Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

Hi Larry, all,

Larry Gusaas schrieb:
On 2011/01/02 12:47 PM  Italo Vignoli wrote:
If you want to have a say in software development you are welcome to
contribute to the code

As I know Italo (not being a programmer himself) quite well, I know that his reply could have been easier for you to understand, if he added more information:

Our community consists of several groups with several tasks. Every group has it's own expertize and inside these groups people know each other and know about their expertize and position in our community.

Software development is done by code contributors. They can write the code they want, but only the code bringing more positive aspects than negative ones will be included in the package.

If other groups see problems in some code contributions, they start to discuss this topic with the coders, providing them with the expertize on the specific context (User Experience is a good example, the topic here might belong to Marketing) and trying to convince them, that the negative aspects are more valid than the positive ones.

If they don't get to a common conclusion, the last decision will be taken by the Board of Directors, at the moment by the Steering Committee until the BoD will have been elected.

So only people who write code have a say in the development of
LibreOffice? What about people who do the QA? Or the people providing
support? (I mainly provide support for OOo, mainly for Mac users)

I hope you understand the basis of meritocracy - so all the contributors are relevant in *their specific area of expertize*

This thread shows several thoughts and positions towards the OOXML write support in LibO.

Some people want to get rid of it, some want to have it moved to a different place in the program (export, extension), some want to provide a clearer description of the negative aspects of the format.

Others want to keep it as it is and evolve it towards better quality.

So how can we find out, which way is the right one to go?

Surely not by following the loudest or most active posters in this thread.

I don't know if you are involved deeply enough in our community to know about the position of one of another contributor to this thread.

I'm quite sure that I miss some of the relevant people, but please have a look at the postings by the Steering Committee members:

Thorsten Behrens (code developer), who mentioned that it is necessary to work on the OOXML filters now, because this is the only way to provide high quality at the time MS drops their .doc support.

Italo Vignoli (marketing expert and official marketing contact for TDF) pointing several times to the necessity to provide the best solution for our (present and future) users, proposing to avoid any marketing strategy against Microsoft and to leave education about "more open standard" in ODF to our marketing group instead of removing existing code from the sources.

I could mention Charles-H. Schulz, Sophie Gautier, Cor Nouws and others, but the main fact is:

All the points mentioned in this thread have been taken into consideration by the Steering Committee and the developers.

Thus it was really important to raise such kind of questions.

We are a community where concerns are heard. But repeating them don't impose a higher relevance to them.

So despite good reasons to abandon the write support for OOXML from our standard save-as dialog, the reasons to keep it are more important.

It might be quite easy to change the wording of the warning text when saving in non-ODF document formats (different texts for MS proprietary and "quasi-open" formats might need more programming skills), so if someone provides an improved text as patch - or finds a programmer willing to build a patch from such wording - I'm quite sure that this will find positive consideration.

In my eyes this thread has been reached a size that covers most of the aspects of the subject, so I'd like to see it ending soon.

If someone is interested in collecting all the opinions mentioned here in a wiki page, it would be easier to point there, when someone (without knowledge of all the mails here) restarts a similar topic again.

You can take your elitist developer attitude and stuff it.

Pleas stop such comments, they don't lead to any positive result.

Thanks in advance!


PS: And to come back on your very first statement, the agreement between Microsoft and Novell: Even if some Novell employees work on our code, even if they contributed Go-oo code - this doesn't mean that they have to follow their employers opinion in their spare time. TDF is open to contributors from more than one company, so dependency is much less relevant than at OOo. And if you have a look at the Credits page in your LibO version, you can compare the contributor's names with Go-oo contributors (or a list of Novell employees, if you have one): Only a minority of our contributors are paid by Novell. TDF is not governed by any companies politics - neither Novell nor Oracle, nor any other...

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***


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.