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

Ciao Gianluca,

Le Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:01:55 +0200,
Gianluca Turconi <> a écrit :

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.

Ok, sure. 

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

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

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 agree with all that and I don't think we have a difference in opinion


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.

Yes. And even though it might seem artificial to separate the questions
of governance and structure, it's also a matter of identifying specific
questions. So now, it's about membership as in "when and how someone is
becoming a contributor". 

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.

Absolutely.  And it's not being defined at this time. We may not want
to define these in the most granular way now, but at least have some
principles and specifics might be the right thing to do. 

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.

yes. So now, do you like what you see? :-)



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.