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

Le Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:39:29 +0200,
Gianluca Turconi <> a écrit :

Il 19/10/2010 17.19, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto:


So, if I understand you well, you do indeed raise a good question,
but one which, to me, adds more gray zones. Let me rephrase how I
understand your position: you are afraid that we're mixing the
membership of the Foundation and the membership of the community,
and that by mixing the two we would be putting the foundation
itself (the legal object, the kernel as you called it) in
jeopardy . Basically, every contributor could come around and harm
the foundation. (Did I get this right?)

Yes, that's the point. :)


This being said, I believe it's necessary to focus on the question
of the membership, and separate it from the question of the
foundation structure and its governance. Obviously, these questions
are all related, but if we handle more specific ones, we'll be able
to generate some valuable input I think.

Really, *how* can you separate the membership from the governance?

You know: one head, one vote. ;-)

Yes. But here we're only trying to define what one head means, and then
we decide what the head can vote for :-)

There are Foundations that have different classes of members (like 
stockholders), but I see really difficult to apply such method to a
free software organization.

yes indeed.

In addition to this, I still feel I'm still missing something in your 

In fact, you seem considering the Foundation as a part of a larger 
egalitarian group rather than the leading association that primarily 
acts for the sake of LibreOffice.

I see: The Document Foundation (members: Charles-H. Schulz, Google, 
whoever-you-want) with its steering committee/council;

While it seem you and others see: The Document Foundation + Google + 
Whoever-you-want that collaborate with each other and have a common 
council for the most important decisions.

Frankly, if it's so, it isn't what I hoped when I heard about TDF for 
the first time. :'(

Well, I think that the split between these two visions is somewhat
articifical. To be frank I don't think I ever had thought about this
that way. And in fact I don't see why the two models you defined are so
stringently different, but let's proceed according to your lines: why
the model you see (let's put aside the model you think we see for a
minute ;-)) is better than the other one. (I have no religion here, I'm
trying to understand, and it's good because we're having a really
important discussion which is not even an argument :-) )

As a side note, here's what I think should always lead our actions.
Some call it meritocracy, but if we stop focusing on big names, here's
how it is supposed to work: contributor A contribute x amount of work
(code, qa tests, documentation, administrative tasks, localization,
icon designs, etc.)At some point it's fair if he gets a say in what we
do. Now there's the (valid) objection: but anyone with a sufficient
force can come up, align contributors contributing stuff, and bing,
they are in charge of the foundation. 

I don't think it's that simple. First of all, it takes time and
meaningful contributions to become a member, and remember, memberships
have to be accepted (see the lower administrative section on the wiki
page) and contributions can be rejected on various reasons (the patch
is not correct, the logo looks shady, etc.) So I think that this might
not be the chaos that some here might fear imho... please advise.

Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

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.