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

Le Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:42:17 -0400,
drew <> a écrit :

On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 13:18 +0000, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Le Fri, 17 Jun 2011 06:34:48 -0400,
drew <> a écrit :

On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 10:53 +0200, Charles-H. Schulz wrote:
Hello  Martin,

Answering to the discuss AT TDF list as I'm not subscribed to
the other ones...

Le Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:39:54 +0200,
Martin Hollmichel <> a écrit :

Hi Sam,
Do you have a concrete proposal?
yes, I have.

First, I do not have any problems with the Apache style of
decision making, lazy consensus sounds perfectly reasonable to
me. I like that style. This fits perfectly to the
"meritocracy" principle.

My understanding is, that this principle is based on
* contributing individuals
* organizations/institutions contributing developers and/or
money for the infrastructure/governance, these organizations
contribute because they have derived products or other
business around the regarding software. So users are
represented in this model by own work power or indirectly by
companies. This principle has been proven to work quite well
for many open source projects.

I think this principle may get enhanced by enabling a non
profit organization to have their own resources on a project
(This might fit into the Apache philosophy considering this
organization as an contributing institution). I think this is
necessary because there is already a lot of business
happening around OpenOffice, but most of these businesses are
just to small or have not the right expertise to execute on
the "meritocracy" principle. So what the OOo project missed
most was to have a path to get product feature or tasks done
(or just 4th level support) with the help of money offered.

So my proposal is continue project decisions the Apache Style
but also to find a framework to make product decisions in a
manner that also the concerns of Users, local communities,
QA, business partners, etc. get honored. This framework also
should enable to collect money so that development
(committer) resources can be found to get the issues
addressed in an equitable process.

We already have thousands of feature requests and
enhancements in the queue, we are putting a new bunch of
requirements on top of it through the current transition to
Apache, I think we should seek the power of _all_ OOo
communities, users and businesses to achieve significant
growth to make OOo a better and successful product. And I did
not even included wishes like ODF Viewers, mobile and Cloud
services around OOo.

My offer is to develop (with all concerned parties) a new
charter for all the groups mentioned above (as a successor of
the Community Council Charter) and enable the project to have
own development resources. The non profit organization Team e.V. played in the past just the role of being
the cash box of the CC in a quite defensive way
(, will you find
the path to donate ??), now Team OOo is preparing to offer a
link between business, communities, users and developers to
enable growth on the new futile ground we are now moving on.

If I understand well your proposal concerns as well the
LibreOffice project. The principles you have outlined above are
very much the same ones the Document Foundation has been
advocating and implementing. 

In this respect we would welcome working with Team  OOo (and
other NGOs) You are also right to stress on the need to work on
a charter for all the NGOs, 

Hi Charles,

I did not read that in his remarks.

I sort of read that actually , but I might be mistaken, I'd welcome
some clarification here indeed. 

and this is somewhere on our task list here.

People in other countries are capable of directing their own
affairs, I would think. Unless you are thinking of creating
franchises, is that your goal? 

oh I was certainly not suggesting otherwise; but I have specific
requests from local NGOs asking for a more formal document and
relations with TDF, hence the term "charter".

Hi Charles,

Alright that makes a bit more sense to me, so it isn't a charter for
them but guidelines for us that you are discussing?

er... I don't know. Let's skip the word charter, because it might be
meaning one word in my language (french) and another one -or a nuance
of it- in English. Let's use the word: agreement instead. What several
NGOs had told us is that they would like to have a formal
agreement/understanding in order to carry out specific operations
locally, on our behalf, and others that would also collect or reverse
funds for TDF and themselves.

Do you understand a bit better what I mean?


Best wishes,


Charles-H. Schulz
Membre du Comité exécutif
The Document Foundation.

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent 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.