[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [board-discuss] Big organisations not contributing
- Subject: Re: [board-discuss] Big organisations not contributing
- From: Telesto <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:57:57 +0200
- To: email@example.com
Op 14-7-2020 om 12:58 schreef Sam Tuke:
This thread seems to be conflating separate things:-> It's surely the case.
On 14/07/2020 11:15, Michael Meeks wrote:-> Agree
On 13/07/2020 22:07, Leo Moons wrote:Meaning that:
It strikes me that there's a lot of talk about large organizations,
that don't contribute to the community.
1) large orgs should donate to TDF?
2) large orgs should buy services from ecosystem companies?
These are largely different problems with different solutions.
-> It's big bowl of spaghetti from my point of view. Everything is intertwined and entangled. They published Marketing Strategy draft illustrates this. It's a TDF document, but quite obviously addressing issues of the eco-partners. Or is TDF starting to be a software vendor themselves; releasing an Enterprise Edition.[...] ForThis speaks to problem 2, which is first and foremost the responsibility of ecosystem companies to solve, with secondary support from TDF .
example when C'bra first went into business - we sunk Eur 100k+ into
a full-time sales & marketing person mostly focused on governments
for over a year. They were backed by great enthusiasm and a political
push from central government in the UK, net result: around zero
Some interests are shared between TDF and companies, and some interests conflict, and that's right and healthy in my view. For the sake of constructive debate let's keep clear who is being recommended to do what.
Brainstorming potential ecosystem company strategy case-by-case could be a useful exercise, but I'm frustrated when the problems and goals interchange and merge.
However TDF is - based on the current situation - more or less founded by the eco-system partners (not sure if this actually was the case back in the day). And they eco-system partners trying to profit from the LibreOffice brand. While the whole existent of LibreOffice is more or less based on the contributions of the eco-system partners.
TDF is a kind of a joint (multi ?) venture (or co-operation) run by a a Stiftung without commercial interest, and maybe even different interest compare to the main contributors. The with the Board of Directors being staffed with eco-system partners. Which doesn't make things any easier; it potential of Conflict of Interest. I really can't tell which interest are represented when the BoD makes a decisions (especially on the topic here). In the interest of TDF sec, or... No offense :-). I personally don't call this good governance. It perfectly fits the join/multi venture / co-operation model, except the TDF has slightly larger community (and it's intended this way). Not sure if _single _Stiftung is the best entity to run things.
Lawyer are likely able to create a better/ nifty scheme to accommodate the interest of everybody (with it's proper share in the saying) without a multiple heats structure. And it's possible to split of things etc. So code maintained by separate entity/ Stiftung etc. Of course with some overhead costs, but current I'm not the fan they current structure either. As it doesn't match the reality based on position of the big eco-system partners.
There are the marketing strategy's of the eco-partners themselves, however build around LibreOffice. With TDF in the middle. TDF distributing promoting a free edition. While at the same time referring to the partners for others services (which isn't a business of TDF). So here is TDF competing with the partners.
Point to eco-system partners having their own branded "LibreOffice" suite and services is again problematic ; so in essence competing with each other (assume World Wide Delivery; not country of origin). Which even more interesting based on the distribution of the code knowledge. Eco-system partners with more knowledge about Writer others know more about Calc (based on my observations).
The whole construction is really mind boggling. TDF is a community, not limited to the eco-system partners. However the eco-system partners are they major contributors; so their position is relevant for TDF (to get contributions from them). While the partners profit from the LibreOffice brand (or attempting too). While those partners are competing with each other. And at the same time people are contribution code/translations/QA for free, and maybe don't like commercialization of their donated code or other work. And the code being available for free. Even to desktop editions of the eco-partners (I think).
Somehow everybody is condemned to each other. And I personally prefer an integral marketing/ communication strategy/ distribution strategy including the dimensions of TDF but also Collabora/CIB (and others). As everybody being in the same boat anyhow. And I really don't see how to entangle it the interest; so the other way is an integral solution.
I'm really seeing 'deficiencies' at seen at Collabora/CIB in their attempt promote their product. Blaming TDF for lack of customers, while looking away for their own marketing/communication failures. Sure, a part of the issue is at LibreOffice/TDF. However it's only a part of they story. TDF (and eco-system partners) need a product (or should I say products: software + L1/L2 services + L3 services + consultancy) and proper marketing. A product doesn't sell without marketing. Marketing without a (proper) product won't work either. And a strong LibreOffice brand doesn't automatically create customers at the eco-system partners.
The whole thing could - theoretically - arranged differently. TDF becoming a (commercial) software vendor/ entity Buying code from the eco-system partners and have all sorts of out sourcing contracts with eco-system partners for delivering services to customers. With, yet again, all sorts of issues.
|[board-discuss] Big organisations not contributing||Leo Moons <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Re: [board-discuss] Big organisations not contributing||Michael Meeks <email@example.com>|
|Re: [board-discuss] Big organisations not contributing||Sam Tuke <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
- Prev by Date: Re: [board-discuss] Big organisations not contributing
- Next by Date: [board-discuss] Drafting "Tender for implementing support for a dedicated, built-in UNO object,inspection tool (Xray-built-in debugger)"
- Previous by thread: Re: [board-discuss] Big organisations not contributing
- Next by thread: Re: [board-discuss] Big organisations not contributing