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

Il 19/10/2010 18.11, Charles-H. Schulz ha scritto:


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 :-) )

Outside alliances and collaborations (the second model) are based on commons interests that can be very volatile.

They can diverge because of a job change, market evolution, new CEOs, graduation, family duties, and so on.

On the other hand, the first model involves a *legal* commitment, with stronger duties and rights, and a formal involvement in an organization that has not *mere* interests, but statutory purposes.

It's the same difference that there is between marriage and cohabitation.

They are two different level of engagement. Outside observers can see the difference too. Think about the difference in perception about these sentences:

"Google *joins* TDF"


"Google *collaborate* with TDF"

There is a completely different feeling of supporting strength.

Of course people and corporations can quit a foundation too, but it's surely less easy that kind of disengagement, just like people think thrice before divorcing.

Furthermore, a central independent association with its own council, that steers the Community efforts, allows not lo lose focus on Chrarter's purposes.

An enlarged "group" with a supreme committee may include people with very different and transient interests that may or may not correspond to the Charter's purposes.


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.

Well, we're now talking about *meaningful* contribution and evaluation... ;-)

That's an important step ahead.

On the wiki a read: "all these contributions need to be non-trivial and last for a certain time frame".

Then, there's a desperate need for a clear definition about what is *enough* to join TDF: 10 lines of code? A logo? 1000 work hours?

A too low entry level increases the risks of hijacking, a too high entry level hinder the growing of the Foundation.

In a two level acceptation process (contribution + evaluation of contribution by current members) it's fundamental, IMO, to set a level of contribution for membership that can be considered *consistent* in time and/or work and is *certain*.

The contributor has a goal and the foundation still keeps a partially discretional "judgement of opportunity" about his/her membership.

10 lines of code or a logo? Too low, at least *if* there is only *one* class of foundation members.

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.