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

----- Original Message ----

From: Marc Paré <>
Le 2010-10-26 10:42, Gianluca Turconi a écrit :
Please,  don't get me wrong, but can I say that I'm just puzzled and a
bit scared  too from yours and Thorsten's statements?

I'm starting to  understand that many people in the original "TDF
founders" group have a  very specific vision about the Foundation that is
based on a classic  open source /diffused/ system rather than a
/centralized/ "The  Foundation will show you the right path" one.

The former method  worked in the past, that's sure.

However, in such a vision of  the project, a Foundation is rather useless.

Revenue streams  should be Community based.

Decisions should be taken from  important Community contributors.

There is really no need for a  Foundation.

What if who provides the revenue streams or has made  hugely important
contributions makes decisions that goes against the  Foundation interests
and purposes?

I'm really trying to  understand this "Community approach", but I'm just
puzzled and scared,  as I wrote above.

Hi Gianluca:

Not sure if there is a  communication problem here, but yes, I am saying 
the same as you. We, the  LibO community, should not be dependent on any 
big entity that donates money  to the project. The LibO project is 
community driven, and its members are  what makes it live. It is great if 
corporations join and help fund the  project, but this should not make us 
completely dependent on these  corporations and the corporations should 
not be able to influence the  project with the threat of removing their 

I am saying the  same as you.

So then LibO should not be dependent on TDF? If so, then why have TDF at all?
Just follows to the logical conclusion.

I agree with Gianluca - this is rather confusing. The classical approach, as 
taken by Linus with Linux, rather evolved as the community grew.
It cannot be forced into existence either. Players of various natures - both 
individual and organizations - came along as the growth occurred organically.
That is, when the community needed resources it (typically) put the funds up 
first, out the individual's pocket, until someone else with bigger pockets 
decided to fund it, or a group of individuals banded together to provide the 
However, at the same time membership has no real meaning. You cannot join the 
work on the Linux Kernel as a member - organization or individually - though can 
contribute, as either. If you contributions come consistently and are accepted 
by the masses - through the iterative levels of individuals responsible for 
sub-systems to which branches are doing better, etc - then you gain weight and 
eventually may be sponsored by some organization; but any individual may 
contribute and participate in the discussions. There isn't really an SC, or 
anything else - no need; just a dictator at the top. It works well for new 
projects; but not so well for existing projects - especially ones as large as 

Just something to consider.



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.