project.

(The above specific example would lead to a special situation as, being a member of TDF's board of directors, it would be even more important for me to present a clear project and let the rest of the board decide about it, without me or my business partners ever intervening, to avoid being perceived as more equal than others)

Wouldn't any company find it not just natural but essential to do that to protect their long term investments and show that it can be trusted by the community?

Ciao

Paolo

Hi Simon,

This has led to progress grinding to a halt through mistrust....
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

  Thanks for your apt and helpful analysis & reflection on the way ahead. As a counter-point to some other perspectives: I am really grateful that you take the time to intervene positively in our community, to provide the benefit of your wide experience, as well as this sort of incisive and clear perspective that helps to cut through the clouds of confusion.

  I too hope the new board will be able to start afresh with new vigor on the task of making LibreOffice a welcoming and pleasant place to contribute for all.

  Thanks,

    Michael.

Another perspective on that: "You rushed into the board with proposals
that would allow non-contributors to start competing with one of the
major contributors, by making use of the LibreOffice brand."
And .. then you were surprised that it wasn't welcomed with applause :slight_smile:

Cor

Another perspective on that: "You rushed into the board with proposals
that would allow non-contributors to start competing with one of the
major contributors, by making use of the LibreOffice brand."
And .. then you were surprised that it wasn't welcomed with applause :slight_smile:

Cor

Hi,

only for background information I recommend to read:
blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2015/01/27/the-document-foundation-announces-the-results-of-the-android-tender/

and e.g. the annual report 2013 of TDF, page 9/10

Regards,
Andreas

Hi *,

discussions that don't make progress towards agreement are a waste of
everyone's time.

If this is about personal gripes, the best way to sort things out is a
phone or video call.

Otherwise, let's please circle back to the topic at hand (atticisation
of LibreOffice Online, and what to do about it - arguing over past
events ain't gonna get us anywhere here).

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

Hi Simon,

Il 17/01/22 18:15, Simon Phipps ha scritto:

I especially liked something in your first idea:

TDF should publicly endorse
this choice, stating that the project is now hosted on Github and the
development is managed by a company of the ecosystem but is – at the end
of the day – always LibreOffice Online

I think this is the seed of a great approach which we could pursue in the context of the ingredient brand we have been evolving. It would need to be designed to apply to any relevant project, not just LOOL. We are more likely to see TDF’s mission advanced by encouraging and supporting fellow community members who try to innovate than by discussing what others should do and then looking for those others!

beware that the four bullet points I mentioned in the first email are not intended to be split.

Hi Thorsten,

Hi *,

discussions that don't make progress towards agreement are a waste of
everyone's time.

I agree.

I proposed an agreement but nobody picked up.

If this is about personal gripes, the best way to sort things out is a
phone or video call.

Otherwise, let's please circle back to the topic at hand (atticisation
of LibreOffice Online, and what to do about it - arguing over past
events ain't gonna get us anywhere here).

No. I started a new thread, as requested, not to be confused with *your*
thread regarding the actization proposal.

If you want replies on that, please ask for them in your own thread.

-Marco

Hi Cor,

I'm sorry to say it in public but I'm honestly appalled by your comment which shows your insensitivity to the matter that is being discussed and is providing an example of how disinformation works.

Maybe you missed the point here.

Some of us actually worked hard to prepare the ground to help others
trying to act in a fair and balanced way but after months of work and
negotiations someone decided that solidarity wasn't a priority.

Another perspective on that: "You rushed into the board with proposals
that would allow non-contributors to start competing with one of the
major contributors, by making use of the LibreOffice brand."
And .. then you were surprised that it wasn't welcomed with applause :slight_smile:

Cor

I would suggest you to read the directors emails and RedMine tickets about LOOL since March 2020 to discover that the most ethical and professional thing you could do is to apologise to the members of the community for your unfortunate comment.

Ciao

Paolo