----- Original Message ----
From: Marc Paré <email@example.com>
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
I'm really trying to understand this "Community approach", but I'm just
puzzled and scared, as I wrote above.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org for instructions on how to unsubscribe
List archives are available at http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
All messages you send to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Impressum (Legal Info)
: 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