Re: [tdf-discuss] Re: [Libreoffice] Proposal to join Apache OpenOffice

On 9 Jun 2011, at 00:43, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> On Jun 8, 2011, at 6:32 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
> > > Certainly being an independent, legally established foundation is
> > > critical, isn't it, as compare to one which is "just" a legally
> > > established one? Not saying that TDF isn't at all, but the
> > > 'independent' part is important.
> >
> > Not really hugely important, as long as everything is open to scrutiny and beyond the control of 
> > any interested party - transparency is the key, just like it is at Apache. Any organisation can 
> > be gamed - it's a function of having rules, since "every system of rules contains within it the 
> > game that plays it and ultimately subverts it"[1]. But it will indeed be good when TDF is able 
> > to complete the bootstrap process so the innuendo can stop.
>
> Agreed... the only reason I mention "independent" is that even
> a clearly independent foundation such as the ASF has been alluded
> to be in cahoots with IBM/Oracle regarding all this, so I'm sure
> that TDF will get the same amount of scrutiny and baseless
> claims, and being able to point to their independence will nip
> that in the bud.

I'm always amused when Apache is accused of collaborating with any corporate entity - it's 
obviously almost impossible for that happen. The problem is not collaboration; it's gameability, 
and all rule-based and transparent entities eventually suffer from it once they are fully 
understood by those most likely to benefit from doing so. 

S.



-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to discuss+help@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.documentfoundation.org/www/discuss/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted