Re: [tdf-discuss] OpenOffice.org Product Roadmap: made by whom ? was: Re: [discuss] remove of binfilter module

Le Fri, 17 Jun 2011 07:42:17 -0400,
drew <drew@baseanswers.com> 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 <drew@baseanswers.com> 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 <martin.hollmichel@googlemail.com> 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
> > > > > OpenOffice.org e.V. played in the past just the role of being
> > > > > the cash box of the CC in a quite defensive way
> > > > > (http://download.openoffice.org/contribute.html, 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,
Charles. 

> Best wishes,
>
> Drew



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

-- 
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