[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.
- Subject: Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.
- From: Bjoern Michaelsen <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 00:36:12 +0200
- To: toki <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: email@example.com
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:04:08AM +0000, toki wrote:
> It might be useful to create a White Paper on migration to LibO
> specifically for each size/class of potential user:
> Either the same, or a different White Paper could go into the virtues
> and vices of ongoing paid support, for each business size/class.
Maybe. OTOH, adoption without contribution is of no benefit to the project and
as such the foundation should take a very close look if a bigger investment in
an area really will yield contributions.
> There is no might about those items.
"might" might have been a bit of hyperbole, but only slightly: Im not aware of
anyone trying to do a migration with 10 core developers and no trainers. On the
other hand there have been way too many migration attempts with 10 trainers and
no dev support (either from an ecosystem company or inhouse). All of those have
hurt LibreOffice ultimately and were inresponsible by those involved with them.
> One of the more frequent criticisms of LibreOffice, is that it does not
> include an email client/communication centre.
You call it the "one of the most frequent criticism of LibreoOffice", but its
really one of the most fundamental misunderstandings about LibreOffice.
LibreOffice is not a product -- its a project. As such it would have to be
considered a tradegy, if there was possible set of contributors -- individual
or institutional -- that the project could tap into, but failed to. For better
or worse, that is not what happened wrt email.
As a project, LibreOffice has to invest in areas where there is an opportunity
for growth on _both_ sides of the project: need for a feature by users AND
interest in contribution by contributors. Only then there can be a virtous
circle of growth on both sides: contributions and adaption.
Areas where there might be adoption, but little to no contribution are not
sustainable and will become a burden to the project faster than a blink of an
eye. At best, these areas are ignored by the project -- and there is absolutely
no shame in that at all.
To unsubscribe e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/board-discuss/
|Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.||Telesto <email@example.com>|
|[board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.||Peter Dolding <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.||Michael Meeks <email@example.com>|
|Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.||Thorsten Behrens <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.||Bjoern Michaelsen <email@example.com>|
|Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.||toki <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
- Prev by Date: Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.
- Next by Date: Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.
- Previous by thread: Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.
- Next by thread: Re: [board-discuss] Personal Edition label and define is wrong.