Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2010 Archives by date, by thread · List index

In data 19 ottobre 2010 alle ore 14:42:26, Andre Schnabel
<> ha scritto:

Hmm .. so the first topic (term definition "Member") is not very clear.

I'm not speaking about members of legal entity "The Docuemnt Foundation"
but of those people who will be recognised as the community able
to influence the legal entitie's decisions.

Sincerely, I don't understand what you mean, here.

Do you want a replica of the OOo Community Council?

I hope it's not the case, otherwise what usefulness would have a *real*

A person/corporation who wants to influence the Foundation (legal
entity)'s decisions *must* join that legal entity or be entitled to act on
its behalf from the Foundation itself.

If not, he can grab the code and do whatever the license allows him to do
with it. There may be exchange of code or collaborations, he/it would
belong to the Community, but it's rather different than "influence the
legal entity's decisions".

I think there is a *huge* misunderstanding between us about what an
independent Foundation is.

What you're describing is a "group".

At the very beginning of this list, I posted a message about the
difference btw "Foundation" and "Group" and I'm still seeing the same

The Document Foundation should be like the kernel (or nucleus of a cell)
that pursue specific purposes (included in its Charter) that the rest of
the system (or cell, the Community) considers valuable and agrees to

I tend to disagree here - while the Foundation is bound to it's charter
community should not just support the Foundation because they "like"
the Foundation, but because they can influence the way the foundation acts.

The Community *is* composed by individuals, corporations and public/legal

Do they want to influence the Foundation? They join it, *freely*. It's so simple.

Outside supporters ("Community members") cannot have any *direct* control of the Foundation, in my view of this matter.

It's extremely dangerous. It generates uncontrolled influences and "gray zones", like I wrote in the reply to Charles.

Again: there may be external "collaborations", "alliances" and other things like
those, but it's different than having a vote for the board of the

Hypothetical example: Google Corp. develops a large chunk of code for
LibreOffice. It's an important contribution, of course, and Google would
belong to the wider LibO community, but is this big contribution enough to
join the steering group of TDF?

No - but it enough for those people at google, who contributed this code
to be eligible for a seat in the board. And it is enough to have a
vote at board elections.

Wow, that last sentence is *exactly* what I *don't* want. :)

Such informal approach is impracticable when a *real* Foundation has to take decisions in order to legally defend the base code, create a sure development roadmap (or nominate who create the roadmap)
and decide about controversial alliances.

Stricter initial rules make stronger organizations in the long run.

I understand there is a wish for a more open "community", but you (pluralis
maiestatis) should be cautious not to overact pursuing freedom and falling
so in caos.
Gianluca Turconi

E-mail to for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


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.