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

Hi Cor, all,

Am 02.06.22 um 23:17 schrieb Cor Nouws:
Hi Andreas,

Thanks for your answer,

Andreas Mantke wrote on 01/06/2022 20:13:

Am 01.06.22 um 11:48 schrieb Cor Nouws:

Andreas Mantke wrote on 31/05/2022 19:49:

I only could see the difference that in one case TDF has full control

I do not understand what you mean. What is full control over open
source code?

it means control not over the source code per se, but over the direction
of the development from a TDF point of view and the modules etc. TDF
think are useful or needed by the community (and the user of the program
and the donor).

TDF now chooses the projects for the tenders, so already does have
that influence.

a) TDF could choose projects for tenders, but is dependent of commercial
free software companies that want to work on that project and in TDF's
direction. If there is no will or ability to work on a project there
will be no development.

b) TDF has very low impact on the price of the development (because the
market is oligopoly/monopoly).

c) currently there is an impact potentialization of commercial free
software companies from a combination of ESC and board membership. They
have a determining impact in both bodies and that is not really healthy
for a foundation, including and relying not only on developers (but also
community members, which help end users, write documentation, did
marketing etc.).

And this means TDF need to decide and operate independent from any
commercial company.

I think it is fair to include also the organizations that use
LibreOffice (and make use of services of commercial organizations for
support/improving) as part of our wide community.

They could participate in person in the same way as every community
member did. But currently they have no right to stop a development, that
TDF and its community think is important.

And in addition: the commercial companies are not the most important
ones in the community. They are part of it, but there were/are a lot of
people that were/are doing a lot of work (sometimes very tedious),
without TDF/LibreOffice wouldn't be successful.
I got the impression that it would be a step forward, if some developer
and software companies would value highly the work of the non-developer
for the project. It's important to recognize, that LibreOffice is an end
user product and not something running on a server, managed by an admin.

And also: TDF is founded thanks to (also, among others) the massive
help of our commercial ecosystem.

     TDF with in-house developer could avoid a situation
like the one with LOOL (I'm not sure that this opinion is common ground
inside the current board).

I'm not sure.
LOOL started thanks to tedious hard work with great risk, pushed by
the need to make it an success in the market. For me (having seen
commercial and idealistic activities in many areas) it's hard to
imagine that a voluntary driven foundation can have the same
understanding of and interaction with a business market. But we're
diverging a bit too much, if we redo all the previous discussions on
that matter here, I think. (covering some highlights at a beer, looks
better to me ;) )
If I remember correctly TDF has paid a big part of work on the basics of
LOOL. And maybe some former / current board member recognize which
company was paid for that work from donation money.

and has not to pay for the benefit of a commercial company. And
thus in
the first case could get reach more targets / tickets done than in the
latter case from my point of view.

It is indeed an interesting question to look at effectiveness of
TDF-spendings. In case it is clear that in house development would
result better work for the foundations goals, that is something we
cannot easily ignore. (I would not be able to set some data there ;) )
But of course other aspects to consider there are: how can TDF be
growing the ecosystem, which I think is one of the most important
challenges of the LibreOffice project, and not compete with the
(Different subject, that as far as I am concerned will be at the table
to work on soon.)

I stated already in another email that tendering produces a lot of
overhead and consumes a lot of TDF/community resources (and also extra

I think you underestimate the costs/overhead of having in house
developers. And for their work too, it is necessary to plan the
activity, evaluate milestones and check the results of in-house
I think you also underestimate the advantages commercially driven
organizations have. (Mind that I'm not at all suggesting that
commercial organizations are the best choice for everything ;) ).

But TDF has to do the same for its current staff. Thus it should have
some experience in this field.

But please read the mail from László: explanation by real life examples.
This shows only that life is not always easy. But I think he and others
were able to get enough experience and to work on the LibreOffice code
with passion and success.

Thus if TDF never starts with contracting in-house developer, it will
never be able to improve the source code and operate independent from
the number software companies in the eco system (and there free
development resources).

This is all not to say that there is no room for in house development
(as I repeatedly stated). During this discussion (and in fact quite
early) various areas are noted that are (for obviously market reasons,
I would say) badly covered by commercial ecosystem. So focus on that,
definitely helps, without competing with our commercial ecosystem.
Because there are members of at least four software companies from the
eco system in the board I see no real market for tenders (see my email
to this list from June, 3.

But then still: learning managing in house development, cannot be
underestimated. Also many will try to get their most important
features, pet-bugs fixed etc.. Needs to be handled in a acceptable way
Yes, like the process of tendering (from the ESC listing/voting to the
approval of the contractor work). That process has a big footprint on
the especially the personal resources of the project.


## Free Software Advocate
## Plone add-on developer
## My blog:

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.