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

Hi Michael,

Thanks for summarizing my thoughts on your email (as far as I can understand from your message, we share exactly the same ideas).

On 2/10/22 13:36, Michael Weghorn wrote:

I agree here that there are several areas like CJK and CTL (and not only for bug fixes) or ally that should deserve much more love from TDF and I'm sure our donors would be happy that we invest in this area too.

That would help also to grow this part of the community, which is very complicated to achieve when our version is difficult to use.

Totally agree.

That sounds like a good approach to me, in particular for areas where there's currently no specific interest from ecosystem companies or volunteers and that are unsuitable for tenders, but considered important for the community. I would see that in line with how TDF already employs non-developer staff to take care of other important aspects not (sufficiently) covered by other contributors.

Totally agree.

I have the impression that a fundamentally important question is what the purpose/task of TDF-internal developers would be.

Yes, but it looks like the discussion is blocked one step before reaching a consensus on this very simple point. If the discussion stays as such, I have to say that I don't feel I am represented - as a TDF Member - by any member of the just elected board of directors (of course, those who have expressed their opinions).

If larger topics that TDF-internal developers were to work on were first agreed on in the bodies where ecosystem companies are present as well (like ESC and/or the board), my expectation would be that the development work from different sides should work together nicely, rather than creating any kind of destructive competition. (Ecosystem company products profit from contributions made to LibreOffice as well, and having a better overall product should in my opinion also increase the range of potentially interested customers in general.)

Totally agree.

Of course, in case the main intention were for TDF to provide more business-like services (like an LTS version or creating an impression of "donate a certain amount of money and your pet bug will be fixed"), I see very well how that might interfere significantly with the business model of ecosystem companies.

Totally agree. But I don't see the issue, as ESC and BoD members could easily stop any project before it starts, when there is a potential risk of conflict. AFAIK, major development activities are scrutinized by both bodies, as they are ranked in order of importance, suggested, approved and transformed to tenders, or not considered for tendering.

Development activities which are not considered for tendering, or just ignored, could probably be developed by TDF without creating disruptions (or even discussions). I am rather sure that in 7 million lines of code (plus the open bugs) there are enough challenges for everyone.

Of course, given my complete lack of understanding of development, is too easy to find a technical angle to disprove what I just wrote, but it would also be disproving what many of the contributors - the community - think, and this would confirm my personal belief that TDF BoD does not represent the community as a whole, but only a portion of it.

Assuming members in the involved LibreOffice/TDF bodies found a way to work together constructively, my current impression is that this approach could be for the benefit of all.

Again, totally agree. Best regards, Italo
Italo Vignoli -
mobile/signal +39.348.5653829
GPG Key ID - 0xAAB8D5C0
DB75 1534 3FD0 EA5F 56B5 FDA6 DE82 934C AAB8 D5C0

To unsubscribe e-mail to:
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
Privacy Policy:


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.