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


Hi Thorsten,

this is the thread that Marco Marinello created to see if anybody can come up with other proposals that may bring back LOOL instead of just having to forget about it.

While sadly it seems like the original main contributors to LOOL don't seem to add much in terms of proposals, at least it's useful to have a clearer view and understanding of the past to try avoiding something similar happening in future.

I do understand the position of all the members of the board at the time and also yours, Thorsten, as I believe that at the beginning the intentions were those expressed on the page I linked. Surely no one thought that a friend and a member of the same community would have acted that way.

That's understandable and nobody here is blaming anyone for choices made at that time.

The more recent past shows us that now we have to look at things more carefully and think about the future of the projects we host.

In regard to your questions:

- concrete proposals what TDF should (or should not) do for future
  projects

In your "atticisation" thread I clearly stated what I think we should do for projects that could be taken out of the attic AND for current/new projects we host.

- fundamentally new or different ideas on how to deal with stale
  projects

As I stated in your "atticisation" thread we definitely need to check the projects that we are hosting and see what requires to be formally welcomed with an agreement as the main contributor is a commercial organisations, which projects are obsolete and which projects can be revived.

I'll follow up on the board list also with the proposal to look more in detail at what we host and status and future of the Android Viewer.

Ciao

Paolo


On 25/01/2022 16:31, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
Hi Andreas, hi Paolo,

this thread has been going on for some time, and the subject is still
"Counterproposal to the 'actization' of LibreOffice Online"

I don't find any new input for that discussion. All points have been
made already, most of them repeatedly.

The irony of someone on the board at the time complaining that the
board at the time made a mistake is not lost on me.

So can we now finally turn this into something constructive?

That would be, among other things:

- concrete proposals what TDF should (or should not) do for future
   projects
- fundamentally new or different ideas on how to deal with stale
   projects

Everything else is badly off-topic on this thread (and very likely
even on this list). For general discussions, please do move that over
to our discuss@documentfoundation.org list.

Cheers, 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: https://www.documentfoundation.org/imprint

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Context


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.